Objective To assess the efficacy/safety of the B-lymphocyte stimulator inhibitor belimumab/standard-of-care (SOC) versus placebo/SOC in active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods In a multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial, 819 antinuclear antibody- or anti-dsDNA-positive SLE patients with Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment–SLE Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI) ≥ 6 were randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to receive intravenous belimumab 1 or 10 mg/kg, or placebo on days 0, 14, and 28, and then every 28 days for 72 weeks. Primary efficacy analyses: SLE Responder Index (SRI) at week 52 (≥ 4-point reduction in SELENA-SLEDAI; no new British Isles Lupus Assessment Group A and < 2 new B organ domain scores; no worsening in Physician’s Global Assessment). Results Belimumab 10 mg/kg plus SOC met the primary efficacy endpoint: significantly greater SRI response at week 52 than placebo (43.2% versus 33.5%; P = 0.017); the rate with belimumab 1 mg/kg was 40.6% (P = 0.089). Week-76 response rates: 32.4%, 39.1%, and 38.5% with placebo, and belimumab 1 and 10 mg/kg, respectively. In post-hoc sensitivity analyses evaluating higher SELENA-SLEDAI thresholds, belimumab 10 mg/kg achieved better discrimination at weeks 52/76. Risk of severe SELENA-SLEDAI flares over 76 weeks was reduced with belimumab 1 mg/kg (34%; P = 0.023) and 10 mg/kg (23%; P = 0.13). Serious and severe adverse events including infections, laboratory abnormalities, malignancies, and deaths, were comparable across groups. Conclusion Belimumab plus SOC significantly improved SRI response rate, reduced SLE disease activity and severe flares, and was generally well-tolerated in SLE.

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of innovator infliximab (INX) and CT-P13, an INX biosimilar, in active rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) treatment.MethodsPhase III randomised, double-blind, multicentre, multinational, parallel-group study. Patients with active disease despite MTX (12.5–25 mg/week) were randomised to receive 3 mg/kg of CT-P13 (n=302) or INX (n=304) with MTX and folic acid. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 30. Therapeutic equivalence of clinical response according to ACR20 criteria was concluded if the 95% CI for the treatment difference was within ±15%. Secondary endpoints included ACR response criteria, European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, change in Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28), Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Simplified Disease Activity Index, Clinical Disease Activity Index, as well as pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) parameters, safety and immunogenicity.ResultsAt week 30, ACR20 responses were 60.9% for CT-P13 and 58.6% for INX (95% CI −6% to 10%) in the intention-to-treat population. The proportions in CT-P13 and INX groups achieving good or moderate EULAR responses (C reactive protein (CRP)) at week 30 were 85.8% and 87.1%, respectively. Low disease activity or remission according to DAS28–CRP, ACR–EULAR remission rates, ACR50/ACR70 responses and all other PK and PD endpoints were highly similar at week 30. Incidence of drug-related adverse events (35.2% vs 35.9%) and detection of antidrug antibodies (48.4% vs 48.2%) were highly similar for CT-P13 and INX, respectively.ConclusionsCT-P13 demonstrated equivalent efficacy to INX at week 30, with a comparable PK profile and immunogenicity. CT-P13 was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable with that of INX.ClinicalTrials.gov IdentifierNCT01217086

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs, baricitinib at a daily dose of 4 mg was associated with clinical improvement at 12 weeks. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Incyte; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721044.).

