Efficacy and safety of intravenous belimumab in a subgroup of South Korean patients with systemic lupus erythematosus enrolled into a Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in North East Asia

AIM

This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of intravenous belimumab 10 mg/kg in the South Korean subgroup of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) enrolled in the North East Asia (NEA) study (GSK Study BEL113750; NCT01345253).

METHODS

NEA was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized Phase 3 trial. Patients with active, autoantibody-positive SLE were randomized 2:1 to belimumab or placebo plus standard therapy administered on Days 0, 14, and 28, and then every 28 days up to Week 48. The primary efficacy endpoint in this analysis was SLE Responder Index 4 (SRI-4) response rate at Week 52, defined as the proportion of patients achieving a ≥4-point reduction in Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment-SLE Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI) score, no worsening (<0.3 increase from baseline) in Physician Global Assessment, no new British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) A domain and <2 new BILAG B domain scores.

RESULTS

Among 100 South Korean patients enrolled in NEA, 54/66 (81.8%) belimumab- and 24/34 (70.6%) placebo-treated patients completed the double-blind phase. Significantly more belimumab- than placebo-treated patients achieved SRI-4 response at Week 52 (n = 35/66, 53.0% vs. n = 8/34, 23.5%; odds ratio [OR; 95% confidence interval (CI)]: 3.67 [1.45, 9.28]; p = .0061). The proportion of patients experiencing ≥1 adverse event was similar between groups (belimumab: n = 60/66, 90.9% vs. placebo: n = 31/34, 91.2%). No new safety signals emerged in this subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSION

Belimumab was efficacious for the treatment of SLE and well tolerated among the South Korean subgroup of patients from the NEA study.

Healthcare Costs and Utilization for Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in China: A National Claims Database Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe the healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and healthcare costs associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) management in China from the patient's and the payer's perspective.

METHODS

HCRU and medical costs (2017 US dollar [USD]) between January 1 and December 31, 2017, were extracted from the national medical insurance claims database, China Health Insurance Research Association (consisting of claims from all public health insurance schemes in China), for adults with ≥ 1 SLE-related claim. The main analysis group comprised all adults with an SLE diagnosis and claim during 2017 (overall group); the annual subgroup (SLE diagnosis and claim in January 2017) informed annual HCRU and costs.

RESULTS

The overall group consisted of 3645 adults with ≥ 1 SLE-related claim. Outpatient visits constituted 86.9% of healthcare visits. SLE-related healthcare outpatient costs were USD 433 per outpatient, and inpatient costs were USD 2072 per inpatient. Medication costs accounted for 75.0% (USD 42/56) of total costs for outpatient visits and 44.3% (USD 456/1030) for inpatient hospitalizations. Notably, 35.4% of patients had a severe SLE flare; mean SLE-related cost per severe flare was USD 1616. HCRU and costs were similar in the annual subgroup. Female sex, SLE flares, tertiary hospitals, renal involvement, and utilization of anti-infective drugs were associated with higher SLE-related patient costs.

CONCLUSIONS

SLE in China is associated with considerable HCRU and medical costs, especially for patients experiencing severe SLE flares. Preventing organ involvement, infections, flares, and associated hospitalizations may reduce the burden on patients and healthcare providers in China.

Efficacy of belimumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus from North East Asia: Results of exploratory subgroup analyses

OBJECTIVES

To assess belimumab efficacy in patients from North East Asia (NEA) with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in baseline demographic/disease characteristic subgroups.

METHODS

This analysis of patient subgroups from BLISS-NEA (GSK Study 113750; NCT01345253) studied adults with SLE randomized to belimumab (10 mg/kg intravenous) or placebo. Primary endpoint, SLE Responder Index 4 (SRI-4) response rate at Week 52, was analysed in subgroups defined by gender, country, prednisone-equivalent dose, concomitant medications, Safety of Estrogens in Lupus National Assessment-SLE Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI) score, complement (C) levels, anti-double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid (dsDNA) positivity, Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index score.

RESULTS

Patients (overall population: N = 677; belimumab: n = 451, placebo: n = 226) were from China (76.4%), Korea (14.8%), and Japan (8.9%). The mean age was 32.1 years; 92.9% were female. In the overall population, more belimumab (53.8%) than placebo (40.1%) patients were SRI-4 Week 52 responders (p = .0001). SRI-4 response rates by subgroups were generally consistent with the overall population. A greater response with belimumab was seen in patients with a baseline SELENA-SLEDAI score ≥10 versus ≤9 and patients with low C3/C4 levels and anti-dsDNA positive at baseline versus those 'NOT' (low C3 and/or C4 and anti-dsDNA positive).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings continue to support the efficacy of belimumab in SLE.

Belimumab use during pregnancy: a summary of birth defects and pregnancy loss from belimumab clinical trials, a pregnancy registry and postmarketing reports

OBJECTIVE

Describe available data on birth defects and pregnancy loss in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) exposed to belimumab.

METHODS

Data collected from belimumab clinical trials, the Belimumab Pregnancy Registry (BPR), and postmarketing/spontaneous reports up to 8 March 2020 were described. Belimumab exposure timing, concomitant medications and potential confounding factors were summarised descriptively.

