Oral voclosporin: novel calcineurin inhibitor for treatment of noninfectious uveitis

Voclosporin: Unique Chemistry, Pharmacology and Toxicity Profile, and Possible Options for Implementation into the Management of Lupus Nephritis

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) can suppress allo- and autoimmunity by suppressing T cell function but also have anti-proteinuric effects by stabilizing the cellular components of the kidney's filtration barrier. Therefore, CNI are used in autoimmune kidney diseases with proteinuria. However, the traditional CNI, cyclosporine A and tacrolimus, have a narrow therapeutic range, need monitoring of drug levels, and their use is associated with nephrotoxicity and metabolic alterations. Voclosporin (VOC), a novel CNI, no longer requires drug level monitoring and seems to lack these adverse effects, although hypertension and drug-drug interactions still occur. VOC demonstrated efficacy superior to standard-of-care in controlling active lupus nephritis in the phase 2 AURA-LV and the phase 3 AURORA-1 trials and was approved for the treatment of active lupus nephritis. However, how to implement VOC into the current and changing treatment landscape of lupus nephritis is still debated. Here, we review the unique chemistry, pharmacology, and toxicity profile of VOC, summarize the efficacy and safety data from the AURA-LV and AURORA-1 trials, and discuss the following four possible options to implement VOC into the management of lupus nephritis, namely regarding B cell-targeting therapy with belimumab (BEL). These include: 1. patient stratification to either VOC or BEL, 2. VOC/BEL combination therapy, 3. VOC-BEL sequential therapy, or 4. alternative options for the rapid antiproteinuric effect of VOC.

The Conundrum of Clinical Trials for the Uveitides: Appropriate Outcome Measures for One Treatment Used in Several Diseases

The uveitides consist of >30 diseases characterized by intraocular inflammation. Noninfectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitides typically are treated with oral corticosteroids and immunosuppression, with a similar treatment approach for most diseases. Because these uveitides collectively are considered a rare disease, single-disease trials are difficult to impractical to recruit for, and most trials have included several different diseases for a given protocol treatment. However, measures of uveitis activity are disease specific, resulting in challenges for trial outcome measures. Several trials of investigational immunosuppressive drugs or biologic drugs have not demonstrated efficacy, but design problems with the outcome measures have limited the ability to interpret the results. Successful trials have included diseases for which a single uveitis activity measure suffices or a composite measure of uveitis activity is used. One potential solution to this problem is the use of a single, clinically relevant outcome, successful corticosteroid sparing, defined as inactive uveitis with a prednisone dose ≤7.5 mg/day coupled with disease-specific guidelines for determining inactive disease. The clinical relevance of this outcome is that active uveitis is associated with increased risks of visual impairment and blindness, and that prednisone doses ≤7.5 mg/day have a minimal risk of corticosteroid side effects. The consequence of this approach is that trial visits require a core set of measures for all participants and a disease-specific set of measures, both clinical and imaging, to assess uveitis activity. This approach is being used in the Adalimumab Versus Conventional Immunosuppression (ADVISE) Trial.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biological drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous adalimumab (Humira^®; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) and a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex^®; Allergan Ltd, Marlow, UK) in adults with non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and clinical trials registries including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched to June 2016, with an update search carried out in October 2016.

REVIEW METHODS

Review methods followed published guidelines. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and adalimumab, each compared with current practice, from a NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon, parameterised with published evidence. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Substantial sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

Of the 134 full-text articles screened, three studies (four articles) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [VISUAL I (active uveitis) and VISUAL II (inactive uveitis)] compared adalimumab with placebo, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Time to treatment failure (reduced visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, new vascular lesions) was longer in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.70; p < 0.001] in the VISUAL I trial and 0.57 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; p = 0.004) in the VISUAL II trial. The adalimumab group showed a significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) composite score in the VISUAL I trial (mean difference 4.20; p = 0.010) but not the VISUAL II trial (mean difference 2.12; p = 0.16). Some systemic adverse effects occurred more frequently with adalimumab than with placebo. One RCT [HURON (active uveitis)] compared a single 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant against a sham procedure, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Dexamethasone provided significant benefits over the sham procedure at 8 and 26 weeks in the percentage of patients with a vitreous haze score of zero (p < 0.014), the mean best corrected visual acuity improvement (p ≤ 0.002) and the percentage of patients with a ≥ 5-point improvement in VFQ-25 score (p < 0.05). Raised intraocular pressure and cataracts occurred more frequently with dexamethasone than with the sham procedure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one dexamethasone implant in one eye for a combination of patients with unilateral and bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the HURON trial, was estimated to be £19,509 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ICER of adalimumab for patients with mainly bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the VISUAL trials, was estimated to be £94,523 and £317,547 per QALY gained in active and inactive uveitis respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the rate of blindness has the biggest impact on the model results. The interventions may be more cost-effective in populations in which there is a greater risk of blindness.

LIMITATIONS

The clinical trials did not fully reflect clinical practice. Thirteen additional studies of clinically relevant comparator treatments were identified; however, network meta-analysis was not feasible. The model results are highly uncertain because of the limited evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

Two RCTs of systemic adalimumab and one RCT of a unilateral, single dexamethasone implant showed significant benefits over placebo or a sham procedure. The ICERs for adalimumab were estimated to be above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone was estimated to fall below standard thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around the model assumptions. In future work, primary research should compare dexamethasone and adalimumab with current treatments over the long term and in important subgroups and consider how short-term improvements relate to long-term effects on vision.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041799.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Pharmacotherapy for uveitis: current management and emerging therapy

Uveitis, a group of conditions characterized by intraocular inflammation, is a major cause of sight loss in the working population. Most uveitis seen in Western countries is noninfectious and appears to be autoimmune or autoinflammatory in nature, requiring treatment with immunosuppressive and/or anti-inflammatory drugs. In this educational review, we outline the ideal characteristics of drugs for uveitis and review the data to support the use of current and emerging therapies in this context. It is crucial that we continue to develop new therapies for use in uveitis that aim to suppress disease activity, prevent accumulation of damage, and preserve visual function for patients with the minimum possible side effects.

Voclosporin as a treatment for noninfectious uveitis

Voclosporin is a relatively new calcineurin inhibitor that has been used successfully in humans for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. Available data indicate a good safety profile for this treatment and a significant increase in quality of life for psoriasis patients. More recently, voclosporin has been used to treat ophthalmic conditions such as uveitis. The limited data available indicate at least comparable results relative to current therapy with a better safety profile. Here, we analyze data from human and animal studies and the mode of action of voclosporin. Available safety profile data are also discussed.