Efficacy outcomes in phase 2 and phase 3 randomized controlled trials in rheumatology

Consistent efficacy outcomes between phase 2 and phase 3 trials in Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis in adults: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The approval of novel biologic agents and small molecules for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) is dependent on phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, these trials sometimes fail to achieve the expected efficacy outcomes observed in phase 2 trials.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of RCTs that evaluated biologic agents and small molecules using paired regimens in both phase 2 and phase 3. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases up until February 13, 2024. The revised Cochrane tool was utilized to assess the risk of bias. A generalized linear mixed-effects model (GLMM) was employed to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for efficacy outcomes in phase 2 trials compared to phase 3.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 23 trials with 10 paired regimens for CD and 30 trials with 11 paired regimens for UC. The GLMM analysis revealed that phase 2 CD trials had higher outcomes measured by the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) by 9-13% without statistical significance: CDAI-150: OR, 1.12 (95% CI 0.83-1.51, p = 0.41); CDAI-100: OR, 1.09 (95% CI 0.88-1.35, p = 0.40); or CDAI-70: OR, 1.13 (95% CI 0.61-2.08, p = 0.66). For UC, two efficacy outcomes were estimated to be equally reported in phase 2/phase 3 pairs: clinical remission: OR, 1.00 (95% CI 0.83-1.20, p = 0.96); endoscopic improvement: OR, 0.98 (95% CI 0.83-1.15, p = 0.79). However, the rate of clinical response was underestimated in phase 2 by 19%: OR, 0.81 (95% CI 0.70-0.95, p = 0.03). The inclusion criterion for the type of Mayo score for UC had a significant interaction with the study phase to influence the difference in clinical response (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the main efficacy outcomes for CD and UC remain consistent between phase 2 and phase 3 trials, except for UC response rates. The efficacy data obtained from phase 2 trials can be considered reliable for the design of subsequent phase 3 trials.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42023407947).

Navigating the complexities of drug development for inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) - consisting of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease - is a complex, heterogeneous, immune-mediated inflammatory condition with a multifactorial aetiopathogenesis. Despite therapeutic advances in this arena, a ceiling effect has been reached with both single-agent monoclonal antibodies and advanced small molecules. Therefore, there is a need to identify novel targets, and the development of companion biomarkers to select responders is vital. In this Perspective, we examine how advances in machine learning and tissue engineering could be used at the preclinical stage where attrition rates are high. For novel agents reaching clinical trials, we explore factors decelerating progression, particularly the decline in IBD trial recruitment, and assess how innovative approaches such as reconfiguring trial designs, harmonizing end points and incorporating digital technologies into clinical trials can address this. Harnessing opportunities at each stage of the drug development process may allow for incremental gains towards more effective therapies.

American College of Rheumatology and Food and Drug Administration Summit: Summary of the Meeting May 17-18, 2022

The American College of Rheumatology and the US Food and Drug Administration co-sponsored a public meeting in May 2022 about challenges in the clinical development of drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), focusing on innovative clinical trial designs, outcome measures, and data collection methods. Recommendations include early dose-ranging studies and use of active comparators. Challenges and opportunities in assessing long-term safety by leveraging real-world data from electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data are discussed, along with insights from European registries and the evolving role of real-world evidence and artificial intelligence in regulatory evaluations. Endpoints for assessing disease activity and outcome measures used in RA and PsA trials are explored, emphasizing challenges in defining remission, assessing clinical response, and evaluating structural progression. The need for outcome measures that better reflect treatment targets and the potential of advanced imaging in future trials are highlighted. Challenges with placebo-controlled trials in RA are discussed and use of non-inferiority clinical trial design, in which new drugs are evaluated with active comparators, is proposed. Pragmatic trials in RA and PsA, employing decentralized approaches, are highlighted for their real-world relevance and administrative efficiencies. Strategies for identifying at-risk populations for RA and the challenges of using EHRs and insurance claims data in drug development are discussed. Registry data and digital health technologies show promise in bridging the gap between clinical trials and real-world effectiveness.

Comparison of efficacy discrepancy between early-phase clinical trials and phase III trials of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Phase III clinical trials are pivotal for evaluating therapeutics, yet a concerning failure rate has been documented, particularly impacting oncology where accelerated approvals of immunotherapies are common. These failures are predominantly attributed to a lack of therapeutic efficacy, indicating overestimation of results from phase II studies. Our research aims to systematically assess overestimation in early-phase trials involving programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death-ligand 1(PD-L1) inhibitors compared with phase III trials and identify contributing factors.

