What Does It Mean to Be a British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-Based Composite Lupus Assessment Responder? Post Hoc Analysis of Two Phase III Trials

New and emerging therapies for systemic lupus erythematosus

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis treatment is still based on non-specific immune suppression despite the first biological therapy for the disease having been approved more than a decade ago. Intense basic and translational research has uncovered a multitude of pathways that are actively being evaluated as treatment targets in SLE and lupus nephritis, with two new medications receiving FDA approval in the last 3 years. Herein we provide an overview of targeted therapies for SLE including medications targeting the B lymphocyte compartment, intracellular signaling, co-stimulation, and finally the interferons and other cytokines.

Microsimulation model of the cost-effectiveness of anifrolumab compared to belimumab in the United Arab Emirates

INTRODUCTION

SLE imposes a significant morbidity and mortality as well as a substantial burden on the healthcare system. The model aimed to measure the cost-effectiveness of anifrolumab implementation against belimumab as an add-on-therapy to the standard of care (SoC) over a lifetime horizon for Emirati patients.

METHODOLOGY

A microsimulation model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of anifrolumab against belimumab (IV/SC) as an add-on therapy to SoC in a hypothetical cohort of adult Emirati patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) over a lifetime horizon. The clinical data was captured from published clinical trials as; TULIP-1, TULIP-2, BLISS-52, BLISS-76 and BLISS-SC. Health utility scores were constructed according to a linear regression model from the pooled data of the two TULIP Phase III trials of anifrolumab. Our model captures direct SLE-related medical costs from the Dubai Health Authority. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Using BICLA as a response criterion in the Johns Hopkins cohort, anifrolumab was found to be more effective than belimumab (IV/SC; the incremental discounted QALY of anifrolumab against belimumab was 0.42). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anifrolumab against belimumab IV and belimumab SC were AED 466,371 ($209,135) and AED 252,612 ($113,279), respectively, these ICERs are below the cost-effectiveness threshold in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (three times gross domestic product capita; AED 592,278). In the Toronto lupus cohort, the ICER of anifrolumab against belimumab IV and belimumab SC were AED 491,403 ($220,360) and AED 276,642 ($124,055), respectively (anifrolumab was a cost-effective option vs. belimumab IV and belimumab SC).

CONCLUSION

The addition of anifrolumab to SoC is a cost-effective option versus belimumab for the treatment of adult patients with active, autoantibody-positive SLE, despite being allocated to SoC. Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated by a reduction in complications and organ damage, which reflected costs and outcomes.

Should we be targeting type 1 interferons in antiphospholipid syndrome?

Systemic autoimmune diseases are characterized by increased production of type I interferon (IFN-1) and upregulation of IFN-1-inducible genes, suggesting an important role of the IFN-1 pathway in their pathogenesis. Recent studies have demonstrated increased IFN-1 expression in both primary and secondary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), along with increased toll-like receptor type 9 activity and plasmacytoid dendritic cell function. The increasing knowledge of the association between IFN-1 and APS pathology may provide a rationale for conducting clinical trials to assess the efficacy of IFN-1-targeting drugs in reducing APS-related complications. In this narrative review, we summarize the current knowledge on the role of IFN-1 in APS pathogenesis, explore its clinical implications, and examine the existing evidence regarding therapeutic options that have been investigated to date.

Time to onset of clinical response to anifrolumab in patients with SLE: pooled data from the phase III TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the time course of clinical response following anifrolumab treatment in patients with SLE.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis was conducted using pooled data from phase III, randomised, 52-week, placebo-controlled, Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway (TULIP)-1 and TULIP-2 trials of intravenous anifrolumab (every 4 weeks, 48 weeks) in patients with moderate-to-severe SLE receiving standard therapy. Anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo groups were compared for British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response over time, time to sustained BICLA response, SLE Responder Index ≥4 (SRI(4)) response over time, time to sustained Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index Activity (CLASI-A) response and change in glucocorticoid dosage over time. All p values for comparisons were nominal.

RESULTS

Of the 726 evaluated patients (anifrolumab 300 mg, n=360; placebo, n=366), a greater proportion attained a BICLA response in the anifrolumab versus the placebo group from Week 8 (p<0.001); treatment group differentiation was maintained at all subsequent visits to Week 52. Consistently, more patients achieved a BICLA response sustained to Week 52 in the anifrolumab versus placebo group (HR=1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.20). More patients attained SRI(4) response with anifrolumab than placebo from Week 12 (p=0.005). As early as Week 8, more patients achieved CLASI-A skin response sustained to Week 52 with anifrolumab versus placebo (HR=1.72, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.55). Glucocorticoid dosage reductions from baseline were greater in anifrolumab-treated versus placebo-treated patients from Week 20 (p=0.010) through Week 52.

