Predicting Clinical Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics and Impact of Organ Impairment on siRNA-Based Therapeutics Using a Mechanistic Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Model

Approved and emerging siRNA therapeutics are primarily designed for targeted delivery to liver where the therapeutic gene silencing effects occurs. Impairment of hepatic/renal function and its impact on siRNA pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PKs/PDs) are yet to be mechanistically evaluated to describe the unanticipated clinical observations for this novel modality. We developed pathophysiologically relevant models for organ impairment within a physiologically-based PK-PD (PBPK-PD) modeling framework focusing on modality-specific mechanistic factors to evaluate impact on siRNA PKs and PDs. PBPK-PD models for two US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved siRNAs inclisiran and vutrisiran were developed as case studies leveraging available tissue-specific data and translated to humans. Key determinants of the clinical PK and PD of N-acetylgalactosamine conjugated siRNAs (GalNAc-siRNAs) with varying sequences were also identified to inform effective clinical translation strategies for emerging GalNAc-siRNA candidates. A 30-70% reduction in hepatic asialoglycoprotein receptors concentrations still allowed for sufficient amount of free cytoplasmic siRNA for RISC-loading to produce PD effects comparable in extent and duration to normal liver function. This included severe hepatic impairment for which no clinical data are available. Inclusion of other modality agnostic physiological changes relevant to organ impairment did not alter the findings. Changes in renal physiologies, including changes in GFR across various degrees of impairment, well predicted minimal changes in PD for inclisiran and vutrisiran. This work provides a quantitative mechanistic framework and insights on modality-specific factors that drive clinical translation and patient/disease-related factors that impact specific dosing considerations and clinical outcomes to help accelerate the optimal development of siRNA therapeutics.

Postfracture survival in a population-based study of adults aged ≥66 yr: a call to action at hospital discharge

Postfracture survival rates provide prognostic information but are rarely reported along with other mortality outcomes in adults aged ≥50 yr. The timing of survival change following a fracture also needs to be further elucidated. This population-based, matched-cohort, retrospective database study examined 98 474 patients (73% women) aged ≥66 yr with an index fracture occurring at an osteoporotic site (hip, clinical vertebral, proximal non-hip non-vertebral [pNHNV], and distal non-hip non-vertebral [dNHNV]) from 2011 to 2015, who were matched (1:1) to nonfracture individuals based on sex, age, and comorbidities. All-cause 1- and 5-yr overall survival and relative survival ratios (RSRs) were assessed, and time trends in survival changes were characterized starting immediately after a fracture. In both sexes, overall survival was markedly decreased over 6 yr of follow-up after hip, vertebral, and pNHNV fractures, and as expected, worse survival rates were observed in older patients and males. The lowest 5-yr RSRs were observed after hip fractures in males (66-85 yr, 51.9%-63.9%; ≥86 yr, 34.5%), followed by vertebral fractures in males (66-85 yr, 53.2%-69.4%; ≥86 yr, 35.5%), and hip fractures in females (66-85 yr, 69.8%-79.0%; ≥86 yr, 52.8%). Although RSRs did not decrease as markedly after dNHNV fractures in younger patients, relatively low 5-yr RSRs were observed in females (75.9%) and males (69.5%) aged ≥86 yr. The greatest reduction in survival occurred within the initial month after hip, vertebral, and pNHNV fractures, indicating a high relative impact of short-term factors, with survival-reduction effects persisting over time. Therefore, the most critical period for implementing interventions aimed at improving post-fracture prognosis appears to be immediately after a fracture; however, considering the immediate need for introducing such interventions, primary fracture prevention is also crucial to prevent the occurrence of the initial fracture in high-risk patients.

Incomplete capture of apremilast in Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum: An example of exposure misclassification of specialty treatments in United Kingdom general practice databases

PURPOSE

Nearly all apremilast users captured in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum have only one prescription, which is inconsistent with its prescribing pattern. The goal of this study was to assess capture of apremilast prescriptions in CPRD Aurum by comparison to CPRD GOLD and general practitioner (GP) questionnaires.

METHODS

We compared the number of apremilast prescriptions for patients in Aurum to (1) those in GOLD and (2) those reported by the GPs via questionnaire responses.

RESULTS

There were 441 Aurum patients with an apremilast prescription (424 [96%] in England) and 341 GOLD patients (11 [3%]) in England). In Aurum 91% of all patients (and 96% of English patients) had only one apremilast prescription while in GOLD 29% of all patients (and 82% of English patients) had only one prescription. We received questionnaire responses from GPs for 50 of 390 (13%) patients participating in Aurum who had 57 total apremilast exposed months captured in Aurum. GPs reported 8 (16%) patients with only one prescription and a median of 4 (range 1-35) apremilast prescriptions per patient, yielding 463 total months of apremilast exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

CPRD Aurum captures only one apremilast prescription for most recorded users, though questionnaire responses indicated most patients received multiple prescriptions. Researchers using any UK GP database should be aware of potential for significant exposure misclassification of apremilast and other treatments classified as specialist or shared care by local Area Prescribing Committees.

Small-molecule inhibition of kinesin KIF18A reveals a mitotic vulnerability enriched in chromosomally unstable cancers

Chromosomal instability (CIN) is a hallmark of cancer, caused by persistent errors in chromosome segregation during mitosis. Aggressive cancers like high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have a high frequency of CIN and TP53 mutations. Here, we show that inhibitors of the KIF18A motor protein activate the mitotic checkpoint and selectively kill chromosomally unstable cancer cells. Sensitivity to KIF18A inhibition is enriched in TP53-mutant HGSOC and TNBC cell lines with CIN features, including in a subset of CCNE1-amplified, CDK4-CDK6-inhibitor-resistant and BRCA1-altered cell line models. Our KIF18A inhibitors have minimal detrimental effects on human bone marrow cells in culture, distinct from other anti-mitotic agents. In mice, inhibition of KIF18A leads to robust anti-cancer effects with tumor regression observed in human HGSOC and TNBC models at well-tolerated doses. Collectively, our results provide a rational therapeutic strategy for selective targeting of CIN cancers via KIF18A inhibition.

