Dataset Information

Single-Arm Study of Etanercept in Adult Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Failed Adalimumab Treatment.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of etanercept treatment in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who failed to respond (primary failure) or lost a satisfactory response (secondary failure) to adalimumab.

Methods

All patients discontinued prior adalimumab treatment and continued methotrexate with etanercept 50 mg once weekly for 24 weeks. The primary study endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 12.

Results

Eighty-five patients (mean age 56.6 years; female 80.0%) were evaluated for safety and 84 for efficacy. Thirty (35.7%) patients achieved ACR20 at week 12; the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI; 25.6, 46.9) was greater than the prespecified goal of 24% based on previous research. Improvements from baseline in clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes were observed at each study visit. In planned subgroup analyses, patients with anti-adalimumab antibodies and secondary adalimumab failure had the highest ACR20 response to etanercept at week 12 (11/17 patients; 64.7%). Among the patients with secondary adalimumab failure, those with anti-adalimumab antibodies were fivefold more likely to have an ACR20 response to etanercept than those without anti-adalimumab antibodies (odds ratio 5.2; 95% CI 2.0, 13.5; P < 0.001). Adverse events were reported for 62 (72.9%) patients and were consistent with previous studies of etanercept. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.

Conclusion

Switching to etanercept is a therapeutic option in patients with RA who fail adalimumab treatment. The presence of anti-adalimumab antibodies may provide additional support for switching to etanercept, particularly in patients with secondary adalimumab failure.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01927757.

SUBMITTER: Bessette L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5696291 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:SB5 is a biosimilar agent for adalimumab (ADA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of SB5 in comparison with reference ADA in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS:In this phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients with moderately to severely active RA despite treatment with methotrexate were randomized 1:1 to receive SB5 or reference ADA at a dosage of 40 mg subcutaneously every other week. The primary efficacy end point was the response rate based on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 24 in the per-protocol set (completer analysis). Additional end points included efficacy, PK, safety, and immunogenicity assessments. RESULTS:Of the 544 patients randomized to receive a study drug, the full analysis set comprised 542 patients (269 in the SB5 group, 273 in the reference ADA group) and the per-protocol set comprised 476 patients (239 receiving SB5, 237 receiving reference ADA). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 in the per-protocol set was equivalent between those receiving SB5 and those receiving reference ADA (72.4% and 72.2%, respectively); the difference in the ACR20 response rate (0.1%, [95% confidence interval -7.83%, 8.13%]) was within the predefined equivalence margin (±15%). Similar results were seen in the full analysis set (missing data being considered a nonresponse). The SB5 and reference ADA treatment groups were comparable across other end points, including the ACR 50% and ACR 70% improvement response rates, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, PK data, incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, and the antidrug antibody response. Subgroup analyses showed that the efficacy and safety of SB5 and reference ADA were comparable regardless of antidrug antibody status. CONCLUSION:The ACR20 response rate at week 24 was equivalent between patients treated with the biosimilar agent SB5 and those treated with reference ADA. SB5 and reference ADA were both well tolerated, with comparable safety profiles, in patients with RA.

Project description:IntroductionRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease requiring long-term treatment. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is a new treatment for RA. The benefit-risk profile of a medication is best understood by evaluating the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH). This analysis evaluated the comparative risk-benefit of UPA versus adalimumab (ADA).MethodsPost-hoc analyses were performed using data from the SELECT-COMPARE trial of UPA versus placebo (PBO) and UPA versus ADA among patients with active RA who remained on stable methotrexate (MTX) treatment and had an inadequate response; patients who failed to achieve response were rescued by predefined criteria-PBO or ADA switch to UPA, and UPA switch to ADA (all patients on PBO were switched to UPA at week 26). This analysis assessed efficacy and adverse events of special interest (AESIs) at week 26, 48, and 156 (3 years). NNT and NNH (95% confidence intervals) values were calculated between UPA versus ADA for all time points, and between UPA versus PBO for week 26. NNT and NNH values were applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety profiles.ResultsUPA consistently showed greater efficacy than ADA, as evidenced by NNT values < 10 for achievement of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of < 2.6 and ≤ 3.2, respectively, and functional improvement. Based on indices for disease assessment other than the DAS28-CRP, remission outcomes were higher with UPA versus ADA over 26 weeks (NNTs: 7-12), 48 weeks (NNTs: 9-16), and 156 weeks (NNTs: 9-15). With the exception of herpes zoster, other AESIs demonstrated a similar risk with UPA versus ADA.ConclusionIn patients with active RA despite MTX use, UPA demonstrated an incremental achievement of clinical outcomes compared to ADA together with a similar profile of AESIs with ADA (with the exception of herpes zoster).