RESULTS

Among 319 pregnancies with known outcomes (excluding elective terminations), 223 ended in live births from which birth defects were identified in 4/72 (5.6%) in belimumab-exposed pregnancies and 0/9 placebo-exposed pregnancies across 18 clinical trials, 10/46 (21.7%) belimumab-exposed pregnancies in the BPR prospective cohort (enrolled prior to pregnancy outcome) and 0/4 belimumab-exposed pregnancies in the BPR retrospective cohort (enrolled after pregnancy outcome), and 1/92 (1.1%) in belimumab-exposed pregnancies from postmarketing/spontaneous reports. There was no consistent pattern of birth defects across datasets. Out of pregnancies with known outcomes (excluding elective terminations), pregnancy loss occurred in 31.8% (35/110) of belimumab-exposed women and 43.8% (7/16) of placebo-exposed women in clinical trials; 4.2% (2/48) of women in the BPR prospective cohort and 50% (4/8) in the BPR retrospective cohort; and 31.4% (43/137) of belimumab-exposed women from postmarketing/spontaneous reports. All belimumab-exposed women in clinical trials and the BPR received concomitant medications and had confounding factors and/or missing data.

CONCLUSIONS

Observations reported here add to limited data published on pregnancy outcomes following belimumab exposure. Low numbers of exposed pregnancies, presence of confounding factors/other biases, and incomplete information preclude informed recommendations regarding risk of birth defects and pregnancy loss with belimumab use.

Evaluating disease control following belimumab treatment in patients with SLE enrolled in the US OBSErve study

OBJECTIVE

To characterise disease control and remission in patients with SLE receiving belimumab for up to 12 months in the real world.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis (GSK Study 213502) used data from the US evaluation Of use of Belimumab in clinical practice SEttings (OBSErve) study (GSK Study 117295), an observational cohort study of adults with SLE initiating and continuing belimumab for ≥6 months. Data were collected every 6 months by physician chart review; details of disease activity using the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment-SLE Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI) score were collected if routinely used by physicians. Disease control definitions evaluated were SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≤2 at 12 months, SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≤2 and glucocorticoid (prednisone equivalent) dose of ≤5 mg/day at 12 months, SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≤2 and glucocorticoid dose of ≤5 mg/day at both 6 and 12 months. Disease remission definition was SELENA-SLEDAI score=0 at 12 months. Glucocorticoid dose during follow-up was quantified.

RESULTS

US OBSErve enrolled 501 patients, 90 of whom had eligible SELENA-SLEDAI scores for inclusion in this analysis. Mean (SD) SELENA-SLEDAI scores were 13.1 (3.0) at baseline and 4.9 (3.4) at 12 months. Disease control at 12 months was achieved by 31.1% of patients when defined as a SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≤2 (95% CI 21.8 to 41.7); this decreased to 25.6% when requiring a SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≤2 and glucocorticoid dose of ≤5 mg/day (95% CI 16.9 to 35.8) and 17.8% when requiring a SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≤2 and glucocorticoid dose of ≤5 mg/day at both 6 and 12 months (95% CI 10.5 to 27.3). No patient achieved remission at 12 months. Glucocorticoids decreased from a baseline median of 20.0 mg/day (IQR 15.0-30.0) to 5.0 mg/day (IQR 0-10.0) at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Improved disease control and reduced glucocorticoid use was achieved for a proportion of patients following up to 12 months of belimumab treatment in a US real-world setting.

Impact of Belimumab on Organ Damage in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Organ damage is a key determinant of poor long-term prognosis and early death in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Prevention of damage is a key treatment goal of the 2019 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for SLE management. Belimumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits B lymphocyte stimulator (BLyS) and is the only therapy approved for both SLE and lupus nephritis. Here, we review the clinical trial and real-world data on the effects of belimumab on organ damage in adult patients with SLE. Across 4 phase III studies, belimumab in combination with background SLE therapy demonstrated consistent reductions in key drivers of organ damage including disease activity, risk of new severe flares, and glucocorticoid exposure compared to background therapy alone. Long-term belimumab use in SLE also reduced organ damage progression measured by the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index, as reported in open-label extension studies, and propensity score-matched comparative analyses to background therapy alone. Results from a clinical trial showed that in patients with active lupus nephritis, belimumab treatment improved renal response, reduced the risk of renal-related events, and impacted features related to kidney damage progression compared to background therapy alone. The decrease of organ damage accumulation observed with belimumab treatment in SLE, including lupus nephritis, suggest a disease-modifying effect.

Safety of belimumab in adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: Results of a large integrated analysis of controlled clinical trial data

OBJECTIVES

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic, autoimmune disease that affects multiple organ systems. Belimumab, a targeted human monoclonal antibody, binds to and inhibits soluble B-lymphocyte stimulator. The safety and efficacy of belimumab has consistently been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials for the treatment of patients with active SLE. Integration of these data provides an additional opportunity to explore the safety of belimumab in a larger and more diverse population. This post hoc pooled analysis of clinical studies evaluated the safety profile of belimumab versus placebo in adults with SLE.

METHODS

This was a pooled post hoc analysis of 52-week safety data from one Phase 2 and five Phase 3 belimumab trials in adult patients with SLE. Patients received ≥1 dose of placebo or belimumab (1, 4, or 10 mg/kg intravenous or 200 mg subcutaneous), plus standard therapy. Outcomes included the incidence of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), severe AEs, AEs of special interest (AESI), and mortality.

