Type I interferon blockade with anifrolumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus modulates key immunopathological pathways in a gene expression and proteomic analysis of two phase 3 trials

INTRODUCTION

Anifrolumab is a type I interferon (IFN) receptor 1 (IFNAR1) blocking antibody approved for treating patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Here, we investigated the immunomodulatory mechanisms of anifrolumab using longitudinal transcriptomic and proteomic analyses of the 52-week, randomised, phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials.

METHODS

Patients with moderate to severe SLE were enrolled in TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 and received intravenous anifrolumab or placebo alongside standard therapy. Whole-blood expression of 18 017 genes using genome-wide RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) (pooled TULIP; anifrolumab, n=244; placebo, n=258) and 184 plasma proteins using Olink and Simoa panels (TULIP-1; anifrolumab, n=124; placebo, n=132) were analysed. We compared treatment groups via gene set enrichment analysis using MetaBase pathway analysis, blood transcriptome modules, in silico deconvolution of RNA-seq and longitudinal linear mixed effect models for gene counts and protein levels.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, anifrolumab modulated >2000 genes by week 24, with overlapping results at week 52, and 41 proteins by week 52. IFNAR1 blockade with anifrolumab downregulated multiple type I and II IFN-induced gene modules/pathways and type III IFN-λ protein levels, and impacted apoptosis-associated and neutrophil extracellular traps-(NET)osis-associated transcriptional pathways, innate cell activating chemokines and receptors, proinflammatory cytokines and B-cell activating cytokines. In silico deconvolution of RNA-seq data indicated an increase from baseline of mucosal-associated invariant and γδT cells and a decrease of monocytes following anifrolumab treatment.

DISCUSSION

Type I IFN blockade with anifrolumab modulated multiple inflammatory pathways downstream of type I IFN signalling, including apoptotic, innate and adaptive mechanisms that play key roles in SLE immunopathogenesis.

Burden of systemic lupus erythematosus in clinical practice: baseline data from the SLE Prospective Observational Cohort Study (SPOCS) by interferon gene signature

OBJECTIVE

The longitudinal Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Prospective Observational Cohort Study (SPOCS) aims to assess SLE disease course overall and according to type I interferon 4 gene signature (IFNGS). Here, we describe SPOCS patient characteristics by IFNGS and baseline disease activity.

METHODS

SPOCS (NCT03189875) is an international study of patients with SLE according to Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. Enrolled patients from 135 centres in 8 countries were followed biannually for ≤3 years from June 2017 to November 2022. Baseline demographics, disease characteristics, organ system involvement/damage and flares were analysed descriptively according to SLE Disease Activity Index-2000 score (SLEDAI-2K <10/≥10) and IFNGS status (high/low).

RESULTS

The study population (n=823) was 93.2% female, with mean (SD) age 45.3 (13.9) years and 11.1 (9.2) years since diagnosis; 52.4% had baseline SLICC/ACR Damage Index score ≥1. Patients with SLEDAI-2K scores ≥10 (241 of 584, 41.3%) vs <10 were younger (mean 42.8 (13.7) vs 46.6 (14.2) years; nominal p=0.001), had shorter SLE duration (10.4 (8.6) vs 12.4 (9.6) years; nominal p=0.012) and more severe flares (12.9% vs 5.3%; nominal p=0.001). IFNGS-high patients (522 of 739, 70.6%) were younger than IFNGS-low patients at first SLE manifestation (30.0 (12.7) vs 36.8 (14.6) years; nominal p<0.001). Proportions of IFNGS-high patients differed according to race (nominal p<0.001), with higher proportions among Asian (83.3%) and black (86.5%) versus white patients (63.5%). Greater proportions of IFNGS-high versus IFNGS-low patients had haematological (12.6% vs 4.1%), immunological (74.4% vs 45.6%) or dermal (69.7% vs 62.2%) involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified key characteristics of patients with high disease activity and/or elevated type I IFN signalling, populations with SLE with high unmet needs. Baseline SLEDAI-2K ≥10 was associated with shorter disease duration and more severe flares. IFNGS-high patients were younger at diagnosis and had distinct patterns of organ involvement, compared with IFNGS-low patients.

Targeting DORIS Remission and LLDAS in SLE: A Review

Remission is the established therapeutic goal for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and is currently defined by the widely adopted Definition Of Remission In SLE (DORIS) criteria. Attainment of remission is rare in the clinical setting, thus an alternative, pragmatic treatment target of low disease activity, as defined by the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS), provides a less stringent and more attainable treatment goal for a wider proportion of patients compared with DORIS remission. Randomized controlled trials and real-world analyses have confirmed the positive clinical benefits of achieving either DORIS remission or LLDAS. The treat-to-target (T2T) approach utilizes practical clinical targets to proactively tailor individual treatment regimens. Studies in other chronic inflammatory diseases using the T2T approach demonstrated significantly improved clinical outcomes and quality-of-life measures compared with established standard of care. However, such trials have not yet been performed in patients with SLE. Here we review the evolution of DORIS remission and LLDAS definitions and the evidence supporting the positive clinical outcomes following DORIS remission or LLDAS attainment, before discussing considerations for implementation of these outcome measures as potential T2T objectives. Adoption of DORIS remission and LLDAS treatment goals may result in favorable patient outcomes compared with established standard of care for patients with SLE.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in England prior to vaccination: a retrospective observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Determine the prevaccination healthcare impact of COVID-19 in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in England.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of adult patients with SLE from 1 May to 31 October 2020.

SETTING

Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) databases from general practitioners across England combining primary care and other health-related data.

PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 6145 adults with confirmed SLE diagnosis ≥1 year prior to 1 May 2020 were included. Most patients were women (91.0%), white (67.1%), and diagnosed with SLE at age <50 (70.8%). Patients were excluded if they had a COVID-19 diagnosis before 1 May 2020.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographics and clinical characteristics were compared. COVID-19 severity was determined by patient care required and procedure/diagnosis codes. COVID-19 cumulative incidence, hospitalisation rates, lengths of stay and mortality rates were determined and stratified by SLE and COVID-19 severity.

RESULTS

Of 6145 patients, 3927 had mild, 1288 moderate and 930 severe SLE at baseline. The majority of patients with moderate to severe SLE were on oral corticosteroids and antimalarial treatments. Overall, 54/6145 (0.88%) patients with SLE acquired and were diagnosed with COVID-19, with 45 classified as mild, 6 moderate and 3 severe COVID-19. Cumulative incidence was higher in patients with severe SLE (1.4%) compared with patients classified as mild (0.8%) or moderate (0.8%). Ten COVID-19-specific hospital admissions occurred (n=6 moderate; n=4 severe). Regardless of COVID-19 status, hospital admission rates and length of stay increased with SLE severity. Of 54 patients with SLE diagnosed with COVID-19, 1 (1.9%) COVID-19-related death was recorded in a patient with both severe SLE and severe COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

SLE severity did not appear to impact COVID-19 outcomes in this study. The COVID-19 pandemic is evolving and follow-up studies are needed to understand the relationship between COVID-19 and SLE.

Anifrolumab in lupus nephritis: results from second-year extension of a randomised phase II trial

OBJECTIVE

To characterise the safety and efficacy of anifrolumab in active lupus nephritis (LN) through year 2 of the phase II randomised, double-blind Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway (TULIP)-LN trial (NCT02547922) of 2 anifrolumab dosing regimens versus placebo.

METHODS

Patients received intravenous anifrolumab 900 mg for the first 3 doses followed by 300 mg anifrolumab (intensified regimen (IR)), 300 mg anifrolumab (basic regimen (BR)) or placebo every 4 weeks throughout. To continue into Year 2, patients must have achieved at least partial renal response and a glucocorticoid tapering target.

RESULTS

Of 147 randomised patients, 101 completed Year 1 study treatment; of these, 75 (74%) continued into Year 2 (anifrolumab IR: n=29, BR: n=23 and placebo: n=23). During Year 2, 72% of patients reported ≥1 adverse event (AE); serious AEs were reported in 6.9%, 8.7% and 8.7% of patients (anifrolumab IR, BR and placebo, respectively); 3 patients discontinued treatment due to an AE (anifrolumab IR: n=2 and placebo: n=1) and herpes zoster was reported in 2 patients (anifrolumab IR: n=1 and BR: n=1). The study was ongoing at the start of the pandemic, but no COVID-19 cases were reported. Of the 145 patients receiving treatment, more patients on the IR attained complete renal response at Week 104 compared with those on BR or placebo (27.3% vs 18.6% and 17.8%) and simultaneously achieved sustained glucocorticoid tapering (IR: 25.0%; BR: 18.6% and placebo: 17.8%). The improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate were numerically larger in both anifrolumab groups versus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and tolerability profile through Year 2 of TULIP-LN was generally consistent with Year 1, with promising efficacy results for the anifrolumab IR regimen. Collectively, the results support further investigation of an anifrolumab intensified dosing regimen in larger populations of patients with active proliferative LN.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02547922.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Immunogenicity of Anifrolumab

The type I interferon (IFN) signaling pathway is implicated in the pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Anifrolumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the type I IFN receptor subunit 1. Anifrolumab is approved in several countries for patients with moderate to severe SLE receiving standard therapy. The approved dosing regimen of anifrolumab is a 300-mg dose administered intravenously every 4 weeks; this was initially based on the results of the Phase 2b MUSE and further confirmed in the Phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials, in which anifrolumab 300-mg treatment was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in disease activity with an acceptable safety profile. There have been several published analyses of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of anifrolumab, including a population-pharmacokinetic analysis of 5 clinical studies of healthy volunteers and patients with SLE, in which body weight and type I IFN gene expression were significant covariates identified for anifrolumab exposure and clearance. Additionally, the pooled Phase 3 SLE population has been used to evaluate how serum exposure may be related to clinical responses, safety risks, and pharmacodynamic effects of the 21-gene type I IFN gene signature (21-IFNGS). The relevance of 21-IFNGS with regard to clinical efficacy outcomes has also been analyzed. Herein, the clinical pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity of anifrolumab as well as results of population-pharmacokinetics and exposure-response analyses are reviewed.

Lupus low disease activity state attainment in the phase 3 TULIP trials of anifrolumab in active systemic lupus erythematosus

OBJECTIVES

In patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) attainment is associated with improved outcomes. We investigated LLDAS attainment in anifrolumab-treated patients.

METHODS

We performed post hoc analysis of pooled Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway (TULIP-1) (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) anifrolumab phase 3 trial data in patients with moderate to severe SLE receiving standard therapy. LLDAS was defined as: SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 ≤4 without major organ activity, no new disease activity, Physician's Global Assessment ≤1, prednisone ≤7.5 mg/day and no non-standard immunosuppressant dosing. Time to first LLDAS attainment was compared between groups using Cox regression modelling; responses were compared using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Agnostic to treatment, 205/819 (25.0%) patients attained LLDAS at week 52; 186/205 (90.7%) were also British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA)-responders. Among BICLA-responders at week 52, 186/318 (58.5%) attained LLDAS; 203/380 (53.4%) SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI(4)) responders attained LLDAS. Improvements from baseline in patient global assessment scores at week 52 were threefold greater in LLDAS-attainers. At week 52, 30.0% of anifrolumab-treated patients and 19.6% of placebo were in LLDAS (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.5, p=0.0011). Compared with placebo, anifrolumab treatment was associated with earlier LLDAS attainment (time to first LLDAS, HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.30, p<0.0001), increased cumulative time in LLDAS (p<0.0001) and higher likelihood of sustained LLDAS (p<0.001). Anifrolumab treatment was also associated with higher rates of Definition of Remission in SLE remission at week 52 (15.3% vs 7.6%; OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4 to 3.6, p=0.0013).

CONCLUSIONS

LLDAS attainment was highly associated with, but more stringent than, BICLA and SRI(4) responses. Compared with placebo, anifrolumab treatment was associated with earlier, more frequent, and more prolonged and sustained LLDAS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT02446912 and NCT02446899.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Extension Trial of the Long-Term Safety and Tolerability of Anifrolumab in Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

OBJECTIVE

To explore long-term safety and tolerability of anifrolumab 300 mg compared with placebo in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who completed a Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway (TULIP) trial and enrolled in the placebo-controlled 3-year long-term extension (LTE) study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02794285).

METHODS

In the blinded LTE study, patients continued anifrolumab 300 mg, switched from anifrolumab 150 mg to 300 mg, or were re-randomized from placebo to receive either anifrolumab 300 mg or to continue placebo, administered every 4 weeks. Primary comparisons in the LTE study were between patients who received anifrolumab 300 mg or placebo throughout the TULIP and LTE studies. For rare safety events, comparisons included patients who received any anifrolumab dose during TULIP or LTE. When exposure differed, exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) per 100 patient-years were calculated.

RESULTS

In the LTE study, EAIRs of serious adverse events (SAEs) were 8.5 with anifrolumab compared with 11.2 with placebo; likewise, EAIRs of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were 2.5 versus 3.2, respectively. EAIRs of non-opportunistic serious infections were comparable between groups (3.7 with anifrolumab versus 3.6 with placebo). Exposure-adjusted event rates of COVID-related AEs, including asymptomatic infections, were 15.5 with anifrolumab compared with 9.8 with placebo. No COVID-related AEs occurred in fully vaccinated individuals. EAIRs of malignancy and major acute cardiovascular events were low and comparable between groups. Anifrolumab was associated with lower cumulative glucocorticoid use and greater mean improvement in the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000, compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

This LTE study represents the longest placebo-controlled clinical trial performed in SLE to date. No new safety findings were identified in the LTE study, supporting the favorable benefit-risk profile of anifrolumab for patients with moderate-to-severe SLE receiving standard therapy.

Time to onset of clinical response to anifrolumab in patients with SLE: pooled data from the phase III TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the time course of clinical response following anifrolumab treatment in patients with SLE.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis was conducted using pooled data from phase III, randomised, 52-week, placebo-controlled, Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway (TULIP)-1 and TULIP-2 trials of intravenous anifrolumab (every 4 weeks, 48 weeks) in patients with moderate-to-severe SLE receiving standard therapy. Anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo groups were compared for British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response over time, time to sustained BICLA response, SLE Responder Index ≥4 (SRI(4)) response over time, time to sustained Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index Activity (CLASI-A) response and change in glucocorticoid dosage over time. All p values for comparisons were nominal.

RESULTS

Of the 726 evaluated patients (anifrolumab 300 mg, n=360; placebo, n=366), a greater proportion attained a BICLA response in the anifrolumab versus the placebo group from Week 8 (p<0.001); treatment group differentiation was maintained at all subsequent visits to Week 52. Consistently, more patients achieved a BICLA response sustained to Week 52 in the anifrolumab versus placebo group (HR=1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.20). More patients attained SRI(4) response with anifrolumab than placebo from Week 12 (p=0.005). As early as Week 8, more patients achieved CLASI-A skin response sustained to Week 52 with anifrolumab versus placebo (HR=1.72, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.55). Glucocorticoid dosage reductions from baseline were greater in anifrolumab-treated versus placebo-treated patients from Week 20 (p=0.010) through Week 52.

CONCLUSIONS

Anifrolumab treatment was associated with sustained improvements in overall SLE disease activity and skin responses versus placebo from Week 8, which likely led to greater glucocorticoid reductions in the anifrolumab versus placebo groups from Week 20. These findings provide insights to physicians and patients on when to expect potential clinical responses following anifrolumab treatment.

The efficacy and safety of anifrolumab in Japanese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: TULIP-2 subanalysis

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab in the subpopulation of Japanese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in phase 3 TULIP-2 trial.

METHODS

TULIP-2 was a 52-week randomized placebo-controlled trial (N = 362) that evaluated efficacy and safety of anifrolumab 300 mg IV every 4 weeks vs. placebo in patients with moderate to severe SLE who were receiving standard therapy. We performed a post hoc analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints, and safety, of TULIP-2 in the Japanese subpopulation.

RESULTS

In the Japanese subpopulation (anifrolumab, n = 24; placebo, n = 19), the proportion of patients who achieved a British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment response at Week 52 (primary endpoint) was greater in the anifrolumab group vs. placebo [50.0% (12/24) vs. 15.8% (3/19); treatment difference: 34.2%, 95% confidence interval 6.9, 61.5; nominal p = .014]. Improvement in skin activity and flare rates (key secondary endpoints) were favourable for anifrolumab vs. placebo. Consistent with the overall population, anifrolumab had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of anifrolumab 300 mg in Japanese patients with SLE was consistent with the demonstrated clinical profile of anifrolumab for the overall TULIP-2 population.

Sustained glucocorticoid tapering in the phase 3 trials of anifrolumab: a post-hoc analysis of the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials

OBJECTIVES

Glucocorticoid sparing is a key priority for SLE management. We evaluated the effects of sustained glucocorticoid tapering in patients with SLE.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials of anifrolumab (300 mg intravenously once every four weeks for 48 weeks) plus standard therapy in patients with moderate to severe SLE. In a cohort of patients receiving glucocorticoids (prednisone or equivalent) 10 mg or more per day at baseline, we assessed changes in glucocorticoid dosage, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety. Outcome measures were compared between sustained glucocorticoid taper responders (7.5 mg or less per day by Week 40 sustained through Week 52) and non-responders, regardless of treatment group, and between patients receiving anifrolumab or placebo.

RESULTS

Among the 726 patients in the TULIP trials, 375 patients received glucocorticoids 10 mg or more per day at baseline, and of these, 155 (41%) patients were sustained glucocorticoid taper responders. Compared with non-responders (n = 220), sustained glucocorticoid taper responders reduced their mean cumulative glucocorticoid dose by 32%, improved PRO scores, reduced blood pressure, and experienced fewer serious adverse events. Sustained glucocorticoid tapering was achieved by 51% (96/190) of patients receiving anifrolumab versus 32% (59/185) receiving placebo. Compared with placebo, more anifrolumab-treated patients achieved both sustained glucocorticoid taper and reduced overall disease activity (38% [72/190] vs 23% [33/185]).

CONCLUSION

Sustained glucocorticoid tapering is associated with clinical benefits. Anifrolumab treatment has potential to reduce disease activity and glucocorticoid exposure, a key goal of SLE management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02446912 and NCT02446899.

AB0425 WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A DUAL BICLA AND SRI(4) RESPONDER? A POOLED ANALYSIS OF TWO PHASE 3 TRIALS IN PATIENTS WITH SLE

Background

The BILAG–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) and SLE Responder Index ≥4 (SRI[4], based on SLEDAI-2K) are validated composite global measures of clinically meaningful improvement in SLE disease activity. BICLA and SRI(4) responses were endpoints in the phase 2b MUSE and phase 3 TULIP-1/-2 trials.1–3 In a post hoc analysis, more patients met both the BICLA and SRI(4) response criteria at Week 52 (dual responders) with anifrolumab 300 mg vs placebo across trials (MUSE: 48.5% vs 19.9%; TULIP-1: 42.2% vs 27.9%; TULIP-2: 43.4% vs 26.4%; all nominal P<0.01).4 Whereas the clinical benefit of BICLA responses alone have been characterized,5 the added benefit of dual BICLA/SRI(4) responses remains unknown.

Objectives

To understand the clinical benefits (SLE clinical assessments, patient-reported outcomes [PROs], and healthcare utilization) of having a dual BICLA/SRI(4) response vs a response for just one endpoint or nonresponse for both, irrespective of treatment assignment.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from the randomized, 52-week, double-blind TULIP-1 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) trials in which patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard therapy received intravenous anifrolumab (150/300 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 48 weeks.1,2 Patients were categorized as dual responders (met both BICLA and SRI[4] response criteria at Week 52), single responders (met one of either BICLA or SRI[4] response criteria), or dual nonresponders (did not meet either response criteria). SLE clinical assessments, PROs, and healthcare utilization through Week 52 were evaluated for each group. Statistical comparisons were conducted for dual responders vs single responders and dual nonresponders.

Results

Patient demographics and baseline characteristics were generally balanced across dual responders (n=288), single responders (n=122), and dual nonresponders (n=409). At Week 52, dual responders had greater improvements in SLE-related measures compared with dual nonresponders across all evaluated clinical, PRO, and healthcare utilization outcomes (Figure, A–E).

Compared with single responders, dual responders had a significantly greater mean change from baseline in SLEDAI-2K score (−8.2 vs −5.1; nominal P<0.0001), PGA score (−1.3 vs −0.9; nominal P<0.0001), and swollen joint counts (−6.2 vs −4.5; nominal P<0.0001) (Panel A); there was also a numerically greater proportion with ≥50% reduction in CLASI-A score (91% vs 76%; nominal P=0.078) (Panel B). Dual responders had a greater mean reduction in baseline oral glucocorticoid (GC) daily dose (−5.6 vs −3.4; nominal P=0.006) vs single responders (Panel A).

For PROs, compared with single responders, dual responders had a greater mean change in baseline PtGA score (−17.7 vs −8.6; nominal P=0.001), and a higher proportion had clinically meaningful improvements from baseline to Week 52 in fatigue (FACIT-F; 56% vs 43%; nominal P=0.014) and SF-36 physical component scores (60% vs 34%; nominal P<0.0001) (Panel C–D). Healthcare utilization (ED visits and hospitalizations) was lower in dual responders vs single responders; however, this comparison did not reach nominal significance (nominal P=0.462 and 0.311, respectively) (Panel E).

Conclusion

Patients with SLE with dual responses in two validated outcome measures have significantly better outcomes across a range of clinical, PRO, and healthcare utilization measures compared with dual nonresponders. The higher degree of improvement in disease activity, especially in arthritis, and the greater reduction in oral GC dose compared with single responders is reflected in improved patient well-being, physical functioning, and fatigue. Being a dual responder offers a profound and clinically meaningful outcome for both the clinician and patient.

References

[1]Furie R. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[2]Morand EF. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

[3]Furie R. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69:376–86.

[4]Isenberg D. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80:586–7.

[5]Furie R. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021;73:2059–68.

Acknowledgements

Writing assistance was provided by Matilda Shackley of JK Associates Inc., part of Fishawack Health. This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests

Ian N. Bruce Speakers bureau: GSK, UCB, Astra Zeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, GSK, UCB, Aurinia, Eli Lilly, BMS, Grant/research support from: GSK, Janssen, Konstantina Psachoulia Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Emmanuelle Maho Employee of: AstraZeneca, David Isenberg Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Eli Lilly, UCB, Merck Serono, Ronald van Vollenhoven Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, R-Pharma, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Miltenyi, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: MSD, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, GSK, UCB, Richard Furie Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Genentech, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Eric F. Morand Speakers bureau: GSK, Novartis, Paid instructor for: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Servier, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Catharina Lindholm Employee of: AstraZeneca, Micki Hultquist Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, J&J, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca

POS0731 ASSOCIATION OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES WITH TYPE I INTERFERON GENE SIGNATURE FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS PROSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL COHORT STUDY (SPOCS)

Background

The aim of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Prospective Observational Cohort Study (SPOCS) is to examine the disease course of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in relation to their type I interferon gene signature (IFNGS) status.1 IFNGS has been associated with SLE disease activity.2

Objectives

To identify associations between IFNGS status and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients receiving clinical care while enrolled in SPOCS.

Methods

This noninterventional, international, prospective, observational cohort study included adult patients (≥18 years) with moderate to severe SLE receiving standard therapy. Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36; 0–100), Lupus Quality of Life (LupusQoL; 0–100) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F; 0–52) were assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Higher scores indicate better outcomes. Analyses were stratified by high or low IFNGS status (4-gene test) at baseline.

Results

Of 827 patients, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 45.1 (14.0) years, 771 (93%) were female, 525 (63%) were IFNGS high, and 219 (26%) were IFNGS low. IFNGS-high patients were younger than IFNGS-low (mean [SD] 43.0 [13.7] vs 50.7 [12.9] years), had fewer comorbidities (83% vs 91%) and similar baseline disease activity (mean [SD]: SLE Disease Activity Index 2000, 9.8 [4.3] vs 9.2 [5.2]; Physician’s Global Assessment, both 1.5 [0.6]). At baseline, there were some differences in PROs between IFNGS-high and -low patients. At Month 12, changes in most domains did not meet the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Slight improvement was observed only in selected domains in the IFNGS-high group. This group was younger and had fewer comorbidities at baseline. (Table 1, Figure 1).