CONCLUSIONS

Anifrolumab treatment was associated with sustained improvements in overall SLE disease activity and skin responses versus placebo from Week 8, which likely led to greater glucocorticoid reductions in the anifrolumab versus placebo groups from Week 20. These findings provide insights to physicians and patients on when to expect potential clinical responses following anifrolumab treatment.

Valuing Health Gain from Composite Response Endpoints for Multisystem Diseases

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to demonstrate how to estimate the value of health gain after patients with a multisystem disease achieve a condition-specific composite response endpoint.

METHODS

Data from patients treated in routine practice with an exemplar multisystem disease (systemic lupus erythematosus) were extracted from a national register (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register). Two bespoke composite response endpoints (Major Clinical Response and Improvement) were developed in advance of this study. Difference-in-differences regression compared health utility values (3-level version of EQ-5D; UK tariff) over 6 months for responders and nonresponders. Bootstrapped regression estimated the incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), probability of QALY gain after achieving the response criteria, and population monetary benefit of response.

RESULTS

Within the sample (n = 171), 18.2% achieved Major Clinical Response and 49.1% achieved Improvement at 6 months. Incremental health utility values were 0.0923 for Major Clinical Response and 0.0454 for Improvement. Expected incremental QALY gain at 6 months was 0.020 for Major Clinical Response and 0.012 for Improvement. Probability of QALY gain after achieving the response criteria was 77.6% for Major Clinical Response and 72.7% for Improvement. Population monetary benefit of response was £1 106 458 for Major Clinical Response and £649 134 for Improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Bespoke composite response endpoints are becoming more common to measure treatment response for multisystem diseases in trials and observational studies. Health technology assessment agencies face a growing challenge to establish whether these endpoints correspond with improved health gain. Health utility values can generate this evidence to enhance the usefulness of composite response endpoints for health technology assessment, decision making, and economic evaluation.

Disease trajectory of SLE clinical endpoints and covariates affecting disease severity and probability of response: Analysis of pooled patient-level placebo (Standard-of-Care) data to enable model-informed drug development

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease affecting multiple organ systems. Many investigational agents have failed or shown only modest effects when added to standard of care (SoC) therapy in placebo-controlled trials, and only two therapies have been approved for SLE in the last 60 years. Clinical trial outcomes have shown discordance in drug effects between clinical endpoints. Herein, we characterized longitudinal disease activity in the SLE population and the sources of variability by developing a latent disease trajectory model for SLE component endpoints (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index [SLEDAI], Physician's Global Assessment [PGA], British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Index [BILAG]) and composite endpoints (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Responder Index [SRI], BILAG-based Composite Lupus Assessment [BICLA], and Lupus Low Disease Activity State [LLDAS]) using patient-level historical SoC data from nine phase II and III studies. Across all endpoints, in predictions up to 52 weeks from the final disease trajectory model, the following baseline covariates were associated with a greater decrease in SLE disease activity and higher response to placebo + SoC: Hispanic ethnicity from Central/South America, absence of hypocomplementemia, recent SLE diagnosis, and high baseline disease activity score using SLEDAI and BILAG separately. No discernible differences were observed in the trajectory of response to placebo + SoC across different SoC medications (antimalarial and immunosuppressant such as mycophenolate, methotrexate, and azathioprine). Across all endpoints, disease trajectory showed no difference in Asian versus non-Asian patients, supporting Asia-inclusive global SLE drug development. These results describe the first population approach to support a model-informed drug development framework in SLE.

Do biological agents improve health-related quality of life in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus? Results from a systematic search of the literature

Despite an unprecedented rise in the number of biological therapies developed for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) during the last decades, most randomised clinical trials (RCTs) have failed to reach their primary efficacy endpoint. These endpoints mainly constitute composite outcomes that encompass disease activity indices derived from clinician-reported and laboratory data and do not necessarily reflect the patient perspective, as symptoms that represent major concerns to patients, such as fatigue, are seldom part of the evaluation. To overcome this limitation, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) constitute useful tools for evaluating the effect of an intervention on facets that are particularly relevant for the patients. In the present review, we performed a systematic literature search aiming to examine the effect of biological therapies on SLE patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and fatigue in RCT and real-life settings. We summarised results concerning 14 different biological agents, the majority of which targeting B cells or type I interferons, and discuss strategies that have been used to analyse HRQoL data, putting emphasis on minimal clinically important differences and the potential use of PROs as distinct targets in treat-to-target approaches. Lastly, we discuss differences between generic and disease-specific PRO measures and highlight the need of using a combination thereof aiming to capture the patient perspective in a comprehensive manner.

