Dataset Information

A Multicentre, Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sirukumab in the Treatment of Giant Cell Arteritis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sirukumab in giant cell arteritis (GCA).

Methods

In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-part phase 3 trial (NCT02531633; Part A [52-week double-blind treatment]; Part B [104-week follow-up]), patients with GCA were randomised (3:3:2:2:2) to sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks plus 6-month or 3-month prednisone taper, sirukumab 50 mg every 4 weeks plus 6-month prednisone taper, or placebo every 2 weeks plus 6-month or 12-month prednisone taper. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in sustained remission at week 52. Secondary endpoints included disease flare and safety. The study was terminated early (October 2017; sponsor decision).

Results

Of 161 patients randomised (sirukumab: n?=?107; placebo: n?=?54), 28 (17.4%) completed week 52 (median treatment duration: 24-30 weeks). In a revised intent-to-treat (ITT) subgroup (completed week 52 or discontinued before study termination [n?=?55]); six patients (all receiving sirukumab) achieved the primary endpoint. In the ITT population (n?=?161), the proportion of patients with flares (week 2-52) was lower with sirukumab (18.4-30.8%) than placebo (37.0-40.0%). The proportion of patients with flares (week 2-12) was highest with sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks plus 3-month prednisone taper (23.1%). In Part A, 94.4% of patients reported???1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 19.3% reported serious TEAEs. The proportions of patients with TEAEs were generally similar across treatment arms. No deaths occurred.

Conclusions

Although data were limited due to early termination and shortened treatment duration, sirukumab treatment resulted in numerically lower proportions of patients with flare by week 52 versus placebo, with no unexpected safety findings.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02531633.

SUBMITTER: Schmidt WA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7695797 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Multicentre, Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sirukumab in the Treatment of Giant Cell Arteritis.

Schmidt Wolfgang A WA Dasgupta Bhaskar B Luqmani Raashid R Unizony Sebastian H SH Blockmans Daniel D Lai Zhihong Z Kurrasch Regina H RH Lazic Ivana I Brown Kurt K Rao Ravi R

Rheumatology and therapy 20200825 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sirukumab in giant cell arteritis (GCA).<h4>Methods</h4>In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-part phase 3 trial (NCT02531633; Part A [52-week double-blind treatment]; Part B [104-week follow-up]), patients with GCA were randomised (3:3:2:2:2) to sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks plus 6-month or 3-month prednisone taper, sirukumab 50 mg every 4 weeks plus 6-month prednisone taper, or placebo every 2 weeks p ...[more]

PMID: 32844378

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOne key pathological finding in giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the presence of interferon-gamma and interleukin (IL)-17 producing T helper (Th) 1 and Th17 cells in affected arteries. There is anecdotal evidence of successful induction and maintenance of remission with the monoclonal anti-IL-17A antibody secukinumab. Inhibition of IL-17A could therefore represent a potential new therapeutic option for the treatment of GCA.MethodsThis is a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center, phase II study in which patients, treating physicians, and the associated clinical staff as well as the sponsor clinical team are blinded. It is designed to evaluate efficacy and safety of secukinumab compared to placebo in combination with an open-label prednisolone taper regimen. Patients included are naïve to biological therapy and have newly diagnosed or relapsing GCA. Fifty patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 300 mg secukinumab or placebo subcutaneously at baseline, weeks 1, 2 and 3, and every 4 weeks from week 4. Patients in both treatment arms receive a 26-week prednisolone taper regimen. The study consists of a maximum 6-week screening period, a 52-week treatment period (including the 26-week tapering), and an 8-week safety follow-up, with primary and secondary endpoint assessments at week 28. Patients who do not achieve remission by week 12 experience a flare after remission or cannot adhere to the prednisolone tapering will enter the escape arm and receive prednisolone at a dose determined by the investigator's clinical judgment. The blinded treatment is continued. Two optional imaging sub-studies are included (ultrasound and contrast-media enhanced magnetic resonance angiography [MRA]) to assess vessel wall inflammation and occlusion before and after treatment. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients in sustained remission until week 28 in the secukinumab group compared to the proportion of patients in the placebo group. A Bayesian approach is applied.DiscussionThe trial design allows the first placebo-controlled data collection on the efficacy and safety of secukinumab in patients with GCA.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03765788 . Registration on 5 December 2018, prospective registration, EudraCT number 2018-002610-12; clinical trial protocol number CAIN457ADE11C.

Project description:BackgroundNo specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ?18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656.FindingsBetween Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.InterpretationIn this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.FundingChinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.

Project description:BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pelvic pain affects 2-24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18-50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16-17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762.FindingsParticipants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and -1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·20 [97·5% CI -0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and -0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·18 [97·5% CI -0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group.InterpretationThis study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Dataset Information

A Multicentre, Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sirukumab in the Treatment of Giant Cell Arteritis.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

A Multicentre, Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sirukumab in the Treatment of Giant Cell Arteritis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure