AB0370 UTILITY OF CRP AND ESR IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF GIANT CELL ARTERITIS RELAPSE IN A PHASE 2 TRIAL OF MAVRILIMUMAB

Background:

No universally accepted definition of flare currently exists in giant cell arteritis (GCA). Although relapses are defined mostly on clinical grounds (recurrence of GCA-related signs/symptoms), C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) help clinicians assess disease activity. In fact, >70% of patients on glucocorticoids (GCs) alone have increased CRP or ESR when the disease is active. In contrast, tocilizumab, given its IL-6-blockade effect in the liver, rapidly reduces CRP and ESR levels, rendering them unreliable for disease activity monitoring. Mavrilimumab – a GM-CSF receptor α inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in a Phase 2 GCA trial1 – downregulates inflammation upstream of IL-6. We hypothesized that mavrilimumab would not interfere with the utility of CRP and ESR in monitoring disease activity and in identifying GCA relapse.

Objectives:

To analyze the relationship between CRP/ESR and clinical disease activity in GCA patients treated with mavrilimumab.

Methods:

New-onset and relapsing GCA patients with active disease were recruited. GC-induced remission (no GCA symptoms and CRP <1 mg/dL or ESR <20 mm/hr) was required by baseline. Patients were randomized 3:2 to mavrilimumab 150 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks plus a protocol-defined 26-week prednisone taper. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to relapse by Week 26. Relapse (adjudicated) was defined as recurrent GCA-related signs/symptoms, including new/worsening vasculitis on imaging, concurrent with CRP ≥1 mg/dL and/or ESR ≥30 mm/hr. CRP and ESR were also measured periodically during the trial.

This post hoc analysis assessed the association of recurrent GCA-related signs/symptoms with concurrent CRP or ESR elevation post-randomization by treatment arm. We also assessed the proportion of patients with CRP or ESR elevation without GCA-related signs/symptoms up to Week 26.

Results:

Seventy patients were enrolled (mavrilimumab, N=42; placebo, N=28). The association of CRP or ESR elevation with unequivocal GCA-related signs/symptoms post-randomization was consistent regardless of treatment arm: 8/8 in the mavrilimumab group and 13/13 in the placebo group (Table 1). During relapse, median (range) CRP was 1.8 (1.4 – 8.4) mg/dL (mavrilimumab group) and 1.8 (1.1 – 9.0) mg/dL (placebo group). Corresponding ESR values were 39.5 (30 – 102) mm/hr (mavrilimumab group) and 49 (31 – 101) mm/hr (placebo group). Four mavrilimumab recipients had self-limited, equivocal GCA-related signs/symptoms without concurrent CRP or ESR elevation; all 4 completed the prespecified GC taper by Week 26 without need for rescue GCs, so relapse was not confirmed. At least 1 elevated CRP or ESR value in the absence of GCA-related signs/symptoms was observed in 58.8% of mavrilimumab recipients and 93.3% of placebo recipients by Week 26.

Conclusion:

The observed association of CRP or ESR elevation with GCA-related signs/symptoms is consistent with the upstream mechanism and supports the utility of the stringent protocol definition of relapse. The frequency and magnitude of CRP and ESR elevations at relapse were similar in both treatment groups, suggesting that CRP and ESR remain useful in assessments of disease activity in mavrilimumab-treated patients. CRP and ESR elevations without GCA-related signs/symptoms occurred more often in placebo recipients.

References:

[1]Cid, Unizony et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020; 72 (suppl 10)

Table 1.

CRP and ESR levels in patients with or without GCA relapse

Assessment§MavrilimumabPlaceboMavrilimumabPlaceboN=42N=28N=42N=28With RelapseWithout Relapse# of patients8 (19.1)13 (46.4)34 (81.0)15 (53.6) Elevated CRP* or ESR†8 (100.0)13 (100.0)20 (58.8)14 (93.3)  Elevated CRP*7 (87.5)10 (76.9)10 (29.4)11 (73.3)   Median (range) mg/dL1.8 (1.4 - 8.4)1.8 (1.1 - 9.0)2.6 (1.3 – 7.0)2.0 (1.0 – 6.6) Elevated ESR†6 (75.0)9 (69.2)16 (47.1)10 (66.7)  Median (range) mm/hr39.5 (30 - 102)49.0 (31 - 101)41.5 (30 - 110)53.5 (30 - 82)

§# (%), except where indicated otherwise.