A cross-sectional analysis of treatment patterns in small-cell lung cancer in five European countries

Aim: To investigate changes in treatment patterns in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK (EU5) between 2018 and 2021. Methods: Cross-sectional data from an oncology database were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Of 5832 eligible patients, 88.4% had stage IV disease at diagnosis. Among patients receiving first-line treatment, 91.8% (1079 /1176) received the platinum-etoposide (PE) combination in 2018 which decreased to 42.3% (509/1203) by 2021. Usage of the PE-atezolizumab combination increased from 0 to 41.2% during the same timeframe. Topotecan monotherapy remained the most widely used second-line treatment regardless of patients' platinum sensitivity. Conclusion: The first-line standard of care for ES-SCLC has evolved in EU5 with the PE-atezolizumab/durvalumab combination gradually superseding PE usage.

Mean Bone Material Strength Index Values for Women are Lower Than Those for Men: Data from a Single Geographical Location

Bone material strength index (BMSi) values are obtained using impact microindentation, which assesses the ability of bone to resist indentation. Differences in BMSi between men and women are unclear, and to date, BMSi sex differences have not been compared for individuals from the same population. Therefore, we compared BMSi values for men and women drawn from the same geographical location in Australia. Participants (n = 220) were from the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. BMSi was measured, following international published guidelines, using an OsteoProbe for participants at recent follow-up phases (women 2022-2023 and men 2016-2022). Women (n = 55) were age matched to men (n = 165) in a 1:3 ratio. A two-sample t test was used to determine the intergroup difference in mean BMSi. Linear regression was also performed, adjusting for weight and height. Median (IQR) ages for men and women were 67.0 (61.7-71.5) and 67.4 (62.0-71.2) years (p = 0.998). Men were heavier (81.0 ± 10.9 vs 71.0 ± 13.9 kg, p < 0.001) and taller (173.9 ± 6.4 vs 161.5 ± 7.5 cm, p < 0.001) than women. Mean (± SD) BMSi for women (75.7 ± 7.4) was lower than for men (82.8 ± 6.8) (p < 0.001). The difference persisted after adjustment for weight and height (mean ± SE: 76.5 ± 1.1 vs 82.5 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). Given the higher fracture risk observed for women, the higher mean BMSi values in men are consistent with cross sectional data suggesting this measure may be useful in fracture prediction.

Apremilast Long-Term Safety Up to 5 Years from 15 Pooled Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Studies of Psoriasis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Behçet's Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Since US FDA approval in 2014, apremilast has consistently demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile in 706,585 patients (557,379 patient-years of exposure) worldwide across approved indications of plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and Behçet's syndrome; however, long-term exposure across these indications has not been reported.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to conduct a pooled analysis of apremilast data from 15 clinical studies with open-label extension phases, focusing on long-term safety.

METHODS

We analyzed longer-term safety and tolerability of apremilast 30 mg twice daily across three indications for up to 5 years, focusing on adverse events of special interest, including thrombotic events, malignancies, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), serious infections, and depression. Data were pooled across 15 randomized, placebo-controlled studies and divided into placebo-controlled or all-apremilast-exposure groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 4183 patients were exposed to apremilast (6788 patient-years). Most TEAEs were mild to moderate in the placebo-controlled period (96.6%) and throughout all apremilast exposure (91.6%). TEAE rates of special interest were similar between treatment groups in the placebo-controlled period and remained low throughout all apremilast exposure. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates per 100 patient-years during all apremilast exposure were MACE, 0.30; thrombotic events, 0.10; malignancies, 1.0; serious infections, 1.10; serious opportunistic infections, 0.21; and depression, 1.78. Safety findings were consistent across indications and regions. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of serious TEAEs and TEAEs of special interest was low despite long-term exposure, further establishing apremilast as a safe oral option for long-term use across indications with a favorable benefit-risk profile.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00773734, NCT01194219, NCT01232283, NCT01690299, NCT01988103, NCT02425826, NCT03123471, NCT03721172, NCT01172938, NCT01212757, NCT01212770, NCT01307423, NCT01925768, NCT00866359, NCT02307513.

Recruitment strategies to increase racial and ethnic diversity in anorexia nervosa clinical research

OBJECTIVE

Inclusion of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups in eating disorder (ED) research is a critical unmet need, but evidence-based recruitment strategies are lacking. We sought to determine whether methods we had implemented to increase recruitment of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups were successful in improving racial and ethnic diversity in a clinical trial in women with anorexia nervosa.

METHOD

We implemented new strategies for recruitment of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups in a clinical trial on bone health in women with anorexia nervosa, including leveraging social media, liberalizing language on advertisements to be more inclusive of women who are as yet undiagnosed with the disorder or feel stigmatized by its name, translating advertisements to Spanish, and engaging community health centers. We compared participants' race and ethnicity in this clinical trial versus two similar prior clinical trials.

RESULTS

The percent of non-White and Hispanic participants who have signed a consent form in our ongoing clinical trial (2021-2023) is higher versus two previous clinical trials on bone health in women with anorexia nervosa (2011-2019) with similar inclusion/exclusion criteria and endpoints [non-White: 11/38 (28.9%) vs. 11/188 (5.9%), Hispanic: 6/38 (15.8%) vs. 5/188 (2.7%), p ≤ 0.006]. There was no change in the percent of Black participants [0/38 (0%) vs. 1/188 (0.5%), p = 1.0].

DISCUSSION

Viewing clinical research recruitment through a diversity, equity, and inclusion lens can improve racial and ethnic diversity in ED research. Further research recruitment strategies are needed to be more inclusive of Black populations.

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis on use of Thrombopoietic agents for chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia

Background

Currently, there are no approved options to prevent or treat chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT). We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on use of thrombopoietic agents for CIT.

Patients and methods

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and health technology assessments from January 1995 to March 2021 for studies evaluating thrombopoietic agents for CIT, including recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO), megakaryocyte growth and development factor (MGDF), romiplostim, and eltrombopag. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for efficacy and safety endpoints.