Table 1.

PRO Scores at Baseline and Month 12 by IFNGS Status

BaselineMonth 12Change From BaselineMCID (≥)PROTotal (n=810)IFNGS HighIFNGS Low (n=219)Total (n=431)IFNGS HighIFNGS Low (n=147)TotalIFNGS HighIFNGS Low(n=525)(n=279)SF-36Physical Component Summary37.4 (10.5)38.3 (10.5)+35.2 (10.6)139.8 (10.8)41.7 (10.4)+35.7 (10.8)2.3 (7.6)3.0 (8.1)*0.6 (6.4)2.5Mental Component Summary43.2 (11.6)43.6 (11.7)42.7 (11.6)44.9 (11.2)45.9 (10.6)43.4 (11.5)0.9 (9.2)1.4 (9.6)-0.3 (8.4)2.5LupusQoLPhysical health56.4 (27.4)58.1 (27.0)+52.1 (27.7)60.5 (26.9)65.0 (25.3)+52.5 (27.7)2.6 (18.1)5.0 (19.2)*-1.4 (16.4)3.4Pain54.3 (30.3)55.7 (29.8)50.2 (30.8)61.4 (28.5)66.0 (26.5)+52.6 (29.1)5.4 (23.8)8.1 (25.2)0.7 (21.3)8.5Planning61.4 (32.2)63.7 (31.8)+57.0 (32.2)66.3 (29.6)70.8 (27.8)+58.5 (30.8)2.9 (24.4)4.2 (24.7)-1.0 (22.9)6.5Intimate relationships58.0 (34.8)61.2 (34.1)+50.9 (34.8)59.8 (33.9)65.6 (32.3)+50.6 (34.7)-0.6 (24.5)-0.7 (25.9)-0.8 (22.3)9.2Burden to others50.7 (32.6)50.7 (32.6)50.4 (33.5)56.4 (30.7)59.7 (29.5)51.8 (31.7)3.1 (25.4)5.6 (26.0)*0.1 (23.9)5.3Emotional health66.3 (25.6)66.1 (26.0)67.8 (24.8)71.1 (24.7)72.9 (23.8)69.2 (24.7)1.8 (19.4)3.1 (20.3)-0.5 (18.1)3.4Body image62.6 (29.4)61.0 (30.1)66.4 (28.3)68.2 (27.6)70.3 (27.4)65.1 (27.0)2.0 (23.9)*4.1 (24.3)*-0.4 (22.1)1.1Fatigue48.6 (27.8)49.9 (27.6)45.5 (28.2)53.7 (26.9)57.4 (26.2)+46.9 (25.7)2.1 (19.3)3.5 (20.0)-0.9 (18.7)3.9FACIT-F25.8 (13.4)26.9 (13.4)+23.4 (12.9)28.7 (13.2)31.1 (12.7)+24.6 (12.9)2.3 (9.6)3.2 (10.2)0.6 (8.5)4.0

Data are mean (SD). Asterisks (*) indicate changes from baseline ≥ MCID. +Comparison between high and low IFNGS status by Mann-Whitney U test (nominal p-value<0.01).

Data for n are patients per subgroup and do not reflect responses per PRO assessment.

Conclusion

In this cohort study, patients with moderate to severe SLE had poor health status, health-related quality of life, and fatigue. A clinically meaningful change was not met in most PROs, suggesting patients continue to have a high need for improved treatment options.

References

[1]Hammond ER. BMJ Open 2020;10:e036563.

[2]Dall’era MC. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1692–7.

Acknowledgements

Writing assistance by Shelley Harris, PhD (Fishawack). This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests

Martin Aringer Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, HEXAL, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, GSK, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Laurent Arnaud Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Christine Peschken Consultant of: AstraZeneca, GSK, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Richard Furie Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Genentech, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Eric F. Morand Speakers bureau: GSK, Novartis, Paid instructor for: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Servier, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Caroline Seo Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Eleni Rapsomaniki Employee of: AstraZeneca, Jonatan Hedberg Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Jacob Knagenhjelm Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Tina Grünfeld Eén Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Barnabas Desta Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Alessandro Sorrentino Shareholder of: Galapagov, Abbott Laboratories, Gilead Sciences, Moderna, Employee of: Janssen, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Heide Stirnadel-Farrant Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, GSK, Employee of: AstraZeneca

POS0739 THE RENAL ACTIVITY INDEX FOR LUPUS (RAIL) DIFFERENTIATES ACTIVE AND INACTIVE NEPHRITIS IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS (SLE)

Background

Lupus nephritis (LN) confers a poor prognosis, with lack of effective laboratory tests to diagnose and evaluate therapies. We have demonstrated that the RAIL score, based on a set of six urinary biomarkers (NGAL, KIM-1, MCP-1, adiponectin, hemopexin, ceruloplasmin) is sensitive and specific in adult patients with active LN, using renal biopsy as reference.1,2 RAIL has been shown in the pediatric population to be effective in distinguishing inactive vs active LN with no effect from mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) treatment. A comparable study has not been conducted in an adult population.

