Interferon Inhibition for Lupus with Anifrolumab: Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Leading to FDA Approval.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Loncharich MF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9190216 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Interferon Inhibition for Lupus with Anifrolumab: Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Leading to FDA Approval.
Loncharich Michael F MF Anderson Caleb W CW
ACR open rheumatology 20220214 6
<h4>Journal club</h4>Furie R, Khamashta M, Merrill JT, Werth VP, Kalunian K, Brohawn P, et al. Anifrolumab, an anti-interferon-α receptor monoclonal antibody, in moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol 2017;69:376-86. Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, in a phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of adults with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods P ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, in a phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of adults with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).MethodsPatients (n = 305) were randomized to receive intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg or 1,000 mg) or placebo, in addition to standard therapy, every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. Randomization was stratified by SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 score (<10 or ≥10), oral corticosteroid dosage (<10 or ≥10 mg/day), and type I IFN gene signature test status (high or low) based on a 4-gene expression assay. The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving an SLE Responder Index (SRI[4]) response at week 24 with sustained reduction of oral corticosteroids (<10 mg/day and less than or equal to the dose at week 1 from week 12 through 24). Other end points (including SRI[4], British Isles Lupus Assessment Group [BILAG]-based Composite Lupus Assessment [BICLA], modified SRI[6], and major clinical response) were assessed at week 52. The primary end point was analyzed in the modified intent-to-treat (ITT) population and type I IFN-high subpopulation. The study result was considered positive if the primary end point was met in either of the 2 study populations. The Type I error rate was controlled at 0.10 (2-sided), within each of the 2 study populations for the primary end point analysis.ResultsThe primary end point was met by more patients treated with anifrolumab (34.3% of 99 for 300 mg and 28.8% of 104 for 1,000 mg) than placebo (17.6% of 102) (P = 0.014 for 300 mg and P = 0.063 for 1,000 mg, versus placebo), with greater effect size in patients with a high IFN signature at baseline (13.2% in placebo-treated patients versus 36.0% [P = 0.004] and 28.2% [P = 0.029]) in patients treated with anifrolumab 300 mg and 1,000 mg, respectively. At week 52, patients treated with anifrolumab achieved greater responses in SRI(4) (40.2% versus 62.6% [P < 0.001] and 53.8% [P = 0.043] with placebo, anifrolumab 300 mg, and anifrolumab 1,000 mg, respectively), BICLA (25.7% versus 53.5% [P < 0.001] and 41.2% [P = 0.018], respectively), modified SRI(6) (28.4% versus 49.5% [P = 0.002] and 44.7% [P = 0.015], respectively), major clinical response (BILAG 2004 C or better in all organ domains from week 24 through week 52) (6.9% versus 19.2% [P = 0.012] and 17.3% [P = 0.025], respectively), and several other global and organ-specific end points. Herpes zoster was more frequent in the anifrolumab-treated patients (2.0% with placebo treatment versus 5.1% and 9.5% with anifrolumab 300 mg and 1,000 mg, respectively), as were cases reported as influenza (2.0% versus 6.1% and 7.6%, respectively), in the anifrolumab treatment groups. Incidence of serious adverse events was similar between groups (18.8% versus 16.2% and 17.1%, respectively).ConclusionAnifrolumab substantially reduced disease activity compared with placebo across multiple clinical end points in the patients with moderate-to-severe SLE.