RESULTS

Across 4170 patients (placebo: N = 1355; belimumab: N = 2815), baseline demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment exposure were similar for placebo and belimumab. Most patients (placebo: 76.6%; belimumab: 81.0%) completed the protocol Week 52 visit. Overall, incidence of AEs, SAEs, severe AEs, AESI, and mortality were similar between groups. In both groups, the most commonly reported SAEs by system organ class were infections and infestations (placebo: 5.9%; belimumab: 5.4%) and renal and urinary disorders (placebo: 2.2%; belimumab: 1.7%). Additionally, a greater proportion of patients experienced AESI with belimumab versus placebo for post-infusion/injection systemic reactions (placebo: 8.1%; belimumab: 10.2%). Mortality rates were similar between groups (placebo: 0.4%; belimumab: 0.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

These results are consistent with those of the individual studies, BASE, BLISS-LN, and long-term extension studies, making belimumab one of the most studied SLE treatments for safety. Collectively, this evidence continues to support a positive benefit-risk profile of belimumab in the treatment of adult patients with SLE.

MOONLIGHT study: the design of a comparative study of the effectiveness of belimumab in patients with a history of lupus nephritis from the post-Marketed effectiveness of belimumab cOhOrt and JapaN Lupus NatIonwide reGistry (LUNA) coHorT

Introduction

Lupus nephritis (LN) is more prevalent in patients with SLE of Asian ethnicity than in Caucasian patients. Belimumab became available in Japan in 2017 to treat patients with SLE, including those with LN. In the BLISS-LN trial (NCT01639339), belimumab showed a favourable effect on renal outcomes when combined with standard therapy (ST) starting at the induction treatment phase for active LN, but real-world effectiveness of belimumab in LN has not been extensively studied. Here we describe the protocol for the MOONLIGHT (post-Marketed effectiveness of belimumab cOhOrt and JapaN Lupus NatIonwide ReGistry (LUNA) coHorT) study, which will use data from a Japan postmarketing surveillance study and the Lupus Registry of Nationwide Institutions (LUNA) to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of belimumab plus ST versus ST alone in patients with a history of active LN who are not in the induction phase.

Methods and analysis

This multicentre, retrospective, observational study (GSK Study 214710) will enrol adults with SLE and a history of active LN, holding ≥3 years of complete follow-up data from the initiation of belimumab (no continuous treatment required). Data for patients with belimumab plus ST treatment (postmarketing registry data, belimumab cohort) will be compared with those for patients with ST only treatment (LUNA data, comparison cohort). Patients who discontinue/initiate belimumab after the start of the follow-up may be included in the comparison/belimumab cohort, respectively. The primary endpoint will be the occurrence of renal flares, for which belimumab’s effectiveness will be estimated using a marginal structural model to consider time-dependent treatment and confounding factors. Secondary endpoints will include change in corticosteroid dose, renal disease activity, extrarenal disease activity, disease severity/activity biomarkers, LN class changes, end-stage kidney disease events and hospitalisations.

Ethics and dissemination

This study will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and the local ethical guidelines. Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings.

POS0183 THE EFFECT OF BELIMUMAB ON SRI-4 RESPONSE IN MULTIPLE SUBGROUPS OF PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: RESULTS OF A LARGE INTEGRATED ANALYSIS

Background

Belimumab (BEL) is approved for the treatment of active autoantibody-positive systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).1 Four Phase 3 studies have consistently demonstrated greater SLE Responder Index (SRI) response rates with BEL vs placebo (PBO).2-5 This robust dataset allows for additional exploration of the onset of efficacy of BEL and response rates by patient (pt) characteristics.

Objectives

To perform a post hoc analysis evaluating the effect of BEL on SRI-4 response across a large, pooled population and pt subgroups.

Methods

The Belimumab Summary of Lupus Efficacy (Be-SLE) integrated analysis evaluated data from adults with SLE from 5 double-blind, PBO-controlled BEL trials: BLISS-76, BLISS-52, BLISS-NEA, BLISS-SC, and EMBRACE.2-6 Pts were randomised to BEL (monthly intravenous 10 mg/kg or weekly subcutaneous 200 mg) or PBO, plus standard therapy. Data were collected every 4 weeks (wks) from baseline (BL) to Wk 52. The SRI-4 response rate (a composite measure that includes ≥4-point reduction in Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment - SLE Disease Activity Index [SELENA-SLEDAI] score, stable Physician Global Assessment [PGA] increase of <0.3, and no new British Isles Lupus Assessment Group [BILAG] 1A/2B organ domain scores) by visit and time to first SRI-4 response maintained through Wk 52 were determined for both treatment groups. SRI-4 response rates at Wk 52 were evaluated by BL characteristic subgroups: SELENA-SLEDAI score; SLE International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) score; disease duration; biomarker levels (anti-dsDNA, complement [C]3/C4); glucocorticoid (GC), immunosuppressant (IS), and antimalarial (AM) use.

Results

Overall, 3086 pts were included (BEL, n=1869; PBO, n=1217). Most were female (94.4%); mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 37.0 (11.6) years. Mean (SD) SLE duration was 6.4 (6.4) years.