Results

We screened 1503 titles/abstracts, assessed 138 articles, and abstracted data from 39 publications (14 recombinant human thrombopoietin, 7 megakaryocyte growth and development factor, 9 romiplostim, 8 eltrombopag, and 1 romiplostim/eltrombopag). Random effects meta-analyses of data from multiple studies comparing thrombopoietic agents versus control (comparator, placebo, or no treatment) showed that thrombopoietic agents did not significantly improve chemotherapy dose delays and/or reductions (21.1% vs 40.4%, P = 0.364), grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (39.3% vs 34.8%; P = 0.789), platelet transfusions (16.7% vs 31.7%, P = 0.111), grade ≥ 2 bleeding (6.7% vs 16.5%; P = 0.250), or thrombosis (7.6% vs 12.5%; P = 0.131). However, among individual studies comparing thrombopoietic agents with placebo or no treatment, thrombopoietic agents positively improved outcomes in some studies, including significantly increasing mean peak platelet counts (186 x 10⁹/L with rhTPO vs 122 x 10⁹/L with no treatment; P < 0.05) in one study and significantly increasing platelet count at nadir (56 x 10⁹/L with rhTPO vs 28 x 10⁹/L with not treatment; P < 0.05) in another study. Safety findings included thrombosis (n = 23 studies) and bleeding (n = 11), with no evidence of increased thrombosis risk with thrombopoietic agents.

Conclusion

Our analyses generate the hypothesis that thrombopoietic agents may benefit patients with CIT. Further studies with well-characterized bleeding and platelet thresholds are warranted to explore the possible benefits of thrombopoietic agents for CIT.

Romosozumab and antiresorptive treatment: the importance of treatment sequence

To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, this analysis reviewed studies where romosozumab was administered before or following an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab). Initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive resulted in larger increases in bone mineral density of both hip and spine compared with the reverse sequence.

INTRODUCTION

Teriparatide followed by an antiresorptive increases bone mineral density (BMD) more than using an antiresorptive first. To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, we reviewed randomized clinical trials where romosozumab was administered before (ARCH, FRAME) or following (STRUCTURE, Phase 2 extension) an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab, respectively).

METHODS

We evaluated BMD percentage change for total hip (TH) and lumbar spine (LS) and response rates (BMD gains ≥ 3% and ≥ 6%) at years 1 and 2 (except STRUCTURE with only 1-year data available).

RESULTS

With 1-year romosozumab initial therapy in ARCH and FRAME, TH BMD increased 6.2% and 6.0%, and LS BMD increased 13.7% and 13.1%, respectively. When romosozumab was administered for 1 year after alendronate (STRUCTURE) or denosumab (Phase 2 extension), TH BMD increased 2.9% and 0.9%, respectively, and LS BMD increased 9.8% and 5.3%, respectively. Over 2 years, TH and LS BMD increased 7.1% and 15.2% with romosozumab/alendronate, 8.5% and 16.6% with romosozumab/denosumab, and 3.8% and 11.5% with denosumab/romosozumab, respectively. A greater proportion of patients achieved BMD gains ≥ 6% when romosozumab was used first, particularly for TH, versus the reverse sequence (69% after romosozumab/denosumab; 15% after denosumab/romosozumab).

CONCLUSION

In this study, larger mean BMD increases and greater BMD responder rates were achieved when romosozumab was used before, versus after, an antiresorptive agent. Since BMD on treatment is a strong surrogate for bone strength and fracture risk, this analysis supports the thesis that initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive will result in greater efficacy versus the reverse sequence.

Bone Health Outcomes from the International, Multicenter, Randomized, Phase 3, Placebo-Controlled D-CARE Study Assessing Adjuvant Denosumab in Early Breast Cancer

Introduction

D-CARE, an international, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in women with early-stage breast cancer at high risk of disease recurrence, failed to meet its primary endpoint—improvement in bone metastasis-free survival (BMFS) with adjuvant denosumab vs placebo injections. As a result of the limitations of assessing BMFS, which includes relapse in bone with and without extraskeletal recurrences and deaths from any cause, the prespecified exploratory bone endpoints’ analysis may provide a more clinically meaningful effect of denosumab in this disease setting.

Methods

The study enrolled women (aged ≥ 18 years) with histologically confirmed stage II/III breast cancer. Patients treated with adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy meeting inclusion criteria were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either denosumab (120 mg) or placebo subcutaneously every 3–4 weeks for about 6 months and then every 3 months for a total treatment duration of 5 years. Five prespecified exploratory bone endpoints and post hoc subgroup analysis based on age (< 50 and ≥ 50 years) and menopause status (premenopausal and postmenopausal) were evaluated.

Results

Overall, 4509 women with early-stage breast cancer were assigned to receive denosumab (N = 2256) or placebo (N = 2253). The baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were comparable between the two arms. The hazard ratio (HR) for time to first bone metastasis was 0.82 (95% CI 0.66–1.02; p = 0.068), with HRs of 0.70 (95% CI 0.52–0.94; p = 0.018) for patients < 50 years old and 0.74 (95% CI 0.55–0.98; p = 0.038) for premenopausal patients, favoring the denosumab group. The HRs for time to first on-study fracture and time to first on-study skeletal-related event were 0.76 (95% CI 0.63–0.92; p = 0.004) and 0.52 (95% CI 0.35–0.78; p = 0.001), respectively, again favoring the denosumab group.

Conclusion

The exploratory bone endpoints indicate the benefits of denosumab treatment in patients with high-risk early breast cancer, supporting the expected bone health benefits contributed by denosumab.

Trial Registration Number

NCT01077154

Osteoporotic fractures and subsequent fractures: imminent fracture risk from an analysis of German real-world claims data

Purpose

In osteoporosis, prior fracture is a strong predictor of subsequent fracture. This study aimed to assess the imminent risk of subsequent fracture following an initial fracture in osteoporosis patients in Germany, and to identify clinical and demographic characteristics that are independently associated with subsequent fracture risk.

Methods

In this retrospective, observational cohort study using German real-world claims data, male and female patients aged ≥ 50 years with osteoporosis who experienced an initial (“index”) hip/femur, vertebral, forearm/wrist/hand or shoulder/upper arm fracture between 2010 and 2014 were included. The incidence and timing of subsequent fractures during a 1-year follow-up period were analyzed. Independent risk factors for subsequent fracture were identified by multivariate regression analysis.

Results

A total of 18,354 patients (mean age: 77 years; standard deviation: 9.8) were included. Of these, 2918 (15.9%) suffered a subsequent fracture during the 1-year follow-up period. The incidence of subsequent fracture was higher following an index vertebral fracture (18.0%) than after an index forearm/wrist/hand fracture (14.1%) or index hip/femur fracture (12.1%). Subsequent 1-year fracture incidence was generally higher in older patients. Index fracture type, age, epilepsy/use of antiepileptics, and heart failure were all independently associated with subsequent fracture risk.