METHODS

We matched 51 pairs of early-phase and phase III clinical trials from a pool of over 9,600 PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor trials. The matching criteria included identical treatment regimens, cancer types, treatment lines, and biomarker enrichment strategies. To assess overestimation, we compared the overall response rates (ORR) between early-phase and phase III trials. We established independent variables related to eligibility criteria, and trial design features of participants to analyze the factors influencing the observed discrepancy in efficacy between the two phases through univariable and multivariable logistic analyses.

RESULT

Early-phase trial outcomes systematically overestimated the subsequent phase III results, yielding an odds ratio (OR) comparing ORR in early-phase versus phase III: 1.66 (95% CI: 1.43 to 1.92, p<0.05). This trend of inflated ORR was consistent across trials testing PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapies and combination therapies involving PD-1/PD-L1. Among the examined factors, the exclusion of patients with autoimmune diseases was significantly associated with the disparity in efficacy between early-phase trials and phase III trials (p=0.023). We calculated a Ward statistic of 2.27 to validate the effectiveness of the model.

CONCLUSION

These findings underscore the tendency of overestimation of efficacy in early-phase trials involving immunotherapies. The observed differences could be attributed to variations in the inclusion of patients with autoimmune disorders in early-phase trials. These insights have the potential to inform stakeholders in the future development of cancer immunotherapies.

A Comparison of Treatment Effect Sizes in Matched Phase 2 and Phase 3 Trials of Advanced Therapeutics in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Phase 2 trials are fundamental to the rational and efficient design of phase 3 trials. We aimed to determine the relationship of treatment effect size estimates from phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials on advanced therapeutics in inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane library were searched from inception to December 19, 2022, to identify paired phase 2 and 3 placebo-controlled induction studies of advanced therapeutics for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Treatment effect sizes were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) between the active arm and placebo arm. For the same therapeutics, RRs from phase 2 trials were divided by the RR from phase 3 trial to quantify the relationship of effect sizes between phases.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (9 phase 2 trials, 13 phase 3 trials) were included for CD and 30 studies (12 phase 2 trials, 18 phase 3 trials) for UC. In UC (pooled RR 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.86; RR <1 indicates smaller treatment effect sizes in phase 2 trials), but not CD (pooled RR 1.01; 95% confidence interval: 0.84-1.18), phase 2 trials systematically underestimated treatment effect sizes for the primary endpoint compared with phase 3 trials. The underestimation was observed for clinical, but not endoscopic, endpoints in UC.

DISCUSSION

Treatment effect sizes for the primary and clinical endpoints were similar across clinical trial phases in CD, but not UC, where only endoscopic endpoints were comparable. This will help inform clinical development plans and future trial design.

Influence of active versus placebo control on treatment responses in randomised controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether treatment effects of pharmaceutical compounds compared with placebo controls are systematically different to the effects of the same compounds compared with active treatment controls in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials.

METHODS

We systematically identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in RA, and matched active treatment arms with comparable regimens, populations, background therapy, and outcome reporting, by the nature of their control group (active comparator or placebo). Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL were used to identify RCTs investigating disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug therapies until December 2021. Using mixed-model logistic regression we estimated OddsRatios (OR) for achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70% response at weeks 12 and 24. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Tool.

RESULTS

We screened 8328 studies and included 40 for analysis after detailed review of 590 manuscripts; unique compounds had significantly higher responses in active comparator trials compared with their effects observed in placebo controlled trials, with ORs of 1.67 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.91; p<0.001) for ACR20, 1.50 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.75; p<0.001) for ACR50 and 1.65 (95% CI 1.30 to 2.10; p<0.001) for ACR70 (week 12); corresponding ORs for ACR 20, 50, and 70 (week 24) were 1.93 (95% CI 1.50 to 2.48; p<0.001), 1.75 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.33; p<0.001) and 1.68 (95% CI 1.21 to 2.34; p<0.001), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent results.

CONCLUSION

Placebo controlled trials lead to smaller effect sizes of active compounds in RCTs compared with the same compound in head-to-head trials. This difference may be explained by potential nocebo effects in placebo-controlled settings and needs to be considered when interpreting head-to-head and placebo-controlled trials, by patients, investigators, sponsors and regulatory agencies.

