Pharmacokinetic analysis of vilobelimab, anaphylatoxin C5a and antidrug antibodies in PANAMO: a phase 3 study in critically ill, invasively mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Vilobelimab, a complement 5a (C5a)-specific monoclonal antibody, reduced mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients in a phase 3 multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. As part of the study, vilobelimab concentrations and C5a levels as well as antidrug antibodies (ADAs) to vilobelimab were analysed.

RESULTS

From Oct 1, 2020 to Oct 4, 2021, 368 invasively mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients were randomized: 177 patients were randomly assigned to receive vilobelimab while 191 patients received placebo. Pharmacokinetic sampling was only performed at sites in Western Europe. Blood samples for vilobelimab measurements were available for 93 of 177 (53%) patients in the vilobelimab group and 99 of 191 (52%) patients in the placebo group. On day 8, after three infusions, mean vilobelimab (trough) concentrations ranged from 21,799.3 to 302,972.1 ng/mL (geometric mean 137,881.3 ng/mL). Blood samples for C5a measurements were available for 94 of 177 (53%) patients in the vilobelimab group and 99 of 191 (52%) patients in the placebo group. At screening, C5a levels were highly elevated and comparable between groups. In the vilobelimab group, median C5a levels were 118.3 ng/mL [IQR 71.2-168.2 ng/mL] and in the placebo group, median C5a levels were 104.6 ng/mL [IQR 77.5-156.6 ng/mL]. By day 8, median C5a levels were reduced by 87% in the vilobelimab group (median 14.5 ng/mL [IQR 9.5-21.0 ng/mL], p < 0.001) versus an 11% increase in the placebo group (median 119.2 ng/mL [IQR 85.9-152.1 ng/mL]). Beyond day 8, though plasma sampling was sparse, C5a levels did not reach screening levels in the vilobelimab group while C5a levels remained elevated in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent ADAs were observed in one patient in the vilobelimab group at hospital discharge on day 40 and in one patient in the placebo group at hospital discharge on day 25.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis shows that vilobelimab efficiently inhibits C5a in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There was no evidence of immunogenicity associated with vilobelimab treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04333420. Registered 3 April 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04333420.

LB1529. Randomized, Controlled Phase 3 Study of anti-C5a Vilobelimab's Effect on Mortality in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Therapy for Viral Pneumonia

Background

SARS-CoV-2 induces endothelial damage and activates the complement system. In severe COVID-19 patients, complement split factor C5a is highly elevated leading to inflammation that contributes to multiorgan failure. The anti-C5a monoclonal antibody, Vilobelimab (Vilo), which preserves the membrane attack complex (MAC), was investigated in an adaptively designed, randomized double-blind, placebo (P)-controlled Phase 3 international multicenter study for survival in critically ill COVID-19 patients (pts).

Methods

COVID-19 pneumonia pts (N=368; Vilo n=177, P n=191), mechanically ventilated within 48 hrs before treatment, received up to 6, 800 mg infusions of Vilo or P on top of standard of care. The primary and main secondary endpoints were 28-day (d) and 60-d all-cause mortality.

Results

Pts enrolled in the study were on corticosteroids (97%) and anti-coagulants (98%) as standard of care. A smaller proportion (20%) were either continuing or had taken immunomodulators such as tocilizumab and baricitinib prior to receiving Vilo. The 28-d all-cause mortality was 31.7% with Vilo vs 41.6% with P (Kaplan-Meier estimates; Cox regression site-stratified, HR 0.73; 95% CI:0.50-1.06; P=0.094), representing a 23.8% relative mortality reduction. In predefined primary outcome analysis without site stratification, however, Vilo significantly reduced mortality at 28 (HR 0.67; 95% CI:0.48-0.96; P=0.027) and 60 days (HR 0.67; 95% CI:0.48-0.92; P=0.016). Vilo also significantly reduced 28-d mortality in more severe pts with baseline WHO ordinal scale score of 7 (n=237, HR 0.62; 95% CI:0.40-0.95; P=0.028), severe ARDS/PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 100 mmHg (n=98, HR 0.55; 95% CI:0.30-0.98; P=0.044) and eGFR &lt; 60 mL/min/1.73m2 (n=108, HR 0.55; 95% CI:0.31-0.96; P=0.036). Treatment-emergent AEs were 90.9% Vilo vs 91.0% P. Infections were comparable: Vilo 62.9%, P 59.3%. Infection incidence per 100 Pt days were equal. No meningococcal infections were reported. Serious AEs were 58.9% Vilo, 63.5% P.

