Repository corticotropin injection in patients with persistently active SLE requiring corticosteroids: post hoc analysis of results from a two-part, 52-week pilot study

Acthar® Gel Treatment for Patients with Autoimmune and Inflammatory Diseases: An Historical Perspective and Characterization of Clinical Evidence

Acthar® Gel (repository corticotropin injection) is a naturally sourced complex mixture of adrenocorticotropic hormone analogs and other pituitary peptides that is believed to have both steroidogenic and nonsteroidogenic immunomodulatory effects via activation of melanocortin receptors in various cells throughout the body. Since 1952, Acthar has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat a variety of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Since 2014, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals has conducted a large number of preclinical, clinical, and real-world-evidence studies of Acthar for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis and polymyositis, multiple sclerosis relapse, ophthalmic disorders, sarcoidosis, and nephrotic syndrome. To date, Acthar has been the subject of more than 500 publications, many of which demonstrate the safety and efficacy of Acthar in patients with inflammatory diseases for whom standard treatments were ineffective or intolerable. Here, we review the history of Acthar and the findings of studies that have investigated the mechanism of action, safety, efficacy, and real-world effectiveness of Acthar for the treatment of inflammatory diseases.

Cost-Effectiveness of Acthar Gel Versus Standard of Care for the Treatment of Exacerbations in Moderate-to-Severe Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

INTRODUCTION

Despite current standard of care (SoC), there is an unmet need for the treatment of active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of Acthar^® Gel (repository corticotropin injection) versus SoC treatment in patients with active, moderate-to-severe SLE from the US payer and societal perspectives over 2 and 3 years.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness model was developed using a probabilistic cohort-level state-transition approach. Patients received Acthar Gel in an exacerbation state, and the outcomes were assessed at the end of a 3-month cycle for response achievement based on the probability of treatment success with Acthar Gel. Patients may sustain the response or experience an exacerbation. For the base case scenario, moderate-to-severe SLE was defined as British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)-2004 ≥ 20 or SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) ≥ 10 and clinical response was based on SLE responder index (SRI)-4. Clinical response, productivity loss, and utility were derived from a phase 4 SLE trial; cost and disutility estimates were sourced from the literature.

RESULTS

From a payer perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $133,110 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $94,818 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. From a societal perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC results in an ICER of $70,827 per QALY and $32,525 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. Results from the sensitivity and scenario analyses are consistent with those of the base case model.

CONCLUSIONS

Acthar Gel is a cost-effective, value-based treatment option for appropriate patients with moderate-to-severe SLE at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 over 2-3 years from the US payer and societal perspectives. Acthar Gel results in the reduction of direct medical and indirect costs.

FDA-APPROVED INDICATIONS OF ADRENOCORTICOTROPIC HORMONE (ACTH) AS A DRUG: DOES IT HAVE A PLACE IN DISEASE MANAGEMENT TODAY?

ACTH is a pituitary hormone important for proper function of adrenal glands, cortisol production as well as human physiology in general.  It is involved in the pathogenesis of several endocrine disorders like Cushing syndrome and can be a useful diagnostic tool for diseases like primary adrenal insufficiency.  Although popular as a hormone in endocrine system physiology and testing, ACTH has been used as a drug since the 1950s.  Except for steroid-releasing properties, its mechanism of action involves a steroid-independent anti-inflammatory and possible immune-modulatory effect.  Pharmaceutic ACTH has a wide range of indications approved by FDA and usually comes in the form of subcutaneous injections.  In this narrative review, we accumulated what we considered as important data from reviews, cases and trials involving the most basic FDA-approved ACTH indications.  A special emphasis was given on rheumatologic indications of ACTH.  More large data studies need to be performed to assess ACTH usefulness, efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness as a drug.  

Results from a Prospective, Open-Label, Phase 4 Pilot Study of Repository Corticotropin Injection for Moderate and Severe Dry Eye Disease

INTRODUCTION

There is a substantial unmet need for effective therapies to treat patients with refractory dry eye disease (DED). The goal of this open-label pilot study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar® Gel; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals) in subjects with DED, most of whom did not experience adequate response to standard-of-care therapies.