BackgroundIn ph 2 studies, baricitinib (bari) improved disease activity with an acceptable safety profile in patients (pts) with active RA naïve to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs).1,2ObjectivesTo report results from a ph 3 study of bari in pts with active RA and an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 TNF inhibitor (TNFi).MethodsPts with active RA (TJC & SJC ≥6, hsCRP ≥3mg/L) on conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo (PBO) or bari (2 or 4 mg) QD for 24 wks. All bDMARDs were discontinued ≥28d prior to treatment. Primary endpoint was ACR20 response at Wk 12 for bari 4 mg vs. PBO.ResultsOf 527 randomized pts, 57% had received ≥2 bDMARDs and 38% had received ≥1 non-TNFi bDMARD. Fewer pts discontinued treatment prior to Wk 24 on bari 2 or 4 mg vs. PBO (10%, 11%, 18%, respectively). ACR20 response at Wk 12 was higher with bari 4 mg vs. PBO (55% vs. 27%, p≤0.001). Improvements in ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, DAS28, CDAI, SDAI, and HAQ-DI were seen (Table), many as early as Wk 1. Treatment benefit was sustained through Wk 24 for the 4 mg dose. More TEAEs occurred in pts receiving bari 2 or 4 mg compared to PBO (71%, 77%, 64%, respectively) including infections (44%, 40%, 31%, respectively). SAE rates through 24 wks were similar among pts receiving bari 2 or 4 mg or PBO (4%, 10%, and 7%, respectively) including serious infections (2%, 3%, and 3%, respectively). There were no opportunistic infections, TB, or GI perforations. Two non-melanoma skin cancers and 2 major adverse cardiovascular events, including 1 death (stroke), were seen with bari 4 mg. Lab findings were consistent with ph 2 studies. Abnormalities leading to discontinuation were infrequent.Wk 12Wk 24PBO2 mg QD4 mg QDPBO2 mg QD4 mg QD(N=176)(N=174)(N=177)(N=176)(N=174)(N=177)ACR202749***55***2745***46***ACR50820**28***1323*29***ACR70213***11**313***17***DAS28-hsCRP ≤3.2924***32***1120*33***DAS28-hsCRP <2.6411**16***61122***DAS28-ESR ≤3.2413**12**71217**DAS28-ESR <2.616**6*359*CDAI ≤101124**28***152331***CDAI ≤2.8236359*SDAI ≤11922***28***1422*31***SDAI ≤3.3225259**HAQ-DI MCID ≥0.224359**67***3050***53***Data are % patients achieving response (NRI);*p≤0.05,**p≤0.01,***p≤0.001 vs. PBO. ConclusionsIn pts with active RA on cDMARDs and an inadequate response to bDMARDs, once daily oral bari was associated with rapid and sustained clinical improvements through 24 wks, with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. The largest benefit was seen with the 4 mg dose. Additional ph 3 studies in bDMARD-naive pts are ongoing.ReferencesKeystone et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;24:333-340Tanaka et al. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65(S10):S765Disclosure of InterestM. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Astellas, Eli Lilly & Company, Galapagos, Pfizer, Vertex, Consultant for: Abbvie, Astellas, Eli Lilly & Company, Galapagos, Pfizer, Vertex, J. Kremer Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Genentech, Eli Lilly & Company, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant for: Eli Lilly & Company, Employee of: Corrona, O. Zamani Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly & Company, C. Lud...

Background: CT-P13 was developed as a biosimilar product to infliximab (Remicade ® ), a chimeric monoclonal antibody approved in the European Union in 1999 for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. Objectives: To compare the clinical efficacy and overall safety of CT-P13 with those of infliximab in patients with active RA. Methods: Six hundred six patients with active RA despite previous treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs including methotrexate were randomized 1:1 to receive either CT-P13 or infliximab (3 mg/kg, 2-hour IV infusion per dose) plus methotrexate and folic acid. The treatment period consisted of a dose-loading phase (weeks 0, 2, and 6) and a maintenance phase (weeks 14, 22, and 30). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in ACR20 at week 30. The exact binomial test with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ACR20 within a margin of ±15% was used to define equivalence between the 2 treatments. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints (including ACR50/70; frequency of adverse events [AEs]) were also evaluated. This report presents results up to study week 30 (as approved by the European Medicines Agency). Results: At week 30, ACR20 response rates were 60.9% for CT-P13 vs 58.6% for infliximab (2% difference; 95% CI -6% to 10%) in the intent-to-treat population, and 73.4% vs 69.7% (4% difference; 95% CI: -4% to 12%) in the per-protocol population. Outcomes for the secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were also comparable as follows. ACR50 rates in the per-protocol population were 42.3% vs 40.6% (2% difference; 95% CI -7% to 10%), and ACR70 rates were 20.2% vs 17.9% (2% difference; 95% CI -5% to 9%) in the CT-P13 and infliximab arms, respectively, all indicating equivalence in clinical efficacy at week 30. AEs considered by the investigators to be related to study treatment were reported for 106 (35.2%) patients and 108 (35.9%) patients in the CT-P13 and infliximab arms, respectively. Related AEs due to infection were reported in 46 (15.3%) patients and 51 (16.9%) patients in the CT-P13 and infliximab arms, respectively. 15 (5%) CT-P13-treated and 17 (6%) infliximab-treated patients experienced at least 1 infusion reaction. Tuberculosis was reported in 3 patients in the CT-P13 arm and in 1 patient in the infliximab arm. Conclusions: CT-P13 and infliximab are equivalent in terms of ACR20 in patients with RA. In addition, CT-P13 was well tolerated, with an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of infliximab up to week 30.