Objectives

To assess the ability of RAIL to discriminate patients with active LN vs active non-renal SLE and to evaluate if RAIL performance varies by MMF treatment using urine samples from adult LN patients.

Methods

Urine samples were obtained at baseline in two clinical trials: a phase 2 study in adult patients with biopsy-proven active Class III and IV LN (NCT02547922) and a subset of patients from the phase 3 trial in adults with active non-renal SLE (NCT02446912) who had baseline renal BILAG scores C, D, or E. RAIL biomarkers were assayed using single-plex assays. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were compared between studies. Wilcoxon rank sum test was performed comparing the urinary biomarkers between the two studies and RAIL score was then calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted assessing the ability for RAIL scores to distinguish patients with renal activity and involvement.

Results

Comparison of the patient demographic, clinical characteristics, and biomarkers is in the Table 1. Wilcoxon rank sum test showed the six urinary biomarkers were significantly different between two groups of patients as demonstrated (Table 1). Each of the RAIL biomarker concentrations and the creatinine-adjusted median score were higher in the active LN group than the SLE group (P<0.001). ROC analyses including RAIL score showed an area under the ROC curve of 0.8 (Figure 1), with odds ratio of log-transformed RAIL 2.027 (95% CI [1.587, 2.589]). There were no significant interactions between RAIL and MMF. RAIL remained significant after adjusting for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), which was not statistically significant.

Table 1.

Study Demographics and Biomarkers

VariablesLN study (N=131)SLE study (N=59)Observed NObserved Median (IQR) or %Observed NObserved Median (IQR) or %DemographicsAge13134 (25, 42)5936 (28, 44)Sex, Female10983.21%5593.22%Race, White5642.75%4576.27%Ethnicity, Hispanic or Latino6146.56%915.25%OCS use, yes12797.69%5796.61%MMF use, yes9572.52%2135.59%Spot UPCR (mg/mg)1282.13 (1.22, 4.04)591.11 (0.55, 2.61)eGFR13091.8 (63.1, 125)5998.06 (81.91, 116.54)Non-renal SLEDAI-2K score1304 (4, 6)5912 (9, 13)Renal SLEDAI-2K score1304 (4, 8)590 (0, 0)BiomarkersNGAL (ng/mL)12833.33 (17.55, 56.7)5819.47 (11.37, 42.05)MCP-1 (pg/mL)128658.24 (271.58, 1049.95)58275.62 (106.09, 481.99)Ceruloplasmin (ng/mL)12893.55 (44.5, 311.25)5847.2 (13.05, 231.25)Adiponectin (ng/mL)12842.45 (16.71, 139.64)589.33 (3.35, 25.51)Hemopexin (ng/mL)1281876.8 (745.07, 4743.4)58513.4 (236.36, 1388.74)KIM-1 (pg/mL)1281673.5 (772.5, 2767)58864 (394, 1480)Creatinine (mg/mL)1280.7 (0.46, 1.3)580.99 (0.46, 1.74)Adult RAIL score (creatinine adjusted)1285.59 (4.31, 6.47)583.57 (2.78, 4.47)

eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; IQR, interquartile range; KIM, kidney injury molecule; LN, lupus nephritis; MCP, monocyte chemotactic protein; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; NGAL, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin; OCS, oral corticosteroid; SLEDAI-2K, SLE Disease Activity Index 2000; UPCR, urine protein/creatinine ratio.

Conclusion

The analyses performed suggest that creatinine-corrected RAIL discriminates between active LN and non-renal adult SLE, with RAIL scores not influenced by MMF use.

References

[1]Brunner HI. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68:1003–11.

[2]Gulati G. Lupus. 2017;26:927–36.

Acknowledgements

Writing assistance by Kelly M. Hunter, PhD (Fishawack). This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests

Ellen Cody: None declared, Hermine Brunner Speakers bureau: Novartis, Pfizer, GSK, Consultant of: AbbVie, Astra Zeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly,EMD Serono, Idorsia, Cerocor, Janssen, GSK, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Merck, Novartis, R-Pharm, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Bin Huang: None declared, Tingting Qiu: None declared, Prasad Devarajan Speakers bureau: Reata, Alnylam, Dicerna, Consultant of: BioPorto Inc, Madhu Ramaswamy Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Dominic Sinibaldi Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Philip Z Brohawn Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Jacob Knagenhjelm Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Frederick Jones Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Catharina Lindholm Employee of: AstraZeneca, Wendy White Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca

POS0367 IMPROVEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL MUCOCUTANEOUS MANIFESTATIONS IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS TREATED WITH ANIFROLUMAB

Background

Patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) experience disfiguring and painful lesions that can lead to psychological distress and significant impacts on quality of life.1 Treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with anifrolumab, a type I interferon receptor antagonist, was associated with CLE Disease Area and Severity Index–Activity (CLASI-A) improvements compared with placebo through Week 52 in the phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 SLE trials.2,3 CLASI assesses overall skin improvement and may be driven by erythema over the other components.4

Objectives

To better understand the effect of anifrolumab on mucocutaneous SLE manifestations by analyzing the individual domains of CLASI-A using pooled data from the TULIP trials.