Clinical remission in paired phase two and three studies in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Discrepancies in phase two and three studies can result in significant patient and financial burden, as well as the nonapproval of potentially efficacious drugs. We aimed to determine whether this discrepancy exists for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase) and clinical trial repositories were searched from 1 January 1946 to 12 March 2021, for paired phase two and three studies of advanced therapies for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The primary outcome was to compare clinical remission rates between paired phase two and three studies for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Multivariable mixed-model meta-analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to grade the risk of bias. Of 2642 studies, 29 were included. Fifteen were phase three, 11 were phase two, one was phase one/two, and two were phase two/three. There were no differences in clinical remission rates between phase two and three studies for Crohn's disease (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.34; P = 0.54) and ulcerative colitis (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.48-1.36; P = 0.43). Furthermore, there was a lack of any appreciable differences in study characteristics, inclusion criteria and patient demographics among paired phase two and three studies. Most studies were considered low risk of bias. Overall, paired phase two and three studies demonstrate similar clinical remission rates for advanced therapies in IBD. Whether this applies to newer outcomes, such as endoscopic and mucosal healing remains to be determined.

Safety and efficacy of elsubrutinib or upadacitinib alone or in combination (ABBV-599) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to biological therapies: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

ABBV-599 is a novel fixed-dose combination of the Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor elsubrutinib and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib under investigation for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. We aimed to determine whether ABBV-599 could increase the treatment response for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis compared with inhibiting either pathway alone, while maintaining an acceptable safety profile.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-exploratory, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial at 75 community sites in eight countries in Europe and North America. We enrolled patients who were 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (3:2:2:2:2:1) via interactive response technology to receive daily, orally administered ABBV-599 (ie, upadacitinib 15 mg plus elsubrutinib 60 mg), elsubrutinib 60 mg, elsubrutinib 20 mg, elsubrutinib 5 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by the number of previous biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The investigator, study site personnel, and patients were masked throughout the study. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in disease activity score of 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) at week 12 for all patients who received a study drug. Pharmacokinetics and safety were also assessed. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03682705.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 8, 2018, and March 26, 2020, 242 patients were randomly assigned to receive ABBV-599 (n=62), elsubrutinib 60 mg (n=41), elsubrutinib 20 mg (n=39), elsubrutinib 5 mg (n=41), upadacitinib 15 mg (n=40), or placebo (n=19). Of the 242 patients, 204 (84%) were female, 38 (16%) were male, and 220 (91%) were White; the mean age at baseline was 58·0 years (SD 11·3). Compared with placebo, the least squares mean changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP were -1·44 (90% CI -2·03 to -0·85; p<0·0001) for ABBV-599, -0·40 (-1·03 to 0·23; p=0·29) for elsubrutinib 60 mg, -0·20 (-0·85 to 0·44; p=0·61) for elsubrutinib 20 mg, -0·21 (-0·84 to 0·41; p=0·57) for elsubrutinib 5 mg, and -1·75 (-2·38 to -1·13; p<0·0001) for upadacitinib. No significant improvements in efficacy measures for elsubrutinib alone (any dose) versus placebo were detected, despite adequate plasma exposure and target engagement. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 113 (47%) of 242 patients, with similar proportions for all groups.

INTERPRETATION

Significant improvements in disease activity metrics of rheumatoid arthritis with ABBV-599 were driven by the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib with no discernible effect by the BTK inhibitor elsubrutinib.

FUNDING

AbbVie.

Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibition in the treatment of preclinical models and multiple sclerosis

Significant progress has been made in understanding the immunopathogenesis of multiple sclerosis (MS) over recent years. Successful clinical trials with CD20-depleting monoclonal antibodies have corroborated the fundamental role of B cells in the pathogenesis of MS and reinforced the notion that cells of the B cell lineage are an attractive treatment target. Therapeutic inhibition of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), an enzyme involved in B cell and myeloid cell activation and function, is regarded as a next-generation approach that aims to attenuate both errant innate and adaptive immune functions. Moreover, brain-penetrant BTK inhibitors may impact compartmentalized inflammation and neurodegeneration within the central nervous system by targeting brain-resident B cells and microglia, respectively. Preclinical studies in animal models of MS corroborated an impact of BTK inhibition on meningeal inflammation and cortical demyelination. Notably, BTK inhibition attenuated the antigen-presenting capacity of B cells and the generation of encephalitogenic T cells. Evobrutinib, a selective oral BTK inhibitor, has been tested recently in a phase 2 study of patients with relapsing-remitting MS. The study met the primary endpoint of a significantly reduced cumulative number of Gadolinium-enhancing lesions under treatment with evobrutinib compared to placebo treatment. Thus, the results of ongoing phase 2 and 3 studies with evobrutinib, fenobrutinib, and tolebrutinib in relapsing-remitting and progressive MS are eagerly awaited. This review article introduces the physiological role of BTK, summarizes the pre-clinical and trial evidence, and addresses the potential beneficial effects of BTK inhibition in MS.