Anifrolumab, an Anti-Interferon-α Receptor Monoclonal Antibody, in Moderate-to-Severe Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Richard Furie, Munther Khamashta, Joan T Merrill, Victoria P Werth, Kenneth Kalunian, Philip Brohawn, Gabor G Illei, Jorn Drappa, Liangwei Wang, Stephen Yoo, CD1013 Study Investigators, Richard Furie, Munther Khamashta, Joan T Merrill, Victoria P Werth, Kenneth Kalunian, Philip Brohawn, Gabor G Illei, Jorn Drappa, Liangwei Wang, Stephen Yoo, CD1013 Study Investigators

Abstract

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, in a phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of adults with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Methods: Patients (n = 305) were randomized to receive intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg or 1,000 mg) or placebo, in addition to standard therapy, every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. Randomization was stratified by SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 score (<10 or ≥10), oral corticosteroid dosage (<10 or ≥10 mg/day), and type I IFN gene signature test status (high or low) based on a 4-gene expression assay. The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving an SLE Responder Index (SRI[4]) response at week 24 with sustained reduction of oral corticosteroids (<10 mg/day and less than or equal to the dose at week 1 from week 12 through 24). Other end points (including SRI[4], British Isles Lupus Assessment Group [BILAG]-based Composite Lupus Assessment [BICLA], modified SRI[6], and major clinical response) were assessed at week 52. The primary end point was analyzed in the modified intent-to-treat (ITT) population and type I IFN-high subpopulation. The study result was considered positive if the primary end point was met in either of the 2 study populations. The Type I error rate was controlled at 0.10 (2-sided), within each of the 2 study populations for the primary end point analysis.

Results: The primary end point was met by more patients treated with anifrolumab (34.3% of 99 for 300 mg and 28.8% of 104 for 1,000 mg) than placebo (17.6% of 102) (P = 0.014 for 300 mg and P = 0.063 for 1,000 mg, versus placebo), with greater effect size in patients with a high IFN signature at baseline (13.2% in placebo-treated patients versus 36.0% [P = 0.004] and 28.2% [P = 0.029]) in patients treated with anifrolumab 300 mg and 1,000 mg, respectively. At week 52, patients treated with anifrolumab achieved greater responses in SRI(4) (40.2% versus 62.6% [P < 0.001] and 53.8% [P = 0.043] with placebo, anifrolumab 300 mg, and anifrolumab 1,000 mg, respectively), BICLA (25.7% versus 53.5% [P < 0.001] and 41.2% [P = 0.018], respectively), modified SRI(6) (28.4% versus 49.5% [P = 0.002] and 44.7% [P = 0.015], respectively), major clinical response (BILAG 2004 C or better in all organ domains from week 24 through week 52) (6.9% versus 19.2% [P = 0.012] and 17.3% [P = 0.025], respectively), and several other global and organ-specific end points. Herpes zoster was more frequent in the anifrolumab-treated patients (2.0% with placebo treatment versus 5.1% and 9.5% with anifrolumab 300 mg and 1,000 mg, respectively), as were cases reported as influenza (2.0% versus 6.1% and 7.6%, respectively), in the anifrolumab treatment groups. Incidence of serious adverse events was similar between groups (18.8% versus 16.2% and 17.1%, respectively).

Conclusion: Anifrolumab substantially reduced disease activity compared with placebo across multiple clinical end points in the patients with moderate-to-severe SLE.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01438489.

© 2016 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Rheumatology.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Efficacy results at week 52 in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving anifrolumab 300 mg, anifrolumab 1,000 mg, or placebo. Anifrolumab treatment led to a greater rate of response across multiple end points. The benefit observed in the overall modified intent‐to‐treat population was driven by the patients with a high interferon (IFN) gene signature (IFN test high subpopulation), which represents ∼75% of the entire cohort. The odds ratios (ORs), 90% confidence intervals (90% CIs), and P values are from a logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors. SRI(4) = SLE Responder Index requiring a ≥4‐point reduction in SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI‐2K) score; OCS = oral corticosteroid; BICLA = British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004–based Combined Lupus Assessment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Efficacy results over time in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving anifrolumab 300 mg, anifrolumab 1,000 mg, or placebo. Treatment was given every 4 weeks from week 1 to week 48. A, Proportion of patients achieving an SLE Responder Index response over time in the modified intent‐to‐treat (ITT) population and in the interferon (IFN)–high and IFN‐low subsets. B, Proportion of patients achieving a British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004–based Combined Lupus Assessment response over time in the modified ITT population and in the IFN‐high and IFN‐low subsets.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Organ‐specific efficacy results over time in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving anifrolumab 300 mg, anifrolumab 1,000 mg, or placebo. Treatment was given every 4 weeks from week 1 to week 48. A, Left, Proportion of patients with a Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI) activity score of ≥10 at baseline (n = 77) who had ≥50% improvement in the CLASI score. Right, A representative example of skin response following anifrolumab treatment. B, Left, Proportion of patients with ≥8 swollen and ≥8 tender joints at baseline (n = 37 in the placebo group, n = 46 in the anifrolumab 300‐mg group, and n = 48 in the anifrolumab 1,000‐mg group) who had ≥50% improvement in the swollen and tender joint count. Right, Mean ± SEM change from baseline in the active joint count in the modified intent‐to‐treat population. Joint counts are based on the assessment of 28 joints.