METHODS

Adults with moderate or severe-acute DED received 80 U of subcutaneous RCI twice weekly for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy outcomes were improvements in corneal fluorescein staining of superficial punctate keratitis (SPK) lesions and Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE) scores. Secondary outcomes included changes in Schirmer's test scores, conjunctival lissamine green staining, erythema, intraocular pressure (IOP), and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Adverse events (AEs) were assessed continuously throughout the study.

RESULTS

Fifteen subjects received at least 1 dose of RCI, and 12 subjects completed the study. Compared to baseline (day 1), significantly fewer fluorescein-stained SPK lesions were detected at day 14 (p = 0.0250) and day 84 (p = 0.0240) after RCI treatment. Mean SANDE scores progressively declined from 62.0 at baseline to 46.9 at day 84. Erythema (p = 0.0046), conjunctival lissamine green staining of SPK lesions (p = 0.0317), and IOP (p = 0.0052) were all significantly improved after 12 weeks of RCI therapy. Schirmer's test scores and BCVA showed no significant changes throughout the study. No ocular AEs or deaths occurred, and no new safety signals were identified for RCI.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that RCI may be a safe and effective treatment for moderate and severe DED.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03287635.

A Narrative Review of Repository Corticotropin Injection for the Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disorder that affects multiple organ systems. The most prevalent manifestations include constitutional symptoms, arthritis, and rash. An SLE flare is defined as a measurable increase in disease activity that may prompt a change in treatment. According to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidance, SLE treatments should be aimed at reducing disease activity and flares, as well as preventing organ damage. Standard-of-care treatment of SLE includes glucocorticoids, but their long-term use is associated with damage accrual. Repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar^® Gel) is a naturally sourced complex mixture of adrenocorticotropic hormone analogs and other pituitary peptides that has anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects beyond its steroidogenic effect, and has been US Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of SLE flares and as a maintenance therapy. This review summarizes data from three clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of RCI in the treatment of patients with moderate–severe refractory SLE. These clinical trials confirmed that RCI improved global disease activity scores and some SLE clinical manifestations. Analysis of pooled data from these trials showed that RCI treatment significantly improved the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 (BILAG-2004) index scores after 8 weeks of treatment, and tender and swollen joint counts after 4 weeks. These clinical trials demonstrated an acceptable safety profile with few serious adverse events reported. The distinct mechanisms of action from standard-of-care therapies and the favorable safety and good efficacy profiles support the use of RCI as therapy for patients with refractory SLE.

Characterization of the Clinical Evidence Supporting Repository Corticotropin Injection for FDA-Approved Indications: A Scoping Review

IMPORTANCE

Repository corticotropin injection is an expensive medication that was approved in 1952 for the treatment of many inflammatory conditions. The clinical evidence supporting the use of repository corticotropin (hereinafter referred to as corticotropin) has been weak, perhaps because its approval predated the modern review standards of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the clinical evidence supporting the use of corticotropin for its FDA-approved indications.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Studies were identified via electronic searches of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from database inception to May 12, 2021 (the MEDLINE search was updated on June 8, 2021). Bibliographies of retrieved articles were also reviewed through ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA documents, and the manufacturer's website. Search terms included HP Acthar, ACTH gel, repository corticotropin, and terms for specific diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, nephrotic syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and West syndrome (or spasms, infantile). The review included randomized clinical trials (RCTs), nonrandomized and single-arm clinical trials, and prospective cohort studies that compared corticotropin with an active comparator, placebo, or no treatment. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Studies were qualitatively synthesized by indication to summarize important design features and results.