At Wk 52, in the overall population, significantly more BEL vs PBO pts were SRI-4 responders (Figure 1). A significantly greater proportion of SRI-4 responders was observed with BEL vs PBO as early as Wk 8 (38.4% vs 33.3%; odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval, CI] 1.25 [1.07, 1.46]; p=0.0060), which continued to increase to Wk 52 (54.8% vs 41.6%; OR [95% CI] 1.70 [1.46, 1.98]; p<0.0001). At Wk 52, more BEL vs PBO pts had a 4-point reduction in SELENA-SLEDAI (56.3% vs 43.1%; OR [95% CI] 1.71 [1.47, 2.00]; p<0.0001), no worsening in PGA (76.6% vs 67.9%; OR [95% CI] 1.52 [1.28, 1.79]; p<0.0001), and no new BILAG 1A/2B organ domain scores (77.1% vs 69.4%; OR [95% CI] 1.47 [1.25, 1.74]; p<0.0001). Pts on BEL were 52% more likely to experience an SRI-4 response that was maintained through Wk 52 (hazard ratio, HR [95% CI] 1.52 [1.36, 1.69]; p<0.0001).

Figure 1.

SRI-4 response at Wk 52 in the overall population and by BL characteristic subgroups.

*OR (95% CI) and p-value are from a logistic regression model for BEL vs PBO comparison with covariates of treatment group, study and BL SELENA-SLEDAI score (≤9 vs ≥10)

SRI-4 response rates were significantly higher with BEL vs PBO in most subgroups, with the highest response rates observed in pts with SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≥10, low C3 and/or C4 + anti-dsDNA ≥30 IU/ml, and low C3 and/or C4 at BL (Figure 1).

Conclusion

Significantly more pts receiving BEL had SRI-4 response rates that occurred from Wk 8 and were maintained through Wk 52 compared with pts receiving PBO. The efficacy of BEL was consistent across multiple pt subgroups, with higher response rates in pts with SELENA-SLEDAI scores of ≥10, low C3 and/or C4 + anti-dsDNA ≥30 IU/ml and low C3 and/or C4 at BL. These results further substantiate the benefits of BEL in the treatment of adults with SLE.

References

[1]GlaxoSmithKline. Benlysta US prescribing information. 2021

[2]Furie R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2011;63(12):3918–30

[3]Navarra SV, et al. Lancet 2011;377(9767):721–31

[4]Stohl W, et al. Arthritis Rheum 2017;69(5):1016–27

[5]Zhang F, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77(3):355–63

[6] Ginzler E, et al. Arthritis Rheum 2021; doi: 10.1002/art.41900

Acknowledgements

This analysis was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Medical writing support was provided by Lulu Hill, MPharmacol, Fishawack Indicia Ltd. UK, part of Fishawack Health, and was funded by GSK.

Disclosure of Interests

Michelle A Petri Consultant of: GSK, Grant/research support from: GSK, George Bertsias Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Aenorasis, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, SOBI, Consultant of: Novartis, GSK, AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: GSK, Pfizer, Mark Daniels Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Norma Lynn Fox Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Bevra H. Hahn Consultant of: UCB, GSK, Anne Hammer Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Julia Harris Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Holly Quasny Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Chiara Tani Speakers bureau: GSK, AstraZeneca, Anca Askanase Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc., Amgen, AbbVie Inc., BMS, GSK, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, GSK, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer

Efficacy and safety of belimumab in paediatric and adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: an across-study comparison

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of belimumab in paediatric versus adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Methods

We performed across-study comparisons of patients with active SLE who received belimumab or placebo, plus standard therapy, in PLUTO (paediatric phase II) and BLISS-52, BLISS-76, BLISS-NEA and EMBRACE (adult phase III). Analysed efficacy data included Week 52 SLE Responder Index (SRI)-4 response rate (EMBRACE: SRI with modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) proteinuria scoring (SRI-S2K)); SRI-4 response rate (EMBRACE: SRI-S2K) according to baseline disease activity indicators (Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment-Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI) score; anti-dsDNA/C3/C4 levels); Week 52 SRI-6 response rate; and time to first severe flare (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) over 52 weeks. Safety data were compared for all aforementioned studies along with adult LBSL02 (phase II) and BLISS-SC (phase III).

Results

SRI-4 response rates were similar across the paediatric and adult studies; more belimumab-treated patients achieved SRI-4 responses versus placebo (PLUTO: 52.8% vs 43.6%; BLISS-52: 57.6% vs 43.6%; BLISS-76: 43.2% vs 33.8%; BLISS-NEA: 53.8% vs 40.1%; EMBRACE: 48.7% vs 41.6%). Across all studies, SRI-4 response rates were generally greater in patients with baseline SELENA-SLEDAI scores ≥10 than in patients with baseline SELENA-SLEDAI scores ≤9. A similar proportion of belimumab-treated patients achieved SRI-6 across all studies (PLUTO: 41.2%; BLISS-52: 46.2%; BLISS-76: 33.1%; BLISS-NEA: 43.9%; EMBRACE: 37.5%). Belimumab reduced the risk of severe flare versus placebo in all studies. The incidence of adverse events was similar across all studies.

Conclusions

These analyses demonstrate consistent efficacy and safety of belimumab plus standard therapy across paediatric and adult patients with SLE.

Trial registration numbers

PLUTO (NCT01649765); BLISS-52 (NCT00424476); BLISS-76 (NCT00410384); BLISS-NEA (NCT01345253); EMBRACE (NCT01632241); BLISS-SC (NCT01484496); and LBSL02 (NCT00071487).