| S-EPMC5299497 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10585408 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMany patients and physicians assume that the safety and effectiveness of newly approved therapeutic agents is well understood; however, the strength of the clinical trial evidence supporting approval decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been evaluated.ObjectivesTo characterize pivotal efficacy trials (clinical trials that serve as the basis of FDA approval) for newly approved novel therapeutic agents.Design and settingCross-sectional analysis using publicly available FDA documents for all novel therapeutic agents approved between 2005 and 2012.Main outcomes and measuresPivotal efficacy trials were classified according to the following design features: randomization, blinding, comparator, and trial end point. Surrogate outcomes were defined as any end point using a biomarker expected to predict clinical benefit. The number of patients, trial duration, and trial completion rates were also determined.ResultsBetween 2005 and 2012, the FDA approved 188 novel therapeutic agents for 206 indications on the basis of 448 pivotal efficacy trials. The median number of pivotal trials per indication was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2.5), although 74 indications (36.8%) were approved on the basis of a single pivotal trial. Nearly all trials were randomized (89.3% [95% CI, 86.4%-92.2%]), double-blinded (79.5% [95% CI, 75.7%-83.2%]), and used either an active or placebo comparator (87.1% [95% CI, 83.9%-90.2%]). The median number of patients enrolled per indication among all pivotal trials was 760 (interquartile range, 270-1550). At least 1 pivotal trial with a duration of 6 months or greater supported the approval of 68 indications (33.8% [95% CI, 27.2%-40.4%]). Pivotal trials using surrogate end points as their primary outcome formed the exclusive basis of approval for 91 indications (45.3% [95% CI, 38.3%-52.2%]), clinical outcomes for 67 (33.3% [95% CI, 26.8%-39.9%]), and clinical scales for 36 (17.9% [95% CI, 12.6%-23.3%]). Trial features differed by therapeutic and indication characteristics, such as therapeutic area, expected length of treatment, orphan status, and accelerated approval.Conclusions and relevanceThe quality of clinical trial evidence used by the FDA as the basis for recent approvals of novel therapeutic agents varied widely across indications. This variation has important implications for patients and physicians as they make decisions about the use of newly approved therapeutic agents.
| S-EPMC4144867 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInsufficient patient enrollment per month (=accrual) is the leading cause of cancer trial termination.ObjectiveTo identify and quantify factors associated with patient accrual in trials leading to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of new cancer drugs.DataAll anti-cancer drugs with FDA approval were identified in the Drugs@FDA database (2000-2022). Data on drug indication's background-, treatment-, disease-, and trial-related factors were collected from FDA labels, clinicaltrials.gov, and the Global Burden of Disease study. The association between patient accrual and collected variables was assessed in Poisson regression models reporting adjusted rate ratios (aRR).ResultsWe identified 170 drugs with approval in 455 cancer indications on the basis of 292 randomized and 163 single-arm trials. Among randomized trials, median enrollment per month was 38 patients (interquartile range [IQR]: 26-54) for non-orphan, 21 (IQR: 15-38, aRR 0.88, p = 0.361) for common orphan, 20 (IQR: 10-35, aRR 0.73, p <0.001) for rare orphan, and 8 (IQR 6-12, aRR 0.30, p < 0.001) for ultra-rare orphan indications. Patient enrollment was positively associated with disease burden [aRR: 1.0003 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY), p < 0.001), trial sites (aRR: 1.001 per site, p < 0.001), participating countries (aRR: 1.02 per country, p < 0.001), and phase 3 vs. 1/2 trials (aRR: 1.64, p = 0.037). Enrollment was negatively associated with advanced-line vs. first-line treatments (aRR: 0.81, p = 0.010) and monotherapy vs. combination treatments (aRR: 0.80, p = 0.007). Patient enrollment per month was similar between indications with and without a biomarker (median: 27 vs. 32, aRR 0.80, p = 0.117). Patient enrollment per month was substantially lower in government-sponsored than industry-sponsored trials (median: 14 vs. 32, aRR 0.80, p = 0.209). Enrollment was not associated with randomization ratios, crossover, and study blinding.ConclusionsDisease incidence and disease burden alongside the number of study sites and participating countries are the main drivers of patient enrollment in clinical trials. For rare disease trials, greater financial incentives could help expedite patient enrollment. Novel trial design features, including skewed randomization, crossover, or open-label masking, did not entice patient enrollment.