FINDINGS

Of 1059 records screened, 203 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. A total of 41 studies involving 2235 participants met inclusion criteria; of those, 11 involved infantile spasms, 10 involved multiple sclerosis (MS), 11 involved rheumatological conditions, 7 involved nephrotic syndrome, 1 involved ocular conditions, and 1 involved sarcoidosis. Overall, 19 studies either included a single arm or exclusively compared different corticotropin dosing strategies. The evidence was most robust for the treatment of infantile spasms and MS. The largest number of studies comparing corticotropin with an active agent (n = 4) or placebo (n = 5) pertained to MS, with almost all studies finding that corticotropin performed better than placebo but no different than corticosteroids. For the treatment of infantile spasms, 8 controlled studies were identified (6 were randomized); of those, only 1 small RCT found corticotropin to be significantly superior to corticosteroids. Studies of patients with other conditions (n = 20) frequently lacked a control group (n = 12), were placebo-controlled (n = 5), or exclusively examined different corticotropin dosing strategies (n = 2). Placebo-controlled RCTs of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, optic neuritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and nephrotic syndrome were generally small and did not consistently demonstrate that corticotropin was superior to placebo. Blinded RCTs showed a similar or greater number of adverse effects with corticotropin relative to corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this scoping review, few RCTs supported the clinical benefit of corticotropin for most FDA-approved indications. Most RCTs found that corticotropin was not superior to corticosteroids for treating relapses of MS or infantile spasms.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Repository Corticotropin Injection Compared With Synthetic ACTH1-24 Depot and Methylprednisolone in Healthy Subjects

Repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar Gel) is a naturally sourced complex mixture of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) analogs and other pituitary peptides. This phase 1, single-center, open-label, randomized parallel study directly compared the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of RCI and synthetic ACTH_1-24 depot. Methylprednisolone was included to estimate the steroidogenic exposure of RCI and synthetic ACTH_1-24 depot when used to treat nephrotic syndrome. A total of 48 healthy subjects aged 18 to 50 years were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to RCI (80 IU subcutaneously twice weekly on study days 1 and 4), synthetic ACTH_1-24 depot (1 mg subcutaneously twice weekly on study days 1 and 4), or methylprednisolone (32 mg orally once daily on study days 1 through 6). After 2 doses, RCI induced about 5-fold lower free cortisol exposure and an estimated 4-fold lower steroidogenic exposure than synthetic ACTH_1-24 depot. The lower endogenous cortisol response of RCI was achieved despite higher observed mean plasma concentrations of N25-deamidated porcine ACTH_1-39 (the pharmacokinetic marker for RCI) than of ACTH_1-24 . The different pharmacodynamic properties demonstrated by RCI and synthetic ACTH_1-24 depot in this study suggest that these products in the ACTH class are not interchangeable.

Post Hoc Biomarker Analyses from a Phase 4, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Repository Corticotropin Injection (Acthar® Gel) for Persistently Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

INTRODUCTION

We conducted post hoc analyses of biomarker results from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar® Gel) in patients with persistently active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) despite treatment with moderate-dose glucocorticoids.

METHODS

Adults with active SLE and moderate to severe rash and/or arthritis were enrolled in the primary study. Patients had active SLE despite treatment with stable glucocorticoids, antimalarials, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or immunosuppressants. Patients were randomly assigned to 80 U of RCI or placebo subcutaneously every other day for 4 weeks and then twice weekly through week 24. Blood samples were analyzed for serum cytokines and complement proteins using enzyme-linked immunosorbent or Luminex assays and for circulating leukocytes using flow cytometry. Biomarker levels were reported as percentages of the baseline and were further evaluated in subgroups stratified by baseline SLE Disease Activity Index-2000 (SLEDAI-2K) scores (< 10 vs. ≥ 10), baseline anti-double-stranded DNA levels (< 15 IU/mL vs. ≥ 15 IU/mL), and BILAG-based Combined Lupus Assessment (BICLA) responses at week 20 and 24.

RESULTS

RCI treatment resulted in reduced levels of B cell-activating factor and interleukin-6 cytokines in all subgroups compared with placebo. RCI treatment also resulted in lower levels of CD19⁺ B cells and CD19⁺IgD^-CD27^-CD95⁺ atypical activated memory B cells than did placebo in the higher baseline disease activity subgroups and in BICLA non-responders. Furthermore, RCI treatment led to greater increases in complement component (C)3 and C4 levels than did placebo in the higher baseline disease activity subgroups and in BICLA responders.

CONCLUSIONS

RCI may reduce inflammation through B cell immunomodulation in patients with persistently active SLE, particularly in those with higher disease activity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02953821.