Conclusion

Osteoporosis patients in Germany are at imminent risk of subsequent fracture during the first year following an initial fracture. They should be targeted for immediate post-fracture treatment to reduce the risk of further fractures, especially in the presence of specific risk factors such as old age or index vertebral fracture.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-021-06123-6.

Comprehensive in vitro pro-arrhythmic assays demonstrate that omecamtiv mecarbil has low pro-arrhythmic risk

Omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) is a myosin activator (myotrope), developed as a potential therapeutic agent for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. To characterize the potential pro-arrhythmic risk of this novel sarcomere activator, we evaluated OM in a series of International Conference on Harmonization S7B core and follow-up assays, including an in silico action potential (AP) model. OM was tested in: (i) hERG, Nav1.5 peak, and Cav1.2 channel assays; (ii) in silico computation in a human ventricular AP (hVAP) population model; (iii) AP recordings in canine cardiac Purkinje fibers (PF); and (iv) electrocardiography analysis in isolated rabbit hearts (IRHs). OM had low potency in the hERG (half-maximal inhibitory concentration [IC50 ] = 125.5 µM) and Nav1.5 and Cav1.2 assays (IC50  > 300 µM). These potency values were used as inputs to investigate the occurrence of repolarization abnormalities (biomarkers of pro-arrhythmia) in an hVAP model over a wide range of OM concentrations. The outcome of hVAP analysis indicated low pro-arrhythmia risk at OM concentration up to 30 µM (100-fold the effective free therapeutic plasma concentration). In the isolated canine PF assay, OM shortened AP duration (APD)60 and APD90 significantly from 3 to 30 µM. In perfused IRH, ventricular repolarization (corrected QT and corrected JT intervals) was decreased significantly at greater than or equal to 1 µM OM. In summary, the comprehensive proarrhythmic assessment in human and non-rodent cardiac models provided data indicative that OM did not delay ventricular repolarization at therapeutic relevant concentrations, consistent with clinical findings.

Understanding the migraine treatment landscape prior to the introduction of calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors: Results from the Assessment of TolerabiliTy and Effectiveness in MigrAINe Patients using Preventive Treatment (ATTAIN) study

BACKGROUND

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors were introduced in the United States (US) in 2018. To understand the changing patterns of preventive treatment following the introduction of these new agents, we must first characterize the patterns which preceded their introduction.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the burden, unmet need, and treatment patterns in patients with migraine initiating preventive migraine medications before the introduction of CGRP inhibitors in the US.

METHODS

Between March 2016 and October 2017, we enrolled episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients initiating or changing preventive treatment at primary care or neurology clinic visits in the US, in a real-world observational study using a prospective cohort design. At baseline and monthly thereafter for 6 months, we collected data from study sites and patients on migraine frequency, treatment modifications, migraine impact on functioning, and work productivity for a descriptive analysis of migraine patient experience and treatment patterns.

RESULTS

From the sample of 234 completers, 118 had EM (50.4%) and 116 had CM (49.6%). Mean age at enrollment was 41 years (SD = 12) and mean age at first migraine diagnosis was 22 years (SD = 11). Most participants were females (n = 204/234; 87.2%) and white (n = 178/234; 76.1%). The majority (n = 164/234; 70.1%) had not used preventive migraine treatment in the 5 years prior to enrollment (treatment naïve). At baseline, mean monthly migraine days were 9.6 days (SD = 5.0) for the preventive treatment naïve group and 12.4 days (SD = 7.0) for treatment experienced patients. The majority had severe Migraine Disability Assessment (Grade IV, total score ≥21), including 67.1% (n = 110/164) of the preventive treatment naïve and 77.1% (n = 54/70) of the preventive treatment experienced patients. Headache Impact Test total scores indicating severe impairment (score >59) occurred in 88.4% (n = 145/164) of the treatment naïve and 88.6% (n = 62/70) of treatment experienced patients. Mean work productivity loss as measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire in the subsample of employed patients was 53.3% loss. The most used acute medications at baseline were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (n = 124/234; 53.0%), acetaminophen-based products (n = 112/234; 47.9%), and triptans (n = 105/234; 44.9%). The most commonly initiated preventive treatments were topiramate (n = 100/234; 42.7%), tricyclic antidepressants (n = 39/234; 16.7%), beta-blockers (n = 26/234; 11.1%), and onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 24/234; 10.3%). Over the 6-month follow-up period, almost half of patients (n = 116/234, 49.6%) modified their preventive treatment and discontinued treatment (n = 88/312 total modifications; 28.2%) or modified their pattern of use by increasing, decreasing, or skipping doses (n = 224/312 total modifications; 71.8%), often without seeking medical advice. Avoiding side effects was the main reason reported among patients who discontinued (n = 52/88; 59.1%), decreased frequency or dose (n = 37/89; 41.6%), and skipped doses (n = 29/86; 33.7%). Perceived lack of efficacy was another frequent reason reported among those who discontinued (n = 20/88; 22.7%), decreased frequency or dose (n = 15/89; 16.9%), and skipped doses (n = 18/86; 20.9%). Despite initiation of preventive treatment and improvements observed in number of headache and migraine days, migraine patients continued to experience substantial disability, headache impact, and reduced productivity throughout the 6-month follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to 2018, the burden of migraine was high for patients initiating preventive treatments. Despite having more than 9 days of migraine per month on average, the majority (70.1%) of patients initiating prevention had been treatment naïve, indicating underuse of preventive treatments. The preventive treatments used in this study were poorly tolerated and were reported by patients to lack efficacy, resulting in suboptimal adherence. The high discontinuation rates suggest that the preventive medications being offered during the period of the study did not meet the treatment needs of patients. In addition, the decisions by about half of patients to alter their prescribed treatment plan without consulting their provider can pose substantial health risks. These findings pertain to the broad set of preventive treatments initiated in this study and do not support inferences about individual preventive treatments, due to limitations in sample size. These findings suggest the need for more effective and better tolerated preventive treatment options.

Is a treat-to-target strategy in osteoporosis applicable in clinical practice? Consensus among a panel of European experts

A panel of European experts was convened to establish consensus on a treat-to-target strategy in osteoporosis. Panellists agreed that the ultimate goals of treating osteoporosis are recovering pre-fracture functional level and reducing subsequent fracture risk; there was consensus that total hip bone mineral density is currently the most appropriate treatment target in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION

A modified Delphi approach was convened to establish consensus among European experts on best practice management for patients with fragility fractures and whether a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy is applicable in osteoporosis.