| S-EPMC11392992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is multifactorial, and the interferon regulatory factors (IRFs) play an important role. Autoantibodies formed in SLE target nuclear antigens, and immune complexes formed by these antibodies contain nucleic acid. These immune complexes can activate antiviral pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), resulting in the downstream activation of IRFs, which can induce type I interferon (IFN-I) and other inflammatory mediators. Genetic variations in IRFs have been associated with susceptibility to SLE, and current evidence supports the idea that these polymorphisms are gain of function in humans. Recent studies suggest that these genetic variations contribute to the break in humoral tolerance that allows for nucleic acid binding autoantibodies, and that the same polymorphisms also augment IFN-I production in the presence of these autoantibody immune complexes, forming a feed-forward loop. In this review, we will outline major features of the PRR/IRF systems and describe the role of the IRFs in human SLE pathogenesis.
| S-EPMC4306637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES: Standards for evaluating evidence-based medicine (EBM) point-of-care (POC) summaries of research are lacking. The authors developed a "Critical Appraisal for Summaries of Evidence" (CASE) worksheet to help assess the evidence in these tools. The authors then evaluated the reliability of the worksheet. METHODS: The CASE worksheet was developed with 10 questions covering specificity, authorship, reviewers, methods, grading, clarity, citations, currency, bias, and relevancy. Two reviewers independently assessed a random selection of 384 EBM POC summaries using the worksheet. The responses of the raters were then compared using a kappa score. RESULTS: The kappa statistic demonstrated an overall moderate agreement (??=?0.44) between the reviewers using the CASE worksheet for the 384 summaries. The 3 categories of evaluation questions in which the reviewers disagreed most often were citations (??=? 0), bias (??=?0.11), and currency (??=?-0.18). CONCLUSIONS: The CASE worksheet provided an effective checklist for critically analyzing a treatment summary. While the reviewers agreed on worksheet responses for most questions, variation occurred in how the raters navigated the tool and interpreted some of the questions. Further validation of the form by other groups of users should be investigated.
| S-EPMC3738079 | biostudies-other
Project description:In May 2006, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing. Surgeons wanting to implant this device were required to undergo formal industry-sponsored training before performing their first case and a technical specialist attended their initial 10 cases. Safety surveys were completed on the first 537 cases performed and included patient age, gender, diagnosis, and occurrence of any unexpected events perioperatively or postoperatively. Intraoperative data were available for all 537 cases (100%), hospital discharge and six-week data were available for 524 cases (97.6%), three-month data were available for 523 cases (97.4%), six-month data were available for 509 cases (94.3%) and one-year data were available for 449 cases (83.6%); the mean followup was 10.4 months. We documented adverse events in 40 (32 major, 8 minor) of the 537 cases including nine nerve injuries and eight dislocations. There were 14 component revisions (3.1%) [corrected] within the first year, including 10 for femoral neck fracture, two for dislocations, and two for acetabular component loosening. Complications were frequently seen among patients older than 55 years of age and in women, emphasizing the importance of appropriate patient selection for the procedure.Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
| S-EPMC2600981 | biostudies-other
Project description:In order to ascertain the impact of a biomarker-based (personalized) strategy, we compared outcomes between US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cancer treatments that were studied with and without such a selection rationale. Anticancer agents newly approved (September 1998 to June 2013) were identified at the Drugs@FDA website. Efficacy, treatment-related mortality, and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event endpoints were analyzed and compared in registration trials for these agents. All statistical tests were two-sided. Fifty-eight drugs were included (leading to 57 randomized [32% personalized] and 55 nonrandomized trials [47% personalized], n = 38 104 patients). Trials adopting a personalized strategy more often included targeted (100% vs 65%, P < .001), oral (68% vs 35%, P = .001), and single agents (89% vs 71%, P = .04) and more frequently permitted crossover to experimental treatment (67% vs 28%, P = .009). In randomized registration trials (using a random-effects meta-analysis), personalized therapy arms were associated with higher relative response rate ratios (RRRs, compared with their corresponding control arms) (RRRs = 3.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.51 to 5.82, vs RRRs = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.76 to 2.47, adjusted P = .03), longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.51, vs HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.65, adjusted P < .001) and a non-statistically significantly longer OS (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.83, vs HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.85, adjusted P = .07) compared with nonpersonalized trials. Analysis of experimental arms in all 112 registration trials (randomized and nonrandomized) demonstrated that personalized therapy was associated with higher response rate (48%, 95% CI = 42% to 55%, vs 23%, 95% CI = 20% to 27%, P < .001) and longer PFS (median = 8.3, interquartile range [IQR] = 5 vs 5.5 months, IQR = 5, adjusted P = .002) and OS (median = 19.3, IQR = 17 vs 13.5 months, IQR = 8, Adjusted P = .04). A personalized strategy was an independent predictor of better RR, PFS, and OS, as demonstrated by multilinear regression analysis. Treatment-related mortality rate was similar for personalized and nonpersonalized trials. A biomarker-based approach was safe and associated with improved efficacy outcomes in FDA-approved anticancer agents.