Conclusion

Vilo significantly reduced mortality at 28 and 60 days in critically ill COVID-19 pts with no increase in infections suggesting the importance of targeting C5a while preserving MAC. Vilo targets inflammation which may represent an approach to treat sepsis and ARDS caused by other respiratory viruses.

Disclosures

Alexander Vlaar, MD, PhD, InflaRx GmbH: Advisor/Consultant Maria Habel, PhD, InflaRx GmbH: Stocks/Bonds Claus Thielert, PhD, InflaRx GmbH: Stocks/Bonds James Dickinson, MSc, InflaRx GmbH: Stocks/Bonds simon Rückinger, PhD, InflaRx GmbH: Advisor/Consultant Robert Zerbib, MSc, InflaRx GmbH: Stocks/Bonds Dorothee Neukirchen, PhD, InflaRx GmbH: Stocks/Bonds Korinna Pilz, MD, MSc, InflaRx GmbH: Ownership Interest|InflaRx GmbH: Stocks/Bonds Renfeng Guo, MD, InflaRx GmbH: Board Member|InflaRx GmbH: CSO|InflaRx GmbH: Ownership Interest|InflaRx GmbH: Stocks/Bonds Diederik van de Beek, MD, PhD, InflaRx GmbH: Advisor/Consultant Niels Riedemann, MD, PhD, InflaRx GmbH: Board Member|InflaRx GmbH: CEO|InflaRx GmbH: Ownership Interest|InflaRx GmbH: Stocks/Bonds.

Anti-C5a antibody (vilobelimab) therapy for critically ill, invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PANAMO): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Vilobelimab, an anti-C5a monoclonal antibody, was shown to be safe in a phase 2 trial of invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Here, we aimed to determine whether vilobelimab in addition to standard of care improves survival outcomes in this patient population.

METHODS

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial was performed at 46 hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Russia, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years or older who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, but not more than 48 h after intubation at time of first infusion, had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 60-200 mm Hg, and a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with any variant in the past 14 days were eligible for this study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard of care and vilobelimab at a dose of 800 mg intravenously for a maximum of six doses (days 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 22) or standard of care and a matching placebo using permuted block randomisation. Treatment was not continued after hospital discharge. Participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality at 28 days in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly assigned participants regardless of whether a patient started treatment, excluding patients randomly assigned in error) and measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Safety analyses included all patients who had received at least one infusion of either vilobelimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04333420.

FINDINGS

From Oct 1, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, we included 368 patients in the ITT analysis (full analysis set; 177 in the vilobelimab group and 191 in the placebo group). One patient in the vilobelimab group was excluded from the primary analysis due to random assignment in error without treatment. At least one dose of study treatment was given to 364 (99%) patients (safety analysis set). 54 patients (31%) of 177 in the vilobelimab group and 77 patients (40%) of 191 in the placebo group died in the first 28 days. The all-cause mortality rate at 28 days was 32% (95% CI 25-39) in the vilobelimab group and 42% (35-49) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·50-1·06; p=0·094). In the predefined analysis without site-stratification, vilobelimab significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·96; p=0·027). The most common TEAEs were acute kidney injury (35 [20%] of 175 in the vilobelimab group vs 40 [21%] of 189 in the placebo), pneumonia (38 [22%] vs 26 [14%]), and septic shock (24 [14%] vs 31 [16%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 103 (59%) of 175 patients in the vilobelimab group versus 120 (63%) of 189 in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

In addition to standard of care, vilobelimab improves survival of invasive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and leads to a significant decrease in mortality. Vilobelimab could be considered as an additional therapy for patients in this setting and further research is needed on the role of vilobelimab and C5a in other acute respiratory distress syndrome-causing viral infections.