*CRP ≥ 1 mg/dL

†ESR ≥ 30 mm/hr

Disclosure of Interests:

Sebastian Unizony Consultant of: Janssen and Kiniksa, Grant/research support from: Genentech, Maria C. Cid Speakers bureau: Roche and Kiniksa, Paid instructor for: GSK and Vifor, Consultant of: Janssen, GSK, and Abbvie, Grant/research support from: Kiniksa, Elisabeth Brouwer Speakers bureau: Dr. E.Brouwer as an employee of the UMCG received speaker fees and consulting fees from Roche in 2017 2018 which were paid to the UMCG., Consultant of: Dr. E.Brouwer as an employee of the UMCG received speaker fees and consulting fees from Roche in 2017 2018 which were paid to the UMCG., Lorenzo Dagna Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Glaxo SmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, SOBI, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Glaxo SmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, SOBI; clinical trial for Kiniksa, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, SOBI, Merk Sharp &Dohme, Janssen, Kiniksa, Bhaskar Dasgupta Paid instructor for: Educational grant symposium/workshop for Roche-chugai, Sanofi, and Abbvie, Consultant of: CI UK for the Kiniksa trial, Grant/research support from: Educational grant symposium/workshop for Roche-chugai, Sanofi, and Abbvie, Bernhard Hellmich Consultant of: Honoraria paid to the institution for participation in the clinical trial, Eamonn Molloy: None declared, Carlo Salvarani: None declared, Bruce C. Trapnell Consultant of: Consultant member of DSMB for Kiniksa., Kenneth J Warrington Consultant of: Clinical trial support from Eli Lilly and Kiniksa, Ian Wicks: None declared, Manoj Samant Shareholder of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Teresa Zhou Shareholder of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Lara Pupim Shareholder of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, John F. Paolini Shareholder of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals

LB0001 MAVRILIMUMAB IMPROVES OUTCOMES IN PHASE 2 TRIAL IN NON-MECHANICALLY-VENTILATED PATIENTS WITH SEVERE COVID-19 PNEUMONIA AND SYSTEMIC HYPERINFLAMMATION

Background:

Granulocyte/macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is a cytokine both vital to lung homeostasis and important in regulating inflammation and autoimmunity1,2,3 that has been implicated in the pathogenesis of respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.4-6 Mavrilimumab is a human anti GM-CSF receptor α monoclonal antibody capable of blocking GM-CSF signaling and downregulating the inflammatory process.

Objectives:

To evaluate the effect of mavrilimumab on clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.

Methods:

This on-going, global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled seamless transition Phase 2/3 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mavrilimumab in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation. The Phase 2 portion comprised two groups: Cohort 1 patients requiring supplemental oxygen therapy without mechanical ventilation (to maintain SpO2 ≥92%) and Cohort 2 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, initiated ≤48 hours before randomization. Here, we report results for Phase 2, Cohort 1: 116 patients with severe COVID- 19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from USA, Brazil, Chile, Peru, and South Africa; randomized 1:1:1 to receive a single intravenous administration of mavrilimumab (10 or 6 mg/kg) or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was proportion of patients alive and free of mechanical ventilation at Day 29. Secondary endpoints included [1] time to 2-point clinical improvement (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases COVID-19 ordinal scale), [2] time to return to room air, and [3] mortality, all measured through Day 29. The prespecified evidentiary standard was a 2-sided α of 0.2 (not adjusted for multiplicity).

Results:

Baseline demographics were balanced among the intervention groups; patients were racially diverse (43% non-white), had a mean age of 57 years, and 49% were obese (BMI ≥ 30). All patients received the local standard of care: 96% received corticosteroids (including dexamethasone) and 29% received remdesivir. No differences in outcomes were observed between the 10 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg mavrilimumab arms. Results for these groups are presented together. Mavrilimumab recipients had a reduced requirement for mechanical ventilation and improved survival: at day 29, the proportion of patients alive and free of mechanical ventilation was 12.3 percentage points higher with mavrilimumab (86.7% of patients) than placebo (74.4% of patients) (Primary endpoint; p=0.1224). Mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death through Day 29 (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.35; p=0.0175). Day 29 mortality was 12.5 percentage points lower in mavrilimumab recipients (8%) compared to placebo (20.5%) (p=0.0718). Mavrilimumab recipients had a 61% reduction in the risk of death through Day 29 (HR= 0.39; p=0.0726). Adverse events occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients compared to placebo, including secondary infections and thrombotic events (known complications of COVID-19). Thrombotic events occurred only in the placebo arm (5/40 [12.5%]).

Conclusion:

In a global, diverse population of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation receiving supplemental oxygen therapy, corticosteroids, and remdesivir, a single infusion of mavrilimumab reduced progression to mechanical ventilation and improved survival. Results indicate mavrilimumab, a potent inhibitor of GM-CSF signaling, may have added clinical benefit on top of the current standard therapy for COVID-19. Of potential importance is that this treatment strategy is mechanistically independent of the specific virus or viral variant.