Methods

TULIP-1 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 52-week trials that evaluated efficacy and safety of intravenous anifrolumab administered every 4 weeks in patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard therapy.2,3 In a post hoc analysis, individual CLASI-A domains (erythema, scale/hypertrophy, alopecia, and mucosal) were assessed at Week 24 (time point chosen to ensure adequate duration for improvement in slow-remitting manifestations [eg, scale, alopecia]) in 2 patient subgroups: 1) the “chronic” mucocutaneous subgroup (resembling chronic/discoid CLE), defined as patients with a baseline erythema score ≥4 and scale score ≥2, and alopecia score ≥1 or baseline mucosal lesions or ulceration score of 1; and 2) the “extended” mucocutaneous subgroup (resembling all CLE subtypes), defined as patients who met the “chronic” criteria or those who had a baseline erythema score ≥8.

Results

Across the pooled TULIP trials, 360 patients received anifrolumab 300 mg and 366 patients received placebo. In patients with assessments at Week 24 in the “chronic” (anifrolumab n=58, placebo n=50) and “extended” (anifrolumab n=104, placebo n=96) subgroups, anifrolumab led to a greater mean percent reduction from baseline compared with placebo in erythema (chronic: −63.6% vs −39.9%; extended: −63.7% vs −41.2%) and scale/hypertrophy (chronic: −72.2% vs −42.6%; extended: −45.3% vs −7.3%). Anifrolumab-treated patients in both subgroups had no worsening in alopecia (chronic: 93.3% [56/60] vs 96.0% [48/50]; extended: 95.3% [102/107] vs 95.8% [92/96]) or mucous membrane (chronic: 95.0% [57/60] vs 96.0% [48/50]; extended: 96.3% [103/107] vs 94.8% [91/96]) from baseline vs placebo (Table 1).

Table 1.

Skin Responses at Week 24 Compared With Baseline

Criteria, n (%)Chronic subgroupExtended subgroupAnifrolumab 300 mg (n=60)Placebo (n=50)Anifrolumab 300 mg (n=107)Placebo (n=96)Erythema score reduction≥25%53 (88.3)32 (64.0)93 (86.9)68 (70.8)≥50%42 (70.0)22 (44.0)71 (66.4)47 (49.0)≥60%34 (56.7)18 (36.0)61 (57.0)32 (33.3)Scale/hypertrophy score reduction≥10%49 (81.7)34 (68.0)55 (51.4)38 (39.6)≥25%47 (78.3)30 (60.0)53 (49.5)34 (35.4)≥50%46 (76.7)28 (56.0)51 (47.7)31 (32.3)No new/worsened lesions in any individual body area44 (73.3)26 (52.0)81 (75.7)56 (58.3)Alopecia≥1-point decreasea25 (41.7)19 (38.0)35 (32.7)27 (28.1)No worsening56 (93.3)48 (96.0)102 (95.3)92 (95.8)Mucosal lesion/ulceration1-point decreaseb25 (41.7)13 (26.0)39 (36.4)23 (24.0)No worsening57 (95.0)48 (96.0)103 (96.3)91 (94.8)

aIf baseline score ≥1.

bIf baseline score =1.

Conclusion

In the phase 3 TULIP trials, SLE patients with mucocutaneous manifestations treated with anifrolumab experienced numerical improvements in erythema and scale/hypertrophy and no worsening in alopecia or mucous membrane CLASI-A domains compared with placebo, regardless of whether skin disease was classified by chronic or extended definitions. These encouraging data support further evaluation of anifrolumab in patients with CLE.

References

[1]Klein R. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64:849–58.

[2]Furie RA. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[3]Morand EF. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

[4]Albrecht J. J Invest Dermatol. 2005;125:889–94.

Acknowledgements

Writing assistance by Naomi Atkin (Fishawack Health). This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests

Victoria Werth Consultant of: Celgene, Medimmune, Resolve, Genentech, Idera, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Biogen, BMS, Gilead, Amgen, Medscape, Nektar, Incyte, EMD Sorona, CSL Behring, Principia, Crisalis, Viela Bio, Argenx, Kwoya Kirin, Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Octapharma, GSK, Cugene, UCB, Corcept, Beacon Bioscience, Rome Pharmaceuticals, Horizon, Merck, Kezar, Sanofi, Bayer, Akari, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Janssen, Pfizer, Biogen, Gilead, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Viela, Syntimmune, Amgen, Regeneron, Argenx, CSL Behring, Ventus, q32 Bio, BMS, Jenny Wissmar Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Anna Strömbeck Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Christi Kleoudis Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Marius Albulescu Shareholder of: AstraZeneca