METHODS

A panel of 12 clinical experts (from eight European countries) voted on 13 final statements relating to a T2T strategy for osteoporosis across three rounds of blinded, remotely conducted electronic surveys (Likert scale: 'strongly disagree', 'disagree', 'unable to answer', 'agree', 'strongly agree'). When panellists disagreed, they were asked how the statement could be adjusted to allow for a positive response, which was used to refine the statement for the following round. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement with a statement. Panellists were selected by UCB Pharma, which provided financial and logistical support.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for 13/13 statements. Panellists agreed that the most important goals for fragility fracture patients are recovery of pre-fracture functional level and reduction of subsequent fracture risk. There was also consensus that a T2T strategy is applicable to osteoporosis and that bone mineral density (BMD) is currently the most clinically appropriate target. With regard to the definition of a specific BMD treatment target and timeframes applicable to T2T in osteoporosis, no clear consensus was reached; panellists emphasised that these would need to be individually determined.

CONCLUSIONS

According to a panel of European experts, the main goals of fracture management are to recover pre-fracture functional level and reduce fracture risk. Total hip BMD seems to be the most clinically appropriate treatment target within a T2T strategy.

A single dose of zoledronate preserves bone mineral density for up to 2 years after a second course of romosozumab

This phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of transitioning to zoledronate following romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. A single dose of 5 mg zoledronate generally maintained the robust BMD gains accrued with romosozumab treatment and was well tolerated.

INTRODUCTION

Follow-on therapy with an antiresorptive agent is necessary to maintain the skeletal benefits of romosozumab therapy. We evaluated the use of zoledronate following romosozumab treatment.

METHODS

This phase 2, dose-finding study enrolled postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD). Subjects who received various romosozumab doses or placebo from months 0-24 were rerandomized to denosumab (60 mg SC Q6M) or placebo for 12 months, followed by open-label romosozumab (210 mg QM) for 12 months. At month 48, subjects who had received active treatment for 48 months were assigned to no further active treatment and all other subjects were assigned to zoledronate 5 mg IV. Efficacy (BMD, P1NP, and β-CTX) and safety were evaluated for 24 months, up to month 72.

RESULTS

A total of 141 subjects entered the month 48-72 period, with 51 in the no further active treatment group and 90 in the zoledronate group. In subjects receiving no further active treatment, lumbar spine (LS) BMD decreased by 10.8% from months 48-72 but remained 4.2% above the original baseline. In subjects receiving zoledronate, LS BMD was maintained (percentage changes: - 0.8% from months 48-72; 12.8% from months 0-72). Similar patterns were observed for proximal femur BMD in both groups. With no further active treatment, P1NP and β-CTX decreased but remained above baseline at month 72. Following zoledronate, P1NP and β-CTX levels initially decreased but approached baseline by month 72. No new safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSION

A zoledronate follow-on regimen can maintain robust BMD gains achieved with romosozumab treatment.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with metastatic cancer not receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in US clinical practice

Objectives

To evaluate the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis in US patients with selected metastatic cancers and chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence and associated outcomes among the subgroup who did not receive prophylaxis.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at four US health systems and included adults with metastatic cancer (breast, colorectal, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma [NHL]) who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy (2009–2017). Patients were stratified by FN risk level based on risk factors and chemotherapy (low/unclassified risk, intermediate risk without any risk factors, intermediate risk with ≥ 1 risk factor [IR + 1], high risk [HR]). G-CSF use was evaluated among all patients stratified by FN risk, and FN/FN-related outcomes were evaluated among patients who did not receive first-cycle G-CSF prophylaxis.

Results

Among 1457 metastatic cancer patients, 20.5% and 28.1% were classified as HR and IR + 1, respectively. First-cycle G-CSF prophylaxis use was 48.5% among HR patients and 13.9% among IR + 1 patients. In the subgroup not receiving first-cycle G-CSF prophylaxis, FN incidence in cycle 1 was 7.8% for HR patients and 4.8% for IR + 1 patients; during the course, corresponding values were 16.9% and 15.9%. Most (> 90%) FN episodes required hospitalization, and mortality risk ranged from 7.1 to 26.9% across subgroups.

Conclusion

In this retrospective study, the majority of metastatic cancer chemotherapy patients for whom G-CSF prophylaxis is recommended did not receive it; FN incidence in this subgroup was notably high. Patients with elevated FN risk should be carefully identified and managed to ensure appropriate use of supportive care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-020-05715-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment rates in high-risk patients with cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus in Korea: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Real-world evidence of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment rates for Asian patients is deficient. The objective of this study was to assess the status of dyslipidemia management, especially in high-risk patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) including stroke and acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 514,866 subjects from the National Health Insurance Service-National Health Screening Cohort database in Korea. Participants were followed up from 2002 to 2015. Subjects with a high-risk of CVD prior to LDL-C measurement and subjects who were newly-diagnosed for high-risk of CVD following LDL-C measurement were defined as known high-risk patients (n = 224,837) and newly defined high-risk patients (n = 127,559), respectively. Data were analyzed by disease status: stroke, ACS, coronary heart disease (CHD), peripheral artery disease (PAD), diabetes mellitus (DM) and atherosclerotic artery disease (AAD).

RESULTS

Overall, less than 50% of patients in each disease category achieved LDL-C goals (LDL-C < 70 mg/dL in patients with stroke, ACS, CHD and PAD; and LDL-C < 100 mg/dL in patients with DM and AAD). Statin use was observed in relatively low proportions of subjects (21.5% [known high-risk], 34.4% [newly defined high-risk]). LDL-C goal attainment from 2009 to 2015 steadily increased but the goal-achiever proportion of newly defined high-risk patients with ACS remained reasonably constant (38.7% in 2009; 38.1% in 2015).

CONCLUSIONS

LDL-C goal attainment rates in high-risk patients with CVD and DM in Korea demonstrate unmet medical needs. Proactive management is necessary to bridge the gap between the recommendations of clinical guidelines and actual clinical practice.

Appropriateness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in patients receiving chemotherapy by febrile neutropenia risk level

OBJECTIVE

Inappropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with myelosuppressive chemotherapy has been reported. Using the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records electronic medical record database, prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pegfilgrastim/filgrastim) use in cancer patients was assessed by febrile neutropenia risk level.