| S-EPMC4857149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:On September 17, 2021, the FDA approved cabozantinib (Cabometyx; Exelixis, Inc.) for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) that has progressed following prior VEGFR-targeted therapy and who are radioactive iodine (RAI)-refractory or ineligible. This is the first approval for patients with RAI-refractory locally advanced or metastatic DTC who have progressed following prior therapy and the first approval in pediatric patients with DTC. The approval was based on data from COSMIC-311 (Study XL184-311, NCT03690388), an international, randomized, double-blind trial in which patients with locally advanced or metastatic RAI-refractory DTC that progressed during or following treatment with at least one VEGFR-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitor were treated with either cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily (N = 170) or placebo with best supportive care (N = 88). The primary efficacy outcome measures were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review per RECIST 1.1. The median PFS was 11.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.4-13.8] in the cabozantinib arm compared with 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.9-3.7) in the control arm, with an HR of 0.22 (95% CI, 0.15-0.31). The endpoint of ORR was not met. No new safety signals were identified with the exception of hypocalcemia, which was added as a warning in the product labeling.
| S-EPMC9529996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAducanumab was approved in 2021 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the accelerated approval pathway. Since then, there have been many misconceptions about the approval decision despite multiple publications from the FDA to explain the rationale.MethodsEven though the FDA's final decision was accelerated approval, the Office of Clinical Pharmacology recommended regular/full approval based on its own analyses. Exposure-response analyses were conducted to quantify the relationship between aducanumab longitudinal exposure and responses (standardized uptake values ratios for amyloid beta and various clinical endpoints) in all clinical trials. To explain the difference between aducanumab and other compounds with negative results in the past, publicly available data were combined with the aducanumab data to demonstrate the relationship between amyloid reduction and clinical endpoint change across multiple compounds with similar mechanism of action. The probability to observe the overall positive findings in the aducanumab program was quantified under the assumption that aducanumab is ineffective.ResultsPositive exposure-response (disease progression) relationship for multiple clinical endpoints from all clinical trials was identified. Positive exposure-amyloid reduction relationship was established. Consistent amyloid reduction-clinical endpoint change relationship across multiple compounds was observed. If aducanumab is assumed to be ineffective, it is extremely unlikely we would observe the overall positive findings in the aducanumab program.ConclusionThese results provided convincing evidence to support aducanumab's effectiveness. In addition, the observed effect size in the studied patient population represents a clinically meaningful benefit given the magnitude of disease progression within the trial duration.HighlightsTotality of evidence supports the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s approval decision for aducanumab.Different opinions were clearly explained in the FDA's public reviews from different disciplines.Readers are encouraged to read the FDA's reviews to understand the FDA's rationale to approve aducanumab.
| S-EPMC10193636 | biostudies-literature