Interventions for cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus

BACKGROUND

Lupus erythematosus is an autoimmune disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is common. Many interventions are used to treat SLE with varying efficacy, risks, and benefits.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to June 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Wiley Interscience Online Library, and Biblioteca Virtual em Saude (Virtual Health Library). We updated our search in September 2020, but these results have not yet been fully incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE compared with placebo, another intervention, no treatment, or different doses of the same intervention. We did not evaluate trials of cutaneous lupus in people without a diagnosis of SLE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were complete and partial clinical response. Secondary outcomes included reduction (or change) in number of clinical flares; and severe and minor adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-one RCTs, involving 11,232 participants, reported 43 different interventions. Trials predominantly included women from outpatient clinics; the mean age range of participants was 20 to 40 years. Twenty-five studies reported baseline severity, and 22 studies included participants with moderate to severe cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE); duration of CLE was not well reported. Studies were conducted mainly in multi-centre settings. Most often treatment duration was 12 months. Risk of bias was highest for the domain of reporting bias, followed by performance/detection bias. We identified too few studies for meta-analysis for most comparisons. We limited this abstract to main comparisons (all administered orally) and outcomes. We did not identify clinical trials of other commonly used treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, that reported complete or partial clinical response or numbers of clinical flares. Complete clinical response Studies comparing oral hydroxychloroquine against placebo did not report complete clinical response. Chloroquine may increase complete clinical response at 12 months' follow-up compared with placebo (absence of skin lesions) (risk ratio (RR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 2.61; 1 study, 24 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little to no difference between methotrexate and chloroquine in complete clinical response (skin rash resolution) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50; 1 study, 25 participants; low-quality evidence). Methotrexate may be superior to placebo with regard to complete clinical response (absence of malar/discoid rash) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.63 to 7.84; 1 study, 41 participants; low-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be little to no difference between azathioprine and ciclosporin in complete clinical response (malar rash resolution) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52; 1 study, 89 participants; low-quality evidence). Partial clinical response Partial clinical response was reported for only one key comparison: hydroxychloroquine may increase partial clinical response at 12 months compared to placebo, but the 95% CI indicates that hydroxychloroquine may make no difference or may decrease response (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 120.16; 20 pregnant participants, 1 trial; low-quality evidence). Clinical flares Clinical flares were reported for only two key comparisons: hydroxychloroquine is probably superior to placebo at 6 months' follow-up for reducing clinical flares (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.89; 1 study, 47 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be no difference between methotrexate and placebo, but the 95% CI indicates there may be more or fewer flares with methotrexate (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.83; 1 study, 86 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events Data for adverse events were limited and were inconsistently reported, but hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and methotrexate have well-documented adverse effects including gastrointestinal symptoms, liver problems, and retinopathy for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and teratogenicity during pregnancy for methotrexate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence supports the commonly-used treatment hydroxychloroquine, and there is also evidence supporting chloroquine and methotrexate for treating cutaneous disease in SLE. Evidence is limited due to the small number of studies reporting key outcomes. Evidence for most key outcomes was low or moderate quality, meaning findings should be interpreted with caution. Head-to-head intervention trials designed to detect differences in efficacy between treatments for specific CLE subtypes are needed. Thirteen further trials are awaiting classification and have not yet been incorporated in this review; they may alter the review conclusions.

Patient-Reported Outcomes from a Phase 4, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Repository Corticotropin Injection (Acthar® Gel) for Persistently Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Introduction

We assessed patient-reported outcomes from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar^® Gel) in patients with persistently active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) despite treatment with moderate-dose glucocorticoids.

Methods

The trial enrolled adults with active SLE and moderate-to-severe rash and/or arthritis despite use of stable glucocorticoids (7.5 mg/day to 30 mg/day prednisone equivalent), antimalarials, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for ≥ 4 weeks and/or immunosuppressants for ≥ 8 weeks before screening. Patients were randomly assigned to 80 U of RCI or placebo subcutaneously every other day through week 4, then twice weekly through week 24. Primary analyses evaluated the change from baseline to week 24 in the Lupus Quality of Life (QoL) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI)-Lupus questionnaires. Post hoc analyses stratified results by baseline disease activity (SLE Disease Activity Index-2000 [SLEDAI-2K] < 10 or ≥ 10; Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index [CLASI]-Activity < 11 or ≥ 11; and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group [BILAG]-2004 < 20 or ≥ 20) and by BILAG-based Combined Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response at weeks 20 and 24.