METHODS

Patients with nonmetastatic or metastatic breast, head/neck, colorectal, ovarian/gynecologic, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy from June 2013 to May 2014 were included. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk chemotherapy and distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk factors with intermediate-risk regimens were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 86,189 patients received ∼4.2 million chemotherapy cycles (high risk, 9%; intermediate risk, 48%; low risk, 43%). Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 24% of cycles (high risk, 59%; intermediate risk, 29%; low risk, 11%). For nonmetastatic solid tumors, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 78% (high risk), 31% (intermediate risk), and 6% (low risk) of cycles. For metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 50% (high risk), 27% (intermediate risk), and 11% (low risk) of cycles. Among patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, febrile neutropenia risk factors were identified in 56% (95% confidence interval, 51.1-60.9%) of patients with nonmetastatic solid tumors (n = 400) and in 70% (64.5-73.5%) of patients with metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 400).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use was appropriately highest for high-risk regimens and lowest for low-risk regimens yet still potentially underused in high risk regimens, overused in low-risk regimens, and not appropriately targeted in intermediate-risk regimens, indicating a need for further education on febrile neutropenia risk evaluation and appropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use.

Efficacy and safety of evolocumab in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: primary results of the randomised controlled BANTING study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The study aimed to examine the efficacy of 12 weeks of monthly evolocumab or placebo in lowering LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) in individuals with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia and on a maximum-tolerated statin of at least moderate intensity.

METHODS

For this randomised, placebo-controlled outpatient study, eligible individuals were ≥18 years old with type 2 diabetes, HbA_1c <10% (86 mmol/mol), had been on stable pharmacological therapy for diabetes for ≥6 months and were taking a maximum-tolerated statin dose of at least moderate intensity. Lipid eligibility criteria varied by history of clinical cardiovascular disease. Participants were randomised 2:1 to evolocumab 420 mg s.c. or placebo. Randomisation was performed centrally via an interactive web-based or voice recognition system. Allocation was concealed using the centralised randomisation process. Treatment assignment was blinded to the sponsor study team, investigators, site staff and patients throughout the study. Co-primary endpoints were mean percentage change in LDL-C from baseline to week 12 and to the mean of weeks 10 and 12. Additional endpoints included LDL-C <1.81 mmol/l, LDL-C reduction ≥50% and other lipids. Exploratory analyses included percentage changes in fasting and post mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) lipoproteins and lipids, glucose metabolism variables and inflammatory biomarkers.

RESULTS

In total, 421 individuals were randomised and analysed, having received evolocumab (280 participants) or placebo (141 participants) (mean [SD] age 62 [8] years; 44% women; 77% white). Evolocumab decreased LDL-C by 54.3% (1.4%) at week 12 (vs 1.1% [1.9%] decrease with placebo; p < 0.0001) and by 65.0% (1.3%) at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 (vs 0.8% [1.8%] decrease with placebo; p < 0.0001); it also decreased non-HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) by 46.9% (1.3%) at week 12 (vs 0.6% [1.8%] decrease with placebo) and by 56.6% (1.2%) at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 (vs 0.1% [1.6%] decrease with placebo). Evolocumab significantly improved levels of other lipids and allowed more participants to reach LDL-C <1.81 mmol/l or a reduction in LDL-C levels ≥50%. After an MMTT (120 min), there were favourable changes (p < 0.05; nominal, post hoc, no multiplicity adjustment) in chylomicron triacylglycerol (triglycerides), chylomicron cholesterol, VLDL-C and LDL-C. Evolocumab had no effect on glycaemic variables and was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

In statin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia, evolocumab significantly reduced LDL-C and non-HDL-C. Favourable changes (p < 0.05) were observed in postprandial levels of chylomicrons, VLDL-C and LDL-C.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02739984 FUNDING: This study was funded by Amgen Inc.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Qualified researchers may request data from Amgen clinical studies. Complete details are available at www.amgen.com/datasharing .

An integrated analysis of safety and tolerability of etelcalcetide in patients receiving hemodialysis with secondary hyperparathyroidism

Background

Calcimimetics have been shown to be effective and safe therapies for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT), a serious complication of disordered mineral metabolism associated with dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease. Etelcalcetide, a recently approved intravenous calcimimetic, reduces serum parathyroid hormone (PTH), calcium, phosphorus, and fibroblast growth factor-23 concentrations. Here we report the first integrated safety profile of etelcalcetide using pooled data from five pivotal clinical trials.

Methods

This analysis included data from patients receiving hemodialysis with moderate to severe sHPT enrolled in two randomized, placebo-controlled trials; a randomized active-controlled (with cinacalcet) trial; and two single-arm, open-label extension trials. Patients initially received etelcalcetide intravenously 5 mg three times weekly (TIW) after hemodialysis; with potential dose increases of 2.5 or 5 mg at 4-week intervals to a maximum dose of 15 mg TIW, depending on serum PTH and calcium levels. The nature, frequency, and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and changes in laboratory parameters were assessed.

Results

Overall, we evaluated 1023 patients from the placebo-controlled trials, 683 from the active-controlled trial, and 1299 from open-label extensions. The frequency and nature of common treatment-emergent AEs reported for the etelcalcetide arm were consistent among the placebo-controlled and active-controlled trials. The most common AEs were those related to mineral metabolism (decreased blood calcium, hypophosphatemia, muscle spasms) or gastrointestinal abnormalities (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting). Hypocalcemia leading to discontinuation of either calcimimetic was experienced in ≤ 1% of patients.

Conclusions

This integrated safety assessment of etelcalcetide across placebo- and active-controlled trials showed an overall favorable risk/benefit profile, with safety similar to that of cinacalcet. Consistent with its mechanism of action, the most important risks associated with etelcalcetide were serum calcium reductions and hypocalcemia-related AEs; no new safety findings were identified in the pooled long-term extension trials.

