Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘monoclonal antibody drugs’

Success in Psoriasis Treatment

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

 

Anti-IL17A Tx Clears Most Cases of Psoriasis

Durable long-term responses with ixekizumab, secukinumab

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAD/56597?xid=nl_mpt_guptaguide_2016-03-07

  • Note that these studies were published as abstracts and presented at a conference.
  • These data and conclusions should be considered to be preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.
  • More than half of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis remained clear of lesions after a year of treatment with the interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekizumab.
  • Note that in another study, comparing two monoclonal antibodies for secukinumab (Cosentyx) or ustekinumab (Stelara) in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. showed sustained superiority for secukinumab (Cosentyx) over ustekinumab (Stelara).

More than half of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis remained clear of lesions after a year of treatment with the interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekzumab, according to data reported here.

The 60-week follow-up data showed that 54% of patients treated with either of two doses of ixekizumab had 100% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 100). More than 70% achieved PASI 90, and more than 80% met criteria for PASI 75 response.

In general, the monoclonal antibody demonstrated good tolerability, associated with a discontinuation rate of about 5%, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, of Oregon Medical Research Center in Portland, reported at the American Academy of Dermatology meeting.

“Izekizumab treatment led to high clinical response rates and sustained efficacy in a majority of patients,” Blauvelt said. “More than half of ixekizumab-treated patients achieved complete resolution of psoriatic plaques at week 60. The safety profile for ixekizumab was similar to what was observed during the 12-week induction period.”

Ixekizumab is a specific inhibitor of the IL-17A receptor. The antibody was compared against placebo and etanercept (Enbrel) in two phase III trials that evaluated two ixekizumab dosing schedules (administration every 2 or 4 weeks). More than 1,200 patients were randomized 1:2:2:2 to placebo, etanercept (Enbrel) or one of the ixekizumab schedules.

As previously reported, the antibody demonstrated superior efficacy after a 12-week induction period. PASI 75 response rates were 7.3% with placebo, 53.4% with etanercept, and 84.2% and 87.3% with the two ixekizumab regimens. PASI 90 rates were 3.1%, 25.7%, 65.3%, and 68.1%. PASI 100 responses were attained by 0%, 73%, 35%, and 37.7%.

Upon completion of the induction phase, all patients transitioned to open-label ixekizumab, administered every 4 weeks. Blauvelt reported findings for patients who received only ixekizumab for the entire 60-week follow-up period.

The data showed that response rates attained at 12 weeks with ixekizumab held up through the 60-week follow-up period. The intention-to-treat analysis (n=771) showed response rates of 82%, 72%, and 54% for PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100. A per-protocol analysis (n=722) showed a PASI 75 response rate of 87%, PASI 90 response rate of 77%, and PASI 100 response rate of 57%.

Cosentyx Versus Stelara

In another study reported here, long-term follow-up from a randomized trial comparing two other biologic drugs showed sustained superiority for secukinumab (Cosentyx) over ustekinumab (Stelara) in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

The randomized comparison of secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ustekinumab involved almost 700 patients who had a baseline mean PASI score ≥12, an investigator global assessment score ≥3, and body surface area involvement ≥10%. They were randomized to the monclonal antibodies, and the primary endpoint was PASO 90 response at 16 weeks. As reported last year, secukinumab resulted in a PASI 90 rate of 80.1% versus 59.0% for ustekinumab (P<0.0001). PASI 100 rates were 45% and 29.2% (P<0.0001).

Follow-up in both groups continued to week 52, during which time patients treated with secukinumab continued to have better psoriasis clearance rates compared with those treated with ustekinumab, said Diamant Thaci, MD, of the University of Lubeck in Germany. The secukinumab group had a PASI 90 rate of 76.2% compared with 60.6% for the ustekinumab group (P<0.0001). PASI 100 rates (a secondary endpoint) were 45.9% and 35.8% with secukinumab and ustekinumab, respectively (P<0.05).

Investigators in the trial collected quality of life data by means of the Dermatology Qualty of Life Index (DLQI). A secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a DLQI score of 0 or 1 at week 52 (responder). Response rates were 71.6% with secukinumab and 59.2% with ustekinumab (P=0.0008). A significant between-group difference emerged at 4 weeks and persisted throughout the 52-week follow-up period, Thaci said.