Results

RCI treatment resulted in greater improvement in the LupusQoL pain domain at week 16 and planning domain at week 24 compared with placebo. Post hoc analyses demonstrated greater improvements with RCI in the pain, planning, and fatigue domains than with placebo at multiple time points in patients with higher disease activity by baseline SLEDAI-2K ≥ 10, CLASI-Activity ≥ 11, and BILAG-2004 ≥ 20 and/or in BICLA responders. Compared with placebo, RCI also resulted in greater improvements in percentage work time missed at week 24 in patients with baseline CLASI-Activity < 11 and in percentage impairment while working at week 16 in BICLA responders.

Conclusions

RCI may improve QoL and work productivity in patients who have persistently active SLE despite treatment with standard SLE therapy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02953821.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00294-z.

Comparison of Steroidogenic Exposure Following the Administration of Repository Corticotropin Injection With a Synthetic ACTH1-24 Depot and Methylprednisolone in Healthy Subjects

The pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of clinically relevant doses of repository corticotropin injection (Acthar Gel) and synthetic ACTH_1‐24 depot have not been fully characterized. We compared the steroidogenic exposure of repository corticotropin injection and synthetic ACTH_1‐24 depot in healthy adults at therapeutic doses using data from 2 separate phase 1 studies. Subjects were randomly assigned to repository corticotropin injection 40 or 80 IU subcutaneously twice weekly or 80 IU subcutaneously 3 times weekly for 15 days or to daily synthetic ACTH_1‐24 depot doses of 0.5 mg subcutaneously, 0.75 mg subcutaneously, 1 mg subcutaneously, or 1 mg intramuscularly for 5 days. A population PK/PD model was developed to simulate the free cortisol exposure of a clinically relevant dose of synthetic ACTH_1‐24 depot (1 mg subcutaneously twice weekly). Study drug doses were converted to methylprednisolone‐equivalent doses using the steroidogenic exposure of methylprednisolone 16 mg daily as a conversion factor. Doses were also converted to prednisone equivalents using a coefficient of 1.25. These analyses revealed that the steroidogenic exposure of repository corticotropin injection at clinically relevant doses was substantially lower than that for synthetic ACTH_1‐24 depot. The 3 repository corticotropin injection regimens were equivalent to approximately 5, 8, and 16 mg of daily prednisone, respectively. On the basis of simulated free cortisol exposure, synthetic ACTH_1‐24 depot 1 mg subcutaneously twice weekly was comparable to 57 mg of daily prednisone. These results suggest that repository corticotropin injection has pharmacological effects that cannot be considered identical to synthetic ACTH_1‐24 depot.

Repository Corticotropin Injection for Persistently Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results from a Phase 4, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

We assessed the efficacy and safety of repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar® Gel) for persistently active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) despite use of moderate-dose glucocorticoids.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients ≥ 18 years with active SLE and moderate to severe rash and/or arthritis despite stable glucocorticoid doses (7.5-30 mg/day prednisone equivalent) and antimalarials for ≥ 4 weeks and/or immunosuppressants for ≥ 8 weeks before screening. Stable glucocorticoid doses were required through week 16 with optional taper from weeks 16 to 24. Patients were randomized (1:1) to 80 U RCI subcutaneously or placebo every other day to week 4, then twice weekly to week 24. Endpoints included the proportion of SLE Responder Index (SRI)-4 responders at week 16; changes from baseline to week 16 in 28 Swollen Joint Count/Tender Joint Count (28 SJC/TJC) and Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI)-Activity score; and changes from baseline to week 24 in inflammatory cytokines. Safety was assessed by adverse events.