References:

[1]Trapnell, Nat Rev Dis Pri, 2019

[2]Wicks, Nat Rev Immunology, 2015

[3]Hamilton, Exp Rev Clin Immunol, 2015

[4]De Luca, Lancet Rheumatol, 2020

[5]Cremer, Lancet Rheumatol, 2021

[6]Zhou, Nature, 2020

Disclosure of Interests:

Lara Pupim Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, Tisha S. Wang Consultant of: Partner Therapeutics; steering committee for Kinevant BREATHE clinical trial, Kristin Hudock: None declared, Joshua Denson: None declared, Nyda Fourie: None declared, Luis Hercilla Vasquez: None declared, Kleber Luz: None declared, Mohammad Madjid Grant/research support from: Kiniksa, Kirsten McHarry: None declared, José Francisco Saraiva: None declared, Eduardo Tobar: None declared, Teresa Zhou Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, Manoj Samant Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, Joseph Pirrello Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, Fang Fang Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, John F. Paolini Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, Arian Pano Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, Bruce C. Trapnell: None declared

OP0059 MAVRILIMUMAB (ANTI GM-CSF RECEPTOR Α MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY) REDUCES RISK OF FLARE AND INCREASES SUSTAINED REMISSION IN A PHASE 2 TRIAL OF PATIENTS WITH GIANT CELL ARTERITIS

Background:

T helper (Th)1 and Th17 lymphocytes play a role in the pathogenesis of giant cell arteritis (GCA). Current treatments primarily target the Th17 axis, possibly leaving residual Th1 activity. Granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), a mediator of Th1 and Th17 cells, is a pathogenic factor in GCA.

Objectives:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the GM-CSF inhibitor mavrilimumab in patients with GCA.

Methods:

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial enrolling patients with active, biopsy- or imaging-proven new onset (N/O) or relapsing refractory (R/R) GCA. Active disease: GCA symptoms and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (>30 mm/hr) and/or C-reactive protein (CRP) (≥1 mg/dL) elevation within 6 weeks from randomization. Corticosteroid-induced remission (resolution of GCA symptoms and CRP <1 mg/dL or ESR <20 mm/hr) was required by baseline. 3:2 randomization to mavrilimumab 150 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks and protocol-defined 26-week prednisone taper starting at 20-60 mg/day.

Primary efficacy endpoint: time to first adjudicated flare (ESR ≥30 mm/hr and/or CRP ≥1 mg/dL and GCA symptoms or new/worsening vasculitis on imaging) by Week 26 in all treated patients. Key secondary endpoint: sustained remission through Week 26. Safety up to Week 38 was assessed.

Results:

70 patients (35 N/O, 35 R/R) were enrolled (mavrilimumab [N=42] or placebo [N=28]). Mean (SD) age was 69.7 (7.48) years and 71.4% were female. Flare by Week 26 occurred in 8 (19%) and 13 (46.4%) patients receiving mavrilimumab and placebo, respectively (27.4 percentage points reduction). Median time to flare by Week 26 could not be estimated in the mavrilimumab group due to too few events (Not Estimable) and was 25.1 weeks [95% CI: (16.0, NE)] in the placebo group (HR [95% CI] 0.38 [0.15, 0.92]; p=0.0263) (Figure). Sustained remission at Week 26 occurred in 83.2% of patients receiving mavrilimumab and 49.9% of those receiving placebo (33.4 percentage points increase; p=0.0038). Results were consistent across disease type subgroups (HR for flare: N/O 0.29 [95% CI: 0.06, 1.31; nominal p= 0.0873]; R/R 0.43 [95% CI: 0.14, 1.30]; nominal p=0.1231), although not powered for significance (Table). Adverse events (AEs), mostly mild to moderate, were comparable between groups. There were 5 serious AEs (mavrilimumab 2 [4.8%], placebo 3 [10.7%]), none drug-related. No deaths or vision loss occurred. No adjudicated cases of pulmonary alveolar proteinosis were observed.

Table 1.