Indirect treatment comparison of anifrolumab efficacy versus belimumab in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus

Aim: Assess the comparative efficacy of anifrolumab 300 mg versus belimumab 10 mg/kg in adults with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving standard therapy. Patients and methods: Population-adjusted simulated treatment comparisons (primary analyses) and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (supporting analyses) were conducted using individual patient data from TULIP-1/TULIP-2 and summary-level data from BLISS-52/BLISS-76. Results: Compared with belimumab-treated patients, anifrolumab-treated patients were more than twice as likely to achieve a reduction of four or more points in SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 score (simulated treatment comparison odds ratio: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.16-5.25) and SLE Responder Index-4 response (odds ratio: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.22-5.58) at 52 weeks. Conclusion: Patients with moderate-to-severe SLE are more likely to achieve an improvement in disease activity with anifrolumab than with belimumab.

Clinical meaningfulness of a British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment response in terms of patient-reported outcomes in moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus: a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials of anifrolumab

BACKGROUND

The British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) is a validated global measure of treatment response in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) clinical trials but does not include patient-reported outcomes. To evaluate the clinical meaningfulness of a BICLA response from the patient perspective, we aimed to analyse patient-reported outcomes by BICLA responses with anifrolumab or placebo in patients with moderate to severe SLE.

METHODS

We did a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from the phase 3 TULIP-1 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) trials of anifrolumab, which assessed health-related quality of life using the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36; version 2) and Lupus Quality of Life, fatigue using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), pain using the Numerical Rating Scale, and disease activity using Patient Global Assessment. Changes from baseline and proportions of patients reporting improvements in patient-reported outcomes greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to the normative values were compared in BICLA responders and non-responders and by treatment group (intravenous anifrolumab 300 mg or placebo).

FINDINGS

726 patients were included in the TULIP trials, of whom 366 received placebo (184 patients in TULIP-1 and 182 in TULIP-2) and 360 received anifrolumab 300 mg (180 patients in each trial). The mean patient age was 41·8 years (SD 11·9). 674 (93%) patients were female, 52 (7%) were male, and 479 (66%) were White; 283 (39%) were BICLA responders and 443 (61%) were BICLA non-responders. Compared with non-responders, BICLA responders reported greater mean improvements from baseline at week 52 in Patient Global Assessment, SF-36, Lupus Quality of Life, FACIT-F, and pain Numerical Rating Scale scores (all nominal p<0·0053). Compared with non-responders, a greater proportion of BICLA responders reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important difference across all SF-36 domains; eg, Physical Component Summary (165 [60%] of 277 for responders vs 63 [15%] of 416 for non-responders), Mental Component Summary (140 [51%] of 276 vs 59 [15%] of 416), and role physical (184 [70%] of 264 vs 76 [19%] of 398); Lupus Quality of Life domains; eg, physical health (151 [58%] of 262 vs 60 [15%] of 396), and intimate relationships (77 [41%] of 187 vs 33 [11%] of 286), and FACIT-F (155 [56%] of 276 vs 66 [15%] of 439). Similarly, a greater proportion of BICLA responders had scores equal to or greater than the normative values across all SF-36 domains and FACIT-F compared with BICLA non-responders at week 52. Patients who received anifrolumab reported greater numerical improvements in Patient Global Assessment, SF-36, Lupus Quality of Life, FACIT-F, and pain Numerical Rating Scale scores than those who received placebo.

INTERPRETATION

BICLA responders reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in Patient Global Assessment, health-related quality of life, fatigue, and pain compared with BICLA non-responders. More patients with moderate to severe SLE who received anifrolumab were BICLA responders and had improved health-related quality of life, fatigue, and pain than those who received placebo.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Anifrolumab: An Inhibitor of Type I Interferon for the Treatment of Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Anifrolumab is the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) that directly targets type I interferons (IFNs). The phase I study in scleroderma and phase II study in SLE served as a foundation for the phase III programme that included the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 SLE trials. We review the biology of IFNs and the scientific rationale for developing an inhibitor of the type I IFN pathway. The focus then turns to the specific trials that led to regulatory approvals.