RESULTS

In the modified intention-to-treat population (RCI, n = 84; placebo, n = 85), the proportion of SRI-4 responders at week 16 was not significantly different between groups (RCI, 47.6%; placebo, 43.5%; OR [95% CI] 1.2 [0.6 to 2.2]; p = 0.5762). RCI treatment resulted in a reduction from baseline to week 16 in 28 SJC/TJC and CLASI-Activity score and from baseline to week 8 in a proliferation-inducing ligand cytokine. Post hoc analyses demonstrated a greater proportion of BILAG-based Combined Lupus Assessment responders for RCI than placebo at weeks 4, 12, and 20 and greater SRI-4 response in RCI-treated patients with baseline SLE Disease Activity Index-2000 ≥ 10 and CLASI-Activity ≥ 11. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite failure to achieve the primary endpoint, these results support the utility of RCI for treating persistently active SLE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02953821.

Acthar Gel (repository corticotropin injection) for persistently active SLE: study design and baseline characteristics from a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Objective

SLE is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease characterised by the excessive production of autoantibodies, immune complexes and proinflammatory cytokines. Repository corticotropin injection (RCI) is a naturally sourced complex mixture of adrenocorticotropic hormone analogues and other pituitary peptides. RCI is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use during an exacerbation or as maintenance therapy in select cases of SLE. This paper discusses the design and baseline characteristics of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, 24-week clinical trial evaluating the effect of RCI in reducing disease activity for patients with persistently active SLE despite moderate-dose corticosteroid use.

Methods

Efficacy will be evaluated using the SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4), SLE Disease Activity Index-2000 (SLEDAI-2K), British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-2004 (BILAG-2004) and Physician's Global Assessment (PGA). The primary efficacy endpoint will be the proportion of SRI-4 responders at week 16. Secondary and exploratory endpoints will include changes in disease activity scores over time, prednisone dose and biomarkers of inflammation and bone turnover. The safety and tolerability profile of RCI will also be evaluated through adverse event profiles, physical examination, clinical laboratory tests and serum cortisol levels.

Results

Target enrolment for this global study is 270 patients, and as of 15 November 2019, the modified intent-to-treat population included 169 patients. The study cohort had 91.7% women, had a mean age of 39.7 years, mean SLEDAI-2K total score of 9.9, mean BILAG-2004 total score of 18.1, mean PGA of 59.7 and mean prednisone or equivalent daily dose of 11.1 mg. A total of 79.3% and 64.5% of patients were receiving concomitant antimalarial or immunosuppressive therapy, respectively.

Conclusions

Data from this study will provide valuable insights into the therapeutic role of RCI in refractory SLE, as well as important information regarding its safety profile.

Treatment with Repository Corticotropin Injection in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, and Dermatomyositis/Polymyositis

PURPOSE

Repository corticotropin injection (RCI) is indicated for a number of autoimmune-mediated diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and dermatomyositis (DM)/polymyositis (PM). To better understand the practice patterns and outcomes of RCI in patients with RA, SLE, or DM/PM, we conducted a retrospective medical record analysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participating providers selected deidentified medical records of patients meeting the inclusion criteria (age ≥18 years; physician-reported diagnosis of RA, SLE, or DM/PM; initiation of treatment with RCI between 1/1/2011 and 2/15/2016; ≥3 in-office visits with same site/provider). Collected data spanned 12 months before and after the first prescription date for RCI. Analyses included patient demographics and clinical history, RCI treatment patterns, and physician's impression of change.

RESULTS

Data from 54 patients with RA, 30 patients with SLE, and 8 patients with DM/PM were analyzed. The most frequently reported reasons for initiating RCI were lack of efficacy with prior treatment, acute exacerbation of disease, and use as add-on to ongoing therapy. The most common initial RCI dosing, 80 U twice weekly, was used for 84% of patients with RA, 75% with SLE, and 86% with DM/PM. The mean duration of treatment was 4.8, 6.5, and 6.8 months for RA, SLE, and DM/PM, respectively. Among the 57 patients with data on physician's impression of change with RCI, 78.1% of patients with RA, 94.7% with SLE, and 66.7% with DM/PM had a rating of "improved," and the mean time to best impression of change was 3.4, 4.3, and 3.4 months for RA, SLE, and DM/PM, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study reports the real-world patient profile, use patterns, and outcomes of patients who used RCI for the treatment of RA, SLE, and DM/PM. These data can inform appropriate use and clinical expectations when using RCI.