Efficacy at Week 26

All Patients [1]SubgroupsN/OR/RMavrilimu-mab (N=42)Placebo (N=28)Mavrilimu-mab (N=24)Placebo (N=11)Mavrilimu-mab (N=18)Placebo (N=17)Patients with Flare, n (%)8 (19.0)13 (46.4)3 (12.5)4 (36.4)5 (27.8)9 (52.9)Time to Flare (weeks) [2]Median, 95% CINE (NE, NE)25.1 (16.0, NE)NE (NE, NE)NE (11.7, NE)NE (16.4, NE)22.6 (16.0, NE)HR (Mavrilimumab vs Placebo), 95% CI [3]0.38 (0.15, 0.92)0.29 (0.06, 1.31)0.43 (0.14, 1.30)P-value [4] [5]0.02630.08730.1231Sustained Remission (%), 95% CI [6]83.2 (67.9, 91.6)49.9 (29.6, 67.3)91.3 (69.3, 97.7)62.3 (27.7, 84.0)72.2 (45.6, 87.4)41.7 (17.4, 64.5)Difference in Proportions (95% CI) [7]33.3 (10.7, 55.8)28.9 (-2.7, 60.5)30.6 (-2.1, 63.2)P-value [5] [7]0.00380.07270.0668

NE = Not estimable. [1] Total mITT population. Stratified by randomization strata. [2] Kaplan-Meier. [3] Cox proportional-hazards model; treatment as covariate. [4] Log-rank test. [5] N/O and R/R subgroups not powered for significance; nominal p values reported. [6] Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimates with standard error. [7] Two-sided p-value for the difference in sustained remission between 2 arms using normal approximation. Placebo arm is reference.

Conclusion:

Mavrilimumab was superior to placebo on the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints of time to flare and sustained remission at week 26 in patients with GCA. Mavrilimumab was well tolerated, and no new safety signals were observed.

Disclosure of Interests:

Maria C. Cid Speakers bureau: meeting attendance support from Roche and Kiniksa, Paid instructor for: educational from GSK and Vifor, Consultant of: consulting for Janssen, GSK, and Abbvie, Grant/research support from: research grant from Kiniksa, Sebastian Unizony Consultant of: consulting for Janssen and Kiniksa, Grant/research support from: research support from Genentech, Lara Pupim Shareholder of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Fang Fang Shareholder of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Joseph Pirrello Shareholder of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Ai Ren Shareholder of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Manoj Samant Shareholder of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Teresa Zhou Shareholder of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, John F. Paolini Shareholder of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals

Long-term belatacept exposure maintains efficacy and safety at 5 years: results from the long-term extension of the BENEFIT study

The Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First-line Immunosuppression Trial randomized patients receiving a living or standard criteria deceased donor kidney transplant to a more (MI) or less intensive (LI) regimen of belatacept or cyclosporine A (CsA). The 5-year results of the long-term extension (LTE) cohort are reported. A total of 456 (68.5% of intent-to-treat) patients entered the LTE at 36 months; 406 patients (89%) completed 60 months. Between Months 36 and 60, death occurred in 2%, 1% and 5% of belatacept MI, belatacept LI and CsA patients, respectively; graft loss occurred in 0% belatacept and 2% of CsA patients. Acute rejection between Months 36 and 60 was rare: zero belatacept MI, one belatacept LI and one CsA. Rates for infections and malignancies for Months 36-60 were generally similar across belatacept groups and CsA, respectively: fungal infections (14%, 15%, 12%), viral infections (21%, 18%, 16%) and malignancies (6%, 6%, 9%). No new posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder cases occurred after 36 months. Mean calculated GFR (MDRD, mL/min/1.73 m(2) ) at Month 60 was 74 for belatacept MI, 76 for belatacept LI and 53 for CsA. These results show that the renal function benefit and safety profile observed in belatacept-treated patients in the early posttransplant period was sustained through 5 years.

Long-term exposure to belatacept in recipients of extended criteria donor kidneys

Patients in the BENEFIT-EXT study received extended criteria donor kidneys and a more intensive (MI) or less intensive (LI) belatacept immunosuppression regimen, or cyclosporine A (CsA). Patients who remained on assigned therapy through year 3 were eligible to enter a long-term extension (LTE) study. Three hundred four patients entered the LTE (n = 104 MI; n = 113 LI; n = 87 CsA), and 260 continued treatment through year 5 (n = 91 MI; n = 100 LI; n = 69 CsA). Twenty patients died during the LTE (n = 5 MI; n = 9 LI; n = 6 CsA), and eight experienced graft loss (n = 2 MI; n = 1 LI; n = 5 CsA). Three patients experienced an acute rejection episode (n = 2 MI; n = 1 LI). The incidence rate of serious adverse events, viral infections and fungal infections was similar across groups during the LTE. There were four cases of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) from the beginning of the LTE to year 5 (n = 3 LI; n = 1 CsA); two of three PTLD cases in the LI group were in patients who were seronegative for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV(-)) at transplantation. Mean ± SD calculated GFR at year 5 was 55.9 ± 17.5 (MI), 59.0 ± 29.1 (LI) and 44.6 ± 16.4 (CsA) mL/min/1.73 m(2) . Continued treatment with belatacept was associated with a consistent safety profile and sustained improvement in renal function versus CsA over time.