AB0288 SAFETY OF BELIMUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: YEAR 2 FOLLOW-UP OF A LARGE PHASE 4, RANDOMISED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDY

Background:

Belimumab (BEL), a recombinant human monoclonal antibody that inhibits B-lymphocyte stimulator (BLyS), is approved for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Clinical studies have yielded varying incidence rates of mortality and adverse events of special interest, such as malignancies, thereby necessitating large-scale, long-term assessment following BEL exposure.

Objectives:

To assess all-cause mortality and new primary malignancies during post-treatment Year 2 follow-up in adult patients with active, autoantibody-positive SLE who received intravenous (IV) BEL or placebo (PBO), plus standard therapy in the 52-week double-blind treatment period of the ongoing BASE trial.1

Methods:

This was a post-treatment follow-up of the Phase 4, double-blind study (BASE1; GSK Study BEL115467; NCT01705977), which randomised 4019 adults with active SLE and receiving standard therapy to BEL (10 mg/kg IV) or PBO on Days 0, 14, 28, and monthly thereafter until Week 48. All patients (including those who discontinued BEL before the end-of-treatment phase) were contacted by phone annually (+/-30-day time window). Rates of mortality and new primary malignancy are summarised for Year 2 follow-up, presented by the treatment received during the 52-week double-blind treatment period (Year 1).

Results:

Baseline patient characteristics and disease activity collected at the start of the study, evaluated in patients with Year 2 follow-up were similar to the overall Year 1 study population. Cumulatively by Year 2 follow-up, 10.7% and 9.5% of patients had been exposed to commercial BEL in the BEL and PBO groups, respectively. Cumulative follow-up adjusted mortality and malignancy rates (per 100 patient years) were lower in the BEL vs PBO Year 1 treatment group (Table 1).

Conclusion:

Year 2 follow-up results of BASE, the largest clinical trial of SLE to date,1 provide continued support for the BEL safety profile. No new BEL safety concerns were identified in patients with active, autoantibody-positive SLE receiving standard therapy.

Funding: GSK

References:

[1]Sheikh SZ, et al. Lancet Rheum. 2020 (ePub ahead of print) doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30355-6

Table 1.

Year 2 post-treatment* follow-up mortality and new primary malignancy rates by study treatment during Year 1

BELPBOTotalYear 1 as-treated populationN=2002N=2001N=4003Year 1 deaths, n (%)13 (0.65)22 (1.10)35 (0.87)Year 1 new primary malignancies, n (%)9 (0.45)10 (0.50)19 (0.47)Year 2 (as-treated in Year 1) populationN=1681N=1666N=3347Year 2 deaths by MedDRA SOC, n (%)9 (0.54)21 (1.26)30 (0.90)Cardiac disorders2 (0.12)6 (0.36)8 (0.24)Infections and infestations4 (0.24)2 (0.12)6 (0.18)Uncoded1 (0.06)3 (0.18)4 (0.12)General disorders/administration site conditions1 (0.06)2 (0.12)3 (0.09)Gastrointestinal disorders1 (0.06)1 (0.06)2 (0.06)Neoplasms02 (0.12)2 (0.06)Other05 (0.30)†5 (0.15)Cumulative deaths by Year 2 follow-up, n (%)22 (1.10)43 (2.15)65 (1.62)Incidence rate per 100 patient years0.601.180.89Year 2 new primary malignancies by MedDRA SOC, n (%)3 (0.18)4 (0.24)7 (0.21)Neoplasms2 (0.12)4 (0.24)6 (0.18)Hepatobiliary disorders1 (0.06)01 (0.03)Cumulative malignancies by Year 2 follow-up, n (%)12 (0.60)14 (0.70)26 (0.65)Patient incidence rate per 100 patient years0.340.400.37

*Patients in the post-treatment follow-up period are no longer receiving study treatment; †1 event/patient: blood/lymphatic system, musculoskeletal/connective tissue, nervous system, psychiatric, and renal/urinary disorders.

MedDRA, Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities; SOC, system organ class.

Acknowledgements:

Medical writing assistance was provided by Katalin Bartus, PhD, Fishawack Indicia Ltd., UK, part of Fishawack Health, and was funded by GSK.

Disclosure of Interests:

Saira Sheikh Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Morton Scheinberg Consultant of: GSK, Pfizer, Alnylam, AbbVie, PTC Therapeutics, James Cheng-Chung Wei Consultant of: TSH Biopharm, AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Eisai, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Sun and UCB, Dana Tegzová: None declared, William Stohl Consultant of: GSK, Grant/research support from: GSK, Pfizer, Gilead, Tamara Mucenic Speakers bureau: Novartis, Janssen, BMS, AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: GSK, Janssen, Roche, Eli Lilly, Gilead, UCB, Raj Punwaney Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Regina Kurrasch Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Julia Harris Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Saima Muzaffar Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Sofia Fernandes Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Norma Lynn Fox Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Andrew Liu Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Holly Quasny Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, David Roth Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK

POS0697 SAFETY OF BELIMUMAB IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: A LARGE INTEGRATED SAFETY ANALYSIS OF CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL DATA

Background:

Belimumab (BEL), a monoclonal antibody that antagonizes B-lymphocyte stimulator, was first approved in 2011 for active, autoantibody-positive systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). BEL has been studied for over 10 years; and while safety data from individual trials have been informative, a large integrated safety analysis has not yet been conducted.

Objectives:

Perform pooled analyses to evaluate the safety of BEL in adult patients with SLE.

Methods:

Aggregate analyses were performed using safety data for patients ≥18 years of age pooled from six randomised, placebo (PBO)-controlled BEL clinical trials (GSK studies: LBSL02, 110752, 110751, 112341, 113750, and 115471). Patients from GSK studies LBSL02, 110752, and 110751 received intravenous (IV) BEL 1, 4 (LBSL02 only), or 10 mg/kg, or PBO on Days 1, 14, 28, and every 28 days thereafter. Patients from GSK studies 113750 and 115471 received IV BEL 10 mg/kg or PBO on Days 1, 14, 28, and every 28 days thereafter. Patients from GSK study 112341 received subcutaneous (SC) BEL 200 mg, or PBO weekly. Safety analyses included the incidence of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), severe AEs, AEs of special interest (AESI), and mortality of BEL (all doses and formulations combined) vs PBO at Week 52.

Results:

The pooled analysis included 4170 patients. Overall, 81.0% (n=2280/2815) of patients receiving BEL and 76.6% (n=1038/1355) of patients receiving PBO completed their respectively enrolled study; the most common reason for withdrawal was occurrence of an AE in both groups. The majority of patients were female (BEL: 94.5%; PBO: 93.6%), the mean age in both groups was 38 years, and baseline characteristics (race, SLE duration, disease activity, SLE damage, complement levels, anti-dsDNA binding, SLE medication usage) were similar between treatments.

The incidence of patients experiencing ≥1 AE, ≥1 SAE, and mortality was similar across treatments (Table 1); the most commonly reported SAEs in both groups were infections and infestations (BEL: 5.4% [n=151/2815]; PBO: 5.9% [n=80/1355]). The mean duration of treatment exposure was similar between groups (BEL: 334.1 days; PBO: 325.3 days).

A greater proportion of patients experienced AESI with BEL vs PBO for post-infusion/injection systemic reactions (from IV or SC administration) and depression/suicide/self-injury (Table 1). The proportion of patients experiencing an AESI of infections and malignancies was similar between groups.

Conclusion:

Consistent with individual studies, BEL demonstrated a similar safety profile to PBO in this large integrated safety analysis of six trials. These results support a positive benefit–risk profile of BEL in the treatment of adult SLE.

Funding:

GSK

Table 1.

Pooled AE data

N (%)PBO (IV + SC)N=1355BEL (IV + SC)N=2815AE1184 (87.4)2440 (86.7)SAE230 (17.0)421 (15.0)Severe AE (severe or life threatening)209 (15.4)377 (13.4)AE resulting in study drug discontinuation109 (8.0)184 (6.5)Death6 (0.4)16 (0.6)AESIPost-infusion/injection systemic reactions*110 (8.1)286 (10.2)Serious2 (0.1)13 (0.5)All infections of special interest (OIs, HZ, TB, sepsis)97 (7.2)173 (6.1)Serious17 (1.3)40 (1.4)All OIs92 (6.8)157 (5.6)Active TB5 (0.4)4 (0.1)All HZ59 (4.4)106 (3.8)All sepsis10 (0.7)20 (0.7)Malignancies excluding NMSC2 (0.1)8 (0.3)Including NMSC3 (0.2)12 (0.4)Depression (inc. mood disorders and anxiety)/suicide/self-injury92 (6.8)210 (7.5)Serious5 (0.4)9 (0.3)

*Occurring on or within 3 days of infusion/injection date.

HZ, herpes zoster; NMSC, non-melanoma skin cancer; OIs, opportunistic infections; TB, tuberculosis

Acknowledgements:

Medical writing assistance was provided by Helen Taylor, Fishawack Indicia Ltd., UK, part of Fishawack Health, and was funded by GSK.

Disclosure of Interests:

Daniel J. Wallace Speakers bureau: GSK, Consultant of: GSK, Tatsuya Atsumi Speakers bureau: GSK, Consultant of: GSK, Grant/research support from: GSK, Mark Daniels Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Anne Hammer Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Paige Meizlik Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Holly Quasny Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Andreas Schwarting Speakers bureau: Novartis, Roche, GSK, Pfizer, Amgen, Consultant of: GSK, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, Actelion, Fengchun Zhang: None declared, David Roth Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK

Pharmacotherapy and Lung Function Decline in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review

Rationale: Whether pharmacological therapy alters decline in FEV₁ in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease remains controversial. Because pharmacotherapy improves health status, exacerbation rate, and symptoms, it may be unethical to complete placebo-controlled long-term studies aimed at modifying FEV₁ decline.

Objectives: We conducted a systematic review of placebo-controlled pharmacological trials lasting ≥1 year to address the question of whether therapy alters FEV₁ decline.

Methods: A literature search for randomized trials that included repeated spirometry with at least one active and one placebo arm was conducted. Articles were excluded if study duration was <1 year, <3 spirometric measurements, or <100 subjects per arm. Study design was assessed using the Jadad score. To combine studies and find the estimated effect, we used random effects methodology to account for both within-study and between-study variation.

Measurements and Main Results: There were 33,051 patients in the analysis (active component, n = 21,941; placebo, n = 11,110 in nine studies). The active treatment arms demonstrated a 5.0 ml/yr reduction (95% confidence interval, 0.8–9.1 ml/yr; P < 0.001) in the rate of FEV₁ decline compared with the placebo arms. The relative FEV₁ differences between active and placebo arms were within the range of differences reported for health status and for the exacerbation rate in the same studies.

Conclusions: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pharmacotherapy ameliorates rate of lung function decline. The relative benefit observed is within the range of those reported for health status and exacerbations in the same studies. Guidelines should be adjusted according to these findings.

InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT Trial) Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol) Versus Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol and Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With COPD: Analysis of the Western Europe and North America Regions

BACKGROUND

The InforMing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial demonstrated lower moderate/severe exacerbation rates with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations. Since IMPACT was a global study, post-hoc analyses were conducted by geographic region to investigate potential differences in overall findings.

METHODS

IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25µg, FF/VI 100/25µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25µg. Endpoints assessed in the overall, Western Europe and North America populations included on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation (rates and time-to-first), trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score. Safety was assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 10,355 patients were enrolled, 3164 from Western Europe, 2639 from North America. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in Western Europe (rate ratios 0.82 [95%CI 0.74-0.91], P<.001 and 0.76 [0.67-0.87], P<.001) and in North America (0.87 [0.77-0.97], P=.014 and 0.69 [0.60-0.80], P<.001). FF/UMEC/VI reduced time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation and improved lung function versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in both regions, and improved SGRQ total score in Western Europe, but not North America. Safety profiles were generally similar between treatment groups/regions; the inhaled corticosteroid class effect of increased pneumonia incidence was seen in North America but not Western Europe.

CONCLUSION

Consistent with intent-to-treat results, FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rate and risk and improved lung function in Western Europe and North America; however, between-regions differences were seen for SGRQ total score and pneumonia incidence.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02164513.

THU0503 PLUTO TRIAL: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES OF SRI4 RESPONSE WITH BELIMUMAB VS PLACEBO IN PAEDIATRIC PATIENTS WITH CHILDHOOD-ONSET SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS (CSLE)

Background:

Belimumab (BEL) is the first treatment approved in children ≥5 years of age with cSLE. This recent approval was based on favourable results of the PLUTO trial, evaluating efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) BEL, plus standard SLE therapy (SST), vs placebo (PBO), in children with cSLE.1

Objectives:

To evaluate the SLE Responder Index 4 (SRI4) sensitivity of response for the comparison of BEL vs PBO at Week (Wk) 52.

Methods:

In PLUTO (NCT01649765; GSK study BEL114055), an ongoing Phase 2, randomised, PBO-controlled, double-blind study, patients (pts) 5–17 years of age with active cSLE were randomised to monthly BEL 10 mg/kg IV, or PBO, plus SST, for 52 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the SRI4 response rate at Wk 52. Pre-specified sensitivity analyses supporting the primary efficacy endpoint for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population included unadjusted, last observation carried forward (LOCF), completer responses, and response using SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) 2K proteinuria scoring rule (4-point score for proteinuria >0.5 g/24 h), all at Wk 52. Completers were pts who completed 52 weeks of treatment. Any pts who withdrew or received protocol-prohibited medication or a dose of allowable medication that resulted in treatment failure prior to the Wk 52 visit had missing data handled using LOCF (missing values imputed using the last previous non-missing value). Statistics are descriptive.

Results:

Overall, 93 pts were randomised (BEL, n=53; PBO, n=40). Majority (94.6%) of pts were female, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 14.0 (2.49) years and mean (SD) disease duration was 2.4 (1.93) years. By Wk 52, numerically more BEL (52.8%) than PBO (43.6%) pts were SRI4 responders; difference vs PBO 9.24; odds ratio (OR; 95% confidence interval [CI]) vs PBO 1.49 (0.64, 3.46). For each sensitivity analysis (unadjusted, LOCF, completer, and SLEDAI 2K responses) the odds of being a responder at Wk 52 were higher for pts receiving BEL vs PBO (Table).

Table.

Sensitivity analyses: SRI4 response at Wk 52

PBO(n=40)BEL(n=53)Unadjusted response (ITT), n*3953 n (%)17 (43.6)28 (52.8) Observed difference vs PBO9.24 OR (95% CI)†vs PBO1.45 (0.63, 3.33)LOCF response (ITT), n*3953 n (%)18 (46.2)30 (56.6) Observed difference vs PBO10.45 OR (95% CI)‡vs PBO1.51 (0.65, 3.52)Completer response (completers), n*3045 n (%)17 (56.7)27 (60.0) Observed difference vs PBO3.33 OR (95% CI)‡vs PBO1.16 (0.44, 3.09)Response using SLEDAI 2K (ITT), n*3953 n (%)17 (43.6)28 (52.8) Observed difference vs PBO9.24 OR (95% CI)‡vs PBO1.49 (0.64, 3.46)

*One pt was excluded because they did not have a baseline Safety of Estrogens in Lupus National Assessment (SELENA)-SLEDAI assessment;†calculated from a logistic regression model for the comparison between BEL and PBO without adjustment for any covariates;‡calculated from a logistic regression model for the comparison between BEL and PBO with covariates treatment group, baseline age (5–11 years vs 12–17 years), and baseline SELENA-SLEDAI score (≤12 vs ≥13)

Conclusion:

The results of the SRI4 primary efficacy endpoint sensitivity analyses further support a favourable effect for BEL vs PBO.

References:

[1]Brunner HI,et al.Arthritis Rheumatol.2018;70(59): 3224–5, Abst. 2867

Acknowledgments:

We acknowledge all PLUTO investigators (PRINTO, PRCSG and otherwise affiliated). Study funding: GSK.