Neurologic adverse events in patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with blinatumomab: management and mitigating factors

Neurologic events (NEs) have been reported during treatment with blinatumomab, a bispecific T cell engager (BiTE®) construct. We evaluated the occurrence, severity, and management of NEs; the relationship between NEs and blinatumomab dose; and the potential clinical risk factors in an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study (N = 189). Patients had Philadelphia chromosome–negative, relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and ≥ 10% bone marrow blasts. The relationship between blinatumomab exposure and NE incidence and severity was assessed. Clinical risk factors for NEs were assessed in a post hoc multivariate analysis. Overall, 98 patients (52%) experienced NEs: most frequently, dizziness, tremor, confusional state, and encephalopathy. NEs occurred predominantly during cycle 1 (median onset, 9 days) and were usually grades 1 or 2. Grade ≥ 3 NEs (13–17% incidence), serious NEs (16–19% incidence), and recurring NEs were managed with infusion interruptions or dexamethasone treatment. The incidence of NEs increased with increasing blinatumomab exposure at a given dose, but exposure appeared unrelated to NE severity. NEs were more frequent in patients ≥ 65 years than < 65 years (72 vs 49%). In a multivariate analysis, race other than white (hazard ratio [HR], 2.11; P = 0.009), > 2 prior salvage therapies (HR, 2.48; P = 0.006), and prior NEs (HR, 1.65; P = 0.020) were risk factors for time to first on-study NE. Although the mechanism underlying NEs associated with blinatumomab treatment in patients with relapsed/refractory ALL remains unclear, NEs tended to occur early during treatment and were often resolved by interrupting treatment and with dexamethasone. Additional research is warranted to investigate the risk factors for NEs.

Patterns of bisphosphonate treatment among patients with multiple myeloma treated at oncology clinics across the USA: observations from real-world data

PURPOSE

Current guidelines recommend that intravenous bisphosphonates be initiated in all patients with multiple myeloma for management of bone disease. The objective of this study was to describe real-world bisphosphonate treatment patterns.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study using oncology electronic health record (EHR) data contained in Amgen's Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records (OSCER) database, generated by Flatiron Health (New York, NY), representing over 1.5 million US oncology patients. Patients were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma between January 1, 2009 and April 30, 2016. Timing of bisphosphonate administration, frequency, schedule, changes in dosing schedule, and discontinuations were calculated. Bisphosphonate treatment relative to renal function and anti-multiple myeloma therapy regimens were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 11,112 patients were enrolled in the study with a median follow-up of 687 days. Sixty-three percent received ≥ 1 bisphosphonate administration, primarily every 4 weeks (67.7%). Mean time from diagnosis to bisphosphonate administration was 106 days (median, 29). Most patients (58.2%) initiated treatment in first year after diagnosis and about half (51.9%) either discontinued or changed dosing. Patients with poorer renal function by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) stage at baseline were less likely to receive bisphosphonates (eGFR stage 5 vs 1: 24 vs 72%) and more likely to have delayed initiation of bisphosphonate treatment from diagnosis (eGFR stage 5 vs 1: median 70 vs 25 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data from US oncology practices indicate that many patients with multiple myeloma may not receive optimal therapy for bone disease, particularly those with renal impairment.

Safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of AMG 811, an anti-interferon-γ monoclonal antibody, in SLE subjects without or with lupus nephritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anti-interferon (IFN)-γ monoclonal antibody AMG 811 in subjects with SLE without or with lupus nephritis (LN).

METHODS

In this phase Ib, randomised, multiple-dose escalation study (NCT00818948), subjects without LN were randomised to subcutaneous AMG 811 (6, 20 or 60 mg) or placebo and subjects with LN were randomised to subcutaneous AMG 811 (20, 60 or 120 mg) or placebo every four weeks for three total doses. Outcomes included incidence of adverse events (AEs); pharmacokinetics; levels of serum proteins (CXCL-10, interleukin 18, monocyte chemotactic protein-1); changes in gene transcript profiles and clinical parameters (Safety of Estrogen in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment-Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI) scores, proteinuria, anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies, C3 complement, C4 complement).

RESULTS

Fifty-six subjects enrolled (28 SLE without LN; 28 with LN). Baseline mean SELENA-SLEDAI scores were 2.2 and 12.0 for SLE subjects without and with LN, respectively. Most subjects reported an AE; no meaningful imbalances were observed between AMG 811 and placebo. Pharmacokinetic profiles were similar and mostly dose-proportional in subjects without or with LN. AMG 811 treatment reduced CXCL-10 protein levels and blood-based RNA IFN-γ Blockade Signature compared with placebo. Reductions were less pronounced and not sustained in subjects with LN, even at the highest dose tested, compared with subjects without LN. No effect on SELENA-SLEDAI scores, proteinuria, C3 or C4 complement levels, or anti-dsDNA antibodies was observed.

CONCLUSION

AMG 811 demonstrated favourable pharmacokinetics and acceptable safety profile but no evidence of clinical impact. IFN-γ-associated biomarkers decreased with AMG 811; effects were less pronounced and not sustained in LN subjects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00818948; results.

A phase I, randomized, single-dose study evaluating the pharmacokinetic equivalence of biosimilar ABP 215 and bevacizumab in healthy adult men

PURPOSE

This study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of the proposed biosimilar ABP 215 with bevacizumab in healthy males.

METHODS

In this randomized, single-blind, single-dose, three-arm, parallel-group study, healthy subjects were randomized to receive ABP 215 (n = 68), bevacizumab (US) (n = 67), or bevacizumab (EU) (n = 67) 3 mg/kg intravenously. Primary endpoints were area under the serum concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC_inf) and the maximum observed concentration (C _max). Secondary endpoints included safety and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

AUC_inf and C _max were similar across the three groups. Geometric means ratio (GMR) for C _max and AUC_inf, respectively, was 0.98 and 0.99 for ABP 215 versus bevacizumab (US); 1.03 and 0.96 for ABP 215 versus bevacizumab (EU); and 1.05 and 0.97 for bevacizumab (US) versus bevacizumab (EU). The 90% confidence intervals for the GMRs of AUC_inf and C _max were within the prespecified standard PK bioequivalence criteria of 0.80 to 1.25. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 47.1, 32.8, and 61.2% in the ABP 215, bevacizumab (US) and bevacizumab (EU) groups, respectively. When analyzed by investigational site, the incidence and severity of AEs were comparable in the ABP 215 and bevacizumab groups. There were no AEs leading to study discontinuation. No binding or neutralizing anti-drug anti-bodies was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the PK similarity of ABP 215 to both bevacizumab (US) and bevacizumab (EU), and of bevacizumab (US) to bevacizumab (EU). Safety and tolerability were comparable between treatments and no subject developed binding or neutralizing anti-drug anti-bodies.