References

    1. Mathian A, Hie M, Cohen‐Aubart F, Amoura Z. Targeting interferons in systemic lupus erythematosus: current and future prospects. Drugs 2015;75:835–46.
    1. Bernatsky S, Boivin JF, Joseph L, Manzi S, Ginzler E, Gladman DD, et al. Mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:2550–7.
    1. Panopalis P, Clarke AE, Yelin E. The economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2012;26:695–704.
    1. Yurkovich M, Vostretsova K, Chen W, Aviña‐Zubieta JA. Overall and cause‐specific mortality in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a meta‐analysis of observational studies. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2014;66:608–16.
    1. Petri M. Long‐term outcomes in lupus. Am J Manag Care 2001;7 Suppl:S480–5.
    1. Doria A, Briani C. Lupus: improving long‐term prognosis. Lupus 2008;17:166–70.
    1. Ruiz‐Irastorza G, Danza A, Khamashta M. Glucocorticoid use and abuse in SLE. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012;51:1145–53.
    1. Lauwerys BR, Ducreux J, Houssiau FA. Type I interferon blockade in systemic lupus erythematosus: where do we stand? Rheumatology (Oxford) 2014;53:1369–76.
    1. Crow MK, Olferiev M, Kirou KA. Targeting of type I interferon in systemic autoimmune diseases. Transl Res 2015;165:296–305.
    1. Crow MK. Type I interferon in the pathogenesis of lupus. J Immunol 2014;192:5459–68.
    1. Rönnblom L, Alm GV, Eloranta ML. The type I interferon system in the development of lupus. Semin Immunol 2011;23:113–21.
    1. Ivashkiv LB, Donlin LT. Regulation of type I interferon responses. Nat Rev Immunol 2014;14:36–49.
    1. Lichtman EI, Helfgott SM, Kriegel MA. Emerging therapies for systemic lupus erythematosus: focus on targeting interferon‐α. Clin Immunol 2012;143:210–21.
    1. Crow MK. Advances in understanding the role of type I interferons in systemic lupus erythematosus. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2014;26:467–74.
    1. Kalunian KC, Merrill JT, Maciuca R, McBride JM, Townsend MJ, Wei X, et al. A phase II study of the efficacy and safety of rontalizumab (rhuMAb interferon‐α) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (ROSE). Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:196–202.
    1. Khamashta M, Merrill JT, Werth VP, Furie R, Kalunian K, Illei GG, et al. Sifalimumab, an anti‐interferon‐α monoclonal antibody, in moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus: a randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:1909–16.
    1. Peng L, Oganesyan V, Wu H, Dall'Acqua WF, Damschroder MM. Molecular basis for antagonistic activity of anifrolumab, an anti‐interferon‐α receptor 1 antibody. MAbs 2015;7:428–39.
    1. Goldberg A, Geppert T, Schiopu E, Frech T, Hsu V, Simms RW, et al. Dose‐escalation of human anti‐interferon‐α receptor monoclonal antibody MEDI‐546 in subjects with systemic sclerosis: a phase 1, multicenter, open label study. Arthritis Res Ther 2014;16:R57.
    1. Wang B, Higgs BW, Chang L, Vainshtein I, Liu Z, Streicher K, et al. Pharmacogenomics and translational simulations to bridge indications for an anti‐interferon‐α receptor antibody. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013;93:483–92.
    1. Hochberg MC, for the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American College of Rheumatology . Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus [letter]. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:1725.
    1. Tan EM, Cohen AS, Fries JF, Masi AT, McShane DJ, Rothfield NF, et al. The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1982;25:1271–7.
    1. Gladman DD, Ibañez D, Urowitz MB. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000. J Rheumatol 2002;29:288–91.
    1. Isenberg DA, Rahman A, Allen E, Farewell V, Akil M, Bruce IN, et al. BILAG 2004: development and initial validation of an updated version of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group's disease activity index for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005;44:902–6.
    1. Yee CS, Cresswell L, Farewell V, Rahman A, Teh LS, Griffiths B, et al. Numerical scoring for the BILAG‐2004 index. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010;49:1665–9.
    1. Yao Y, Higgs BW, Richman L, White B, Jallal B. Use of type I interferon‐inducible mRNAs as pharmacodynamic markers and potential diagnostic markers in trials with sifalimumab, an anti‐IFNα antibody, in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther 2010;12 Suppl 1:S6.
    1. Furie RA, Petri MA, Wallace DJ, Ginzler EM, Merrill JT, Stohl W, et al. Novel evidence‐based systemic lupus erythematosus responder index. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:1143–51.
    1. Albrecht J, Taylor L, Berlin JA, Dulay S, Ang G, Fakharzadeh S, et al. The CLASI (Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index): an outcome instrument for cutaneous lupus erythematosus. J Invest Dermatol 2005;125:889–94.
    1. Klein R, Moghadam‐Kia S, LoMonico J, Okawa J, Coley C, Taylor L, et al. Development of the CLASI as a tool to measure disease severity and responsiveness to therapy in cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Arch Dermatol 2011;147:203–8.
    1. Wallace DJ, Kalunian K, Petri MA, Strand V, Houssiau FA, Pike M, et al. Efficacy and safety of epratuzumab in patients with moderate/severe active systemic lupus erythematosus: results from EMBLEM, a phase IIb, randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, multicentre study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:183–90.
    1. Smith E, Lai JS, Cella D. Building a measure of fatigue: the functional assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale. PM R 2010;2:359–63.
    1. Furie RA, Leon G, Thomas M, Petri MA, Chu AD, Hislop C, et al. A phase 2, randomised, placebo‐controlled clinical trial of blisibimod, an inhibitor of B cell activating factor, in patients with moderate‐to‐severe systemic lupus erythematosus, the PEARL‐SC study. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:1667–75.
    1. Khamashta MA, Illei GG, Yoo S, Wang L, Greth W. Decreased sensitivity of a commercial anti‐dsDNA assay in patients with moderately to severely active systemic lupus erythematosus [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65 Suppl 10:S669–70.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren