Anti-C5a antibody (vilobelimab) therapy for critically ill, invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PANAMO): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Vilobelimab, an anti-C5a monoclonal antibody, was shown to be safe in a phase 2 trial of invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Here, we aimed to determine whether vilobelimab in addition to standard of care improves survival outcomes in this patient population.

METHODS

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial was performed at 46 hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Russia, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years or older who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, but not more than 48 h after intubation at time of first infusion, had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 60-200 mm Hg, and a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with any variant in the past 14 days were eligible for this study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard of care and vilobelimab at a dose of 800 mg intravenously for a maximum of six doses (days 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 22) or standard of care and a matching placebo using permuted block randomisation. Treatment was not continued after hospital discharge. Participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality at 28 days in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly assigned participants regardless of whether a patient started treatment, excluding patients randomly assigned in error) and measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Safety analyses included all patients who had received at least one infusion of either vilobelimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04333420.

FINDINGS

From Oct 1, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, we included 368 patients in the ITT analysis (full analysis set; 177 in the vilobelimab group and 191 in the placebo group). One patient in the vilobelimab group was excluded from the primary analysis due to random assignment in error without treatment. At least one dose of study treatment was given to 364 (99%) patients (safety analysis set). 54 patients (31%) of 177 in the vilobelimab group and 77 patients (40%) of 191 in the placebo group died in the first 28 days. The all-cause mortality rate at 28 days was 32% (95% CI 25-39) in the vilobelimab group and 42% (35-49) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·50-1·06; p=0·094). In the predefined analysis without site-stratification, vilobelimab significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·96; p=0·027). The most common TEAEs were acute kidney injury (35 [20%] of 175 in the vilobelimab group vs 40 [21%] of 189 in the placebo), pneumonia (38 [22%] vs 26 [14%]), and septic shock (24 [14%] vs 31 [16%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 103 (59%) of 175 patients in the vilobelimab group versus 120 (63%) of 189 in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

In addition to standard of care, vilobelimab improves survival of invasive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and leads to a significant decrease in mortality. Vilobelimab could be considered as an additional therapy for patients in this setting and further research is needed on the role of vilobelimab and C5a in other acute respiratory distress syndrome-causing viral infections.

FUNDING

InflaRx and the German Federal Government.

Evaluation of the effect of tofacitinib on measured glomerular filtration rate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results from a randomised controlled trial

Introduction

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). During the clinical development programme, increases in mean serum creatinine (SCr) of approximately 0.07 mg/dL and 0.08 mg/dL were observed which plateaued early. This study assessed changes in measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) with tofacitinib relative to placebo in patients with active RA.

Methods

This was a randomised, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 study (NCT01484561). Patients were aged ≥18 years with active RA. Patients were randomised 2:1 to oral tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily (BID) in Period 1 then placebo BID in Period 2 (tofacitinib → placebo); or oral placebo BID in both Periods (placebo → placebo). Change in mGFR was evaluated by iohexol serum clearance at four time points (run-in, pre-dose in Period 1, Period 1 end, and Period 2 end). The primary endpoint was the change in mGFR from baseline to Period 1 end. Secondary endpoints included: change in mGFR at other time points; change in estimated GFR (eGFR; Cockcroft–Gault equation) and SCr; efficacy; and safety.

Results

148 patients were randomised to tofacitinib → placebo (N = 97) or placebo → placebo (N = 51). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. A reduction of 8% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 2%, 14%) from baseline in adjusted geometric mean mGFR was observed during tofacitinib treatment in Period 1 vs placebo. During Period 2, mean mGFR returned towards baseline during placebo treatment, and there was no difference between the two treatment groups at the end of the study – ratio (tofacitinib → placebo/placebo → placebo) of adjusted geometric mean fold change of mGFR was 1.04 (90% CI: 0.97, 1.11). Post-hoc analyses, focussed on mGFR variability in placebo → placebo patients, were consistent with this conclusion. At study end, similar results were observed for eGFR and SCr. Clinical efficacy and safety were consistent with prior studies.

Conclusion

Increases in mean SCr and decreases in eGFR in tofacitinib-treated patients with RA may occur in parallel with decreases in mean mGFR; mGFR returned towards baseline after tofacitinib discontinuation, with no significant difference vs placebo, even after post-hoc analyses. Safety monitoring will continue in ongoing and future clinical studies and routine pharmacovigilance.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01484561. Registered 30 November 2011.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0612-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Subcutaneous abatacept versus intravenous abatacept: a phase IIIb noninferiority study in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) abatacept.

METHODS

In this phase IIIb double-blind, double-dummy, 6-month study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate responses to methotrexate were randomized to receive 125 mg SC abatacept on days 1 and 8 and weekly thereafter (plus an IV loading dose [∼10 mg/kg] on day 1) or IV abatacept (∼10 mg/kg) on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 4 weeks thereafter. The primary end point for determining the noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept was the proportion of patients in each group meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at month 6. Other efficacy end points, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1,457 patients, 693 of 736 (94.2%) treated with SC abatacept and 676 of 721 (93.8%) treated with IV abatacept completed 6 months. At month 6, 76.0% (95% confidence interval 72.9, 79.2) of SC abatacept-treated patients versus 75.8% (95% confidence interval 72.6, 79.0) of IV abatacept-treated patients achieved an ACR20 response (estimated difference between groups 0.3% [95% confidence interval -4.2, 4.8]), confirming noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept. Onset and magnitude of ACR responses and disease activity and physical function improvements were comparable between the SC and IV abatacept-treated groups. The proportions of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs over 6 months were 67.0% and 4.2%, respectively, in the SC abatacept-treated group and 65.2% and 4.9%, respectively, in the IV abatacept-treated group, with comparable frequencies of serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events between groups. SC injection site reactions (mostly mild) occurred in 19 SC abatacept (IV placebo)-treated patients (2.6%) and 18 IV abatacept (SC placebo)-treated patients (2.5%). Abatacept-induced antibodies occurred in 1.1% of SC abatacept-treated patients and 2.3% of IV abatacept-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

SC abatacept provides efficacy and safety comparable with that of IV abatacept, with low immunogenicity and high retention rates, consistent with the established IV abatacept profile. Rates of injection site reactions were low. SC abatacept will provide additional treatment options, such as an alternative route of administration, for patients with RA.