FUNDING

InflaRx and the German Federal Government.

A randomized, double-blind, four-arm parallel-group, placebo-controlled Phase II/III study to investigate the clinical efficacy of two galenic formulations of Polyphenon E in the treatment of external genital warts

OBJECTIVE

Clinical efficacy and safety of Polyphenon(R) E, a defined green tea extract, in external genital warts.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study for up to 12 weeks with a 12-week treatment-free follow-up.

SETTING

Twenty-eight hospitals and practices in Germany and Russia.

PATIENTS

Two hundred forty-two outpatients (125 men, 117 women) with 2 to 30 warts (total wart area, 12-600 mm(2)). Intervention(s) Topical application of Polyphenon E 10% Cream, Polyphenon E 15% Ointment or placebo to all external genital warts three times a day.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Measurement of total wart area and local reactions/adverse events.

RESULTS

For 15% ointment, statistically significant differences to placebo were achieved regarding complete clearance of all baseline external genital warts (61.0% vs. 40.5% in males, 56.8% vs. 34.1% in females; combined gender: P = 0.0066) and 75% to 100% clearance (80.8% vs. 51.8%; P = 0.0001) in both the intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations. For 10% cream, 53.8% males and 39.5% females achieved complete clearance. Recurrence rates 12 weeks after end of treatment were 10.6%, 11.8% and 10.3% for 15% ointment, 10% cream and placebo, respectively. Adverse events were observed in only 7.9% of patients, with no serious adverse events or deaths reported. Local skin reactions were generally mild to moderate and resolved with continued treatment without sequelae.

CONCLUSIONS

Polyphenon(R) E 15% ointment, composed of a defined green tea extract, proved to be efficacious and safe for both gender in the treatment of external genital warts.

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of CCI-779, a novel cytostatic cell-cycle inhibitor, in combination with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with advanced solid tumors

BACKGROUND

CCI-779 is a novel ester of the immunosuppressive agent sirolimus that exerts cytostatic effects by the inhibition of the translation of cell-cycle regulatory proteins. We investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of CCI-779 in combination with leucovorin (LV) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were treated with LV at 200 mg/m(2) as a 1-h i.v. infusion directly followed by continuous 24-h i.v. infusion of 5-FU, in the first patient at 2000 mg/m(2) and in subsequent patients at 2600 mg/m(2). CCI-779 was administered directly prior to LV as a 30-min i.v. infusion at a starting dose of 15 mg/m(2) beginning at day 8 and escalated in subsequent cohorts of patients. One cycle consisted of six weekly administrations followed by 1 week of rest. Blood samples were drawn to assess PK of CCI-779 as well as its effect on steady-state 5-FU exposures.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients entered the study, the majority having tumor types for which 5-FU is used as a treatment. CCI-779 doses of 15, 25, 45 and 75 mg/m(2) were investigated. Skin toxicity (rash) was prominent at all dose levels examined. Stomatitis was the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) for 75 mg/m(2) doses of CCI-779. Subsequently the cohort at 45 mg/m(2) was expanded to a total of 15 patients, and at this dose level two treatment-related deaths occurred due to mucositis with bowel perforation. Based on the toxicities observed, it was decided to discontinue the study. Partial responses were observed in three patients with gastrointestinal tumors. No pharmacokinetic interaction between CCI-779 and 5-FU was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety profiles of CCI-779 and 5-FU/LV suggest an overlap of drug-related toxicities, and the administration of these drugs at these doses and schedule resulted in unacceptable toxicity and therefore cannot be recommended. If CCI-779 is to be used in combination with 5-FU/LV, other doses or schedules of administration will need to be explored.