Secukinumab and ustekinumab had similar and favorable safety profiles. No new or unexpected adverse events or toxicities occurred in either group. No patient developed tuberculosis, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis. The only notable difference was a higher incidence of candida infection with secukinumab (6.4% versus 1.6%). Thaci said none of the infections were serious.

 

The ixekizumab trial was supported by Eli Lilly.

Blauvelt disclosed relevant relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Dermira, Genentech, Janssen Ortho Biotech, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sandoz.

The secukinumab trial was supported by Novartis.

Thaci disclosed relevant relationships with AbbVie, Almiral, Amgen, Astellas, Biogen-Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Dignity, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, LEO Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Maruho, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mitsubishi Pharema, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Galapagos, Xenoport, Roche, and Mundipharma.

 

 

Lancet. 2015 Aug 8;386(9993):541-51. http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60125-8. Epub 2015 Jun 10.
Comparison of ixekizumab with etanercept or placebo in moderate-to-severe psoriasis (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3): results from two phase 3 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND:

Ixekizumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody against the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin 17A. We report two studies of ixekizumab compared with placebo or etanercept to assess the safety and efficacy of specifically targeting interleukin 17A in patients with widespread moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

METHODS:

In two prospective, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 studies (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3), eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a confirmed diagnosis of chronic plaque psoriasis at least 6 months before baseline (randomisation), 10% or greater body-surface area involvement at both screening and baseline visits, at least a moderate clinical severity as measured by a static physician global assessment (sPGA) score of 3 or more, and a psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score of 12. Participants were randomly assigned (1:2:2:2) by computer-generated random sequence with an interactive voice response system to receive subcutaneous placebo, etanercept (50 mg twice weekly), or one injection of 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 weeks, or every 4 weeks after a 160 mg starting dose. Blinding was maintained with a double-dummy design. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were proportions of patients achieving sPGA score 0 or 1 and 75% or greater improvement in PASI at week 12. Analysis was by intention to treat. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01597245 and NCT01646177.

FINDINGS:

Between May 30, 2012, and Dec 30, 2013, 1224 patients in UNCOVER-2 were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous placebo (n=168), etanercept (n=358), or ixekizumab every 2 weeks (n=351) or every 4 weeks (n=347); between Aug 11, 2012, and Feb 27, 2014, 1346 patients in UNCOVER-3 were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n=193), etanercept (n=382), ixekizumab every 2 weeks (n=385), or ixekizumab every 4 weeks (n=386). At week 12, both primary endpoints were met in both studies. For UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3 respectively, in the ixekizumab every 2 weeks group, PASI 75 was achieved by 315 (response rate 89·7%; [effect size 87·4% (97·5% CI 82·9-91·8) vs placebo; 48·1% (41·2-55·0) vs etanercept]) and 336 (87·3%; [80·0% (74·4-85·7) vs placebo; 33·9% (27·0-40·7) vs etanercept]) patients; in the ixekizumab every 4 weeks group, by 269 (77·5%; [75·1% (69·5-80·8) vs placebo; 35·9% (28·2-43·6) vs etanercept]) and 325 (84·2%; [76·9% (71·0-82·8) vs placebo; 30·8% (23·7-37·9) vs etanercept]) patients; in the placebo group, by four (2·4%) and 14 (7·3%) patients; and in the etanercept group by 149 (41·6%) and 204 (53·4%) patients (all p<0·0001 vs placebo or etanercept). In the ixekizumab every 2 weeks group, sPGA 0/1 was achieved by 292 (response rate 83·2%; [effect size 80·8% (97·5% CI 75·6-86·0) vs placebo; 47·2% (39·9-54·4) vs etanercept]) and 310 (80·5%; [73·8% (67·7-79·9) vs placebo; 38·9% (31·7-46·1) vs etanercept]) patients; in the ixekizumab every 4 weeks group by 253 (72·9%; [70·5% (64·6-76·5) vs placebo; 36·9% (29·1-44·7) vs etanercept]) and 291 (75·4%; [68·7% (62·3-75·0) vs placebo; 33·8% (26·3-41·3) vs etanercept]) patients; in the placebo group by four (2·4%) and 13 (6·7%) patients; and in the etanercept group by 129 (36·0%) and 159 (41·6%) patients (all p<0·0001 vs placebo or etanercept). In combined studies, serious adverse events were reported in 14 (1·9%) of 734 patients given ixekizumab every 2 weeks, 14 (1·9%) of 729 given ixekizumab every 4 weeks, seven (1·9%) of 360 given placebo, and 14 (1·9%) of 739 given etanercept; no deaths were noted.