Efficacy and Safety of the PCSK9 Inhibitor Evolocumab in Patients with Mixed Hyperlipidemia

PURPOSE

Evolocumab significantly reduces low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C); we investigated its effects on LDL-C lowering in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

METHODS

We compared the efficacy and safety of evolocumab in hypercholesterolemic patients selected from the phase 2 and 3 trials who had fasting triglyceride levels ≥1.7 mmol/L (150 mg/dL elevated triglycerides) and <1.7 mmol/L (without elevated triglycerides). Fasting triglyceride level ≥ 4.5 mmol/L at screening was an exclusion criterion for these studies, but post-enrollment triglyceride levels may have exceeded 4.5 mmol/L (400 mg/dL). Efficacy was evaluated in four phase 3 randomized studies (n = 1148) and safety from the phase 2 and 3 studies (n = 2246) and their open-label extension studies (n = 1698). Efficacy analyses were based on 12-week studies, while safety analyses included data from all available studies. Treatment differences were calculated vs. placebo and ezetimibe after pooling dose frequencies.

RESULTS

Mean treatment difference in percentage change from baseline in LDL-C for participants with elevated triglycerides and those without elevated triglycerides (mean of weeks 10 and 12) with evolocumab was approximately -67 % vs. placebo and -42 % vs. ezetimibe (all P < 0.001) compared to −65 % vs. placebo and −39 % vs. ezetimibe, [corrected] respectively. Treatment differences for evolocumab vs. placebo and ezetimibe followed a similar pattern for non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B. Evolocumab was well tolerated, with balanced rates of adverse events leading to discontinuation of evolocumab vs. comparator (placebo and/or ezetimibe).

CONCLUSION

The significant reductions of atherogenic lipids including LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B seen with evolocumab are similar in patients with and without mixed hyperlipidemia.

Incorporating development of a patient-reported outcome instrument in a clinical drug development program: examples from a heart failure program

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can be used to support label claims if they adhere to US Food & Drug Administration guidance. The process of developing a new PRO measure is expensive and time-consuming. We report the results of qualitative studies to develop new PRO measures for use in clinical trials of omecamtiv mecarbil (a selective, small molecule activator of cardiac myosin) for patients with heart failure (HF), as well as the lessons learned from the development process.

METHODS

Concept elicitation focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with patients with HF to identify concepts for the instrument. Cognitive interviews with HF patients were used to confirm that no essential concepts were missing and to assess patient comprehension of the instrument and items.

RESULTS

During concept elicitation, the most frequently reported HF symptoms were shortness of breath, tiredness, fluid retention, fatigue, dizziness/light-headedness, swelling, weight fluctuation, and trouble sleeping. Two measures were developed based on the concepts: the Heart Failure Symptom Diary (HF-SD) and the Heart Failure Impact Scale (HFIS). Findings from cognitive interviews suggested that the items in the HF-SD and HFIS were relevant and well understood by patients. Multiple iterations of concept elicitation and cognitive interviews were needed based on FDA request for a broader patient population in the qualitative study. Lessons learned from the omecamtiv mecarbil PRO/clinical development program are discussed, including challenges of qualitative studies, patient recruitment, expected and actual timelines, cost, and engagement with various stakeholders.

CONCLUSION

Development of a new PRO measure to support a label claim requires significant investment and early planning, as demonstrated by the omecamtiv mecarbil program.

Clinical Outcomes and Biologic Costs of Switching Between Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in US Veterans with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and drug/administration costs of treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) agents in US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating TNFi therapy. The analysis compared patients initiating and continuing a single TNFi with patients who subsequently switched to a different TNFi.

Methods

Data from patients enrolled in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) registry who initiated treatment with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab from 2003 to 2010 were analyzed. Outcomes included duration of therapy, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28), and direct drug and drug administration costs.

Results

Of 563 eligible patients, 262 initiated a single TNFi therapy, 142 restarted their initial TNFi after a ≥90-day gap in treatment (interrupted therapy), and 159 switched to a different TNFi. Patients who switched had higher mean DAS28 before starting TNFi therapy than patients with single or interrupted therapy: 5.3 vs 4.5 or 4.6, respectively. Mean duration of the first course was 34.3 months for single therapy, 18.3 months for interrupted therapy, and 17.7 months for switched therapy. Mean post-treatment DAS28 was highest for patients who switched TNFi. Mean annualized costs for first course were $13,800 for single therapy, $13,200 for interrupted therapy, and $14,200 for switched therapy; mean annualized costs for second course were $12,800 for interrupted therapy and $15,100 for switched therapy.

Conclusion

Patients who switched TNFi had higher pre-treatment DAS28 and higher overall costs than patients who received the same TNFi as either single or interrupted therapy.

Funding

This research was funded by Immunex Corp., a fully owned subsidiary of Amgen Inc., and by VA HSR&D Grant SHP 08-172.

Demonstration of Functional Similarity of Proposed Biosimilar ABP 501 to Adalimumab

BACKGROUND

Due to the complex molecular structure and proprietary manufacturing processes of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), differences in structure and function may be expected during development of biosimilar mAbs. Important regulatory requirements for approval of biosimilar products involve comprehensive assessments of any potential differences between proposed biosimilars and reference mAbs, including differences in all known mechanisms of action, using sensitive and relevant methods. Any identified structural differences should not result in differences in biofunctional or clinical activity.

OBJECTIVE

A comprehensive assessment comparing the Amgen biosimilar candidate ABP 501 with FDA-licensed adalimumab (adalimumab [US]) and EU-authorized adalimumab (adalimumab [EU]) was conducted to demonstrate similarity in biofunctional activity.

METHODS

The functional similarity assessment included testing of binding kinetics to soluble tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) and relative binding to transmembrane TNFα. The neutralization of TNFα-induced caspase activation, TNFα- and lymphotoxin-α (LTα)-induced chemokine production, and cytotoxicity was also tested. Binding to Fc-gamma receptors FcγRIa, FcγRIIa (131H), FcγRIIIa (158V and 158F), and neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) was compared with the reference mAbs, as was antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity and complement-dependent cytotoxicity.

RESULTS

The data demonstrate that ABP 501 is similar to both adalimumab (US) and adalimumab (EU) with respect to evaluated biofunctional activities.

CONCLUSION

Similarity in biofunctional activity is a critical component of the totality of evidence required for demonstration of biosimilarity. The functional similarity demonstrated for ABP 501 comprehensively assesses the known mechanisms of action of adalimumab, supporting the conclusion that ABP 501, adalimumab (US), and adalimumab (EU) are likely to be clinically similar.