Disclosure of Interests:

Nicolino Ruperto Consultant of: Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sanofi, Servier, Sinergie, Sobi and Takeda, Hermine Brunner Consultant of: Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Merck Serono, AbbVie, Amgen, Alter, AstraZeneca, Baxalta Biosimilars, Biogen Idec, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Janssen, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Biosciences, Speakers bureau: GSK, Roche, and Novartis, Masaaki Mori Grant/research support from: Abbvie Japan, Asahikasei Pharmaceutical, Ayumi Pharmaceutical, CSL Behring, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Japan Blood Products Organization, MSD K.K., Nippon Kayaku, UCB Japan, Consultant of: Daiichi Sankyo, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Jacqueline Clinch Consultant of: Alexion, Speakers bureau: Alexion, Reema Syed: None declared, Naomi Iwata Speakers bureau: Sanofi K.K, Damon Bass Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Beulah Ji Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Anne Hammer Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Mohamed Okily Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Gina Eriksson Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Holly Quasny Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK

SAT0505 PLUTO TRIAL OF INTRAVENOUS BELIMUMAB IN PAEDIATRIC PATIENTS WITH CHILDHOOD-ONSET SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS (cSLE): PATIENT RESPONSES OVER TIME

Background:

Belimumab (BEL) is a human monoclonal antibody that specifically inhibits B-cell activating factor (BAFF). PLUTO is an ongoing trial evaluating efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) BEL in children ≥5 years of age with cSLE. Efficacy, and safety endpoints of PLUTO have been reported;1briefly, numerically more BEL vs PBO pts met the primary and major secondary efficacy endpoints. We present patient (pt) response to BEL over time.

Objectives:

To evaluate changes in SLE Responder Index (SRI) 4 and SRI6 responses, and disease activity over 52 weeks, in paediatric pts receiving BEL, or placebo (PBO), plus standard SLE therapy (SST).

Methods:

PLUTO (GSK Study BEL114055,NCT01649765) is a Phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Pts 5–17 years of age with active cSLE were randomised to monthly BEL 10 mg/kg IV, or PBO, plus SST. Endpoints assessed: SRI4 and SRI6 response rate, mean percentage and absolute change from baseline in Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment (SELENA)-SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) and Physicians’ Global Assessment (PGA) scores, and percentage of pts with no new British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) 1A/2B organ domain scores compared with baseline, all by study visit. The last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) principle (missing values imputed using the last available non-missing value) was applied to pts who withdrew or received protocol-prohibited medication or a dose of allowable medication that resulted in treatment failure prior to the Week (Wk) 52 visit. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results:

A total of 93 pts (94.6% female, mean [SD] age 14.0 [2.49] years) were randomised for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population: 53 to BEL and 40 to PBO. Mean (SD) BEL and PBO baseline scores were 10.3 (3.34) and 10.4 (3.63) for SELENA-SLEDAI and 1.3 (0.43) and 1.4 (0.42) for PGA, respectively. Pt number with at least BILAG 1A/2B organ domain involvement at baseline was 37 (69.8%) for BEL and 29 (72.5%) for PBO. SRI4 and SRI6 responses over 52 weeks were mostly numerically higher with BEL than PBO; more BEL than PBO pts were SRI4 and SRI6 responders at Wk 52 (Figure 1). Unadjusted mean (SE) percentage changes from baseline over time in SELENA-SLEDAI and PGA scores generally favoured BEL over PBO, as did unadjusted mean (SE) absolute changes (Figure 2). Wk 52 adjusted mean (95% CI) percentage treatment difference vs PBO was -4.0% (-21.8, 13.9) for SELENA-SLEDAI and -6.1% (-23.9, 11.7) for PGA, while Wk 52 adjusted mean (95% CI) treatment difference vs PBO was -0.7 (-2.4, 1.1) for SELENA-SLEDAI and -0.1 (-0.3, 0.1) for PGA. Over the study duration, numerically more BEL than PBO pts had no new BILAG 1A/2B organ domain scores (Figure 2).

Figure 1.

SRI4 and SRI6 response by study visit

Figure 2.

SELENA-SLEDAI and PGA score mean percentage and absolute change from baseline, and no new BILAG 1A/2B organ domain scores compared with baseline, all by study visit

Conclusion:

In line with the main analyses performed at Wk 52,1further analyses of responses over time in SRI4, SRI6 and disease activity generally favoured BEL over PBO. Combined, these results continue to support the efficacy profile of IV BEL in the treatment of children with cSLE.

References:

[1]Brunner HI,et al.Arthritis Rheumatol.2018;70(59): 3224–5, Abst. 2867

Acknowledgments:

We acknowledge all PLUTO investigators (PRINTO, PRCSG and otherwise affiliated). Study funding: GSK.

Disclosure of Interests:

Nicolino Ruperto Consultant of: Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sanofi, Servier, Sinergie, Sobi and Takeda, Liza McCann: None declared, Syuji Takei Grant/research support from: Eisai, Consultant of: Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Speakers bureau: GSK, Sanofi, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Novartis, Chugai, Ono, Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clarissa Pilkington: None declared, Damon Bass Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Beulah Ji Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Anne Hammer Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Mohamed Okily Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Gina Eriksson Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Holly Quasny Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Hermine Brunner Consultant of: Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Merck Serono, AbbVie, Amgen, Alter, AstraZeneca, Baxalta Biosimilars, Biogen Idec, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Janssen, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Biosciences, Speakers bureau: GSK, Roche, and Novartis