INTERPRETATION:

Both ixekizumab dose regimens had greater efficacy than placebo and etanercept over 12 weeks in two independent studies. These studies show that selectively neutralising interleukin 17A with a high affinity antibody potentially gives patients with psoriasis a new and effective biological therapy option.

FUNDING:

Eli Lilly and Co.

Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Read Full Post »

Monoclonal Antibody Drug Immunogenicity

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Immunogenicity assessment of monoclonal antibodies
Category: Abstracted Scientific Content
Author(s):    Michelle Derbyshire, PhD, GaBI Online Editor

GaBI 2015; 4(4).  http://gabi-journal.net/immunogenicity-assessment-of-monoclonal-antibodies.html

The most critical safety concern relating to biologicals (including biosimilars) is immunogenicity. This is especially important for monoclonal antibody (mAb) biologicals, which are large molecules with complex structures and functions and which represent the largest class of biologicals.

Immunogenicity is the ability to induce a humoral and/or cellmediated immune response. Most biologicals induce immune responses, because they are polypeptides or proteins and might therefore be recognized by the immune system as foreign. However, in most cases, the presence of antibodies is harmless and has little clinical consequence. The problem is that some cases of immunogenicity can cause problems or even be fatal, such as in the case of pure red cell aplasia. Such cases raise concerns about the potential clinical consequences of extensive use of biologicals and biosimilars. Given that biologicals may induce such unwanted immune responses it is essential to investigate the immunogenicity of a biological prior to marketing approval. This is especially important when considering that the problem with immunogenicity is that it is impossible to predict.

The immune response is influenced by many factors and data generated in pre-licensure studies may prove difficult to assess for regulators. Immunogenicity can be influenced by the product itself, e.g. structure, aggregation, dose, duration, but can also be affected by the patient, e.g. age, gender, ethnicity, immune status, genetic make-up. The knowledge and expertise required for assessment of immunogenicity requires a thorough understanding of animal and human immunology as well as specific product characteristics, including mechanism of action, antibody assays and assessment of results in a given clinical context. The appropriate interpretation of immunogenicity data is of critical importance for defining the safety profile of an mAb.

At the World Health Organization (WHO) implementation workshop on Evaluation of Biotherapeutic Products, held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, in May 2014, regulators and manufacturers participated in a workshop evaluating two case studies mimicking a real situation evaluating immunogenicity studies for two fictitious mAb products.

It was expected that after completing the workshop, participants would have an understanding of how immunogenicity studies are conducted and assessed. In addition, how the information obtained is used to make decisions relating to the appropriateness of the studies and how the observed immunogenicity impacts on the clinical use of the mAbs was also covered.

Predictive immunogenicity modelling algorithms, such as in silico and T cell studies, are showing promise for identification of potential immunogenic T cell epitopes. However, despite the promise of these predictive tests, human clinical data is still needed for determining immunogenicity. This cannot be replaced by use of animal or in vitro or in silico tools.

Suitability of the assays for immunogenicity assessment was highlighted as a topic of critical importance for conducting the case studies. In the case of biosimilars, the methods used to measure the incidence of immunogenicity and the immunogenic potential of biosimilars and reference biologicals can significantly impact the comparability of the two molecules, and therefore great care must be taken in the development and execution of assays to measure immunogenicity. The value of reviewing raw data for each individual subject in order to assess the impact of immunogenicity on effi cacy and safety was also clearly demonstrated in the case studies.

WHO guidelines state that the monitoring period for immunogenicity assessment depends on the intended duration of treatment and the expected time of antibody development. However, one of the examples in the case studies illustrated that a longer period of observation may be necessary to increase accuracy in assessing immunogenicity.

Discussion on additional indications and the need for additional immunogenicity studies revealed that the expectations in terms of the size and design of such studies differ among regulators and manufacturers. However, there was a consensus that the original case studies were limited and that additional data needed to be generated.

When it comes to biosimilar mAbs, it becomes an even more sophisticated exercise, and includes the challenge of addressing correlation between bioanalytical signals and clinical endpoints. The case studies highlighted the need to assess the methods used for appropriateness for use for their intended purpose and to interpret the data generated, taking into account their limitations.

 

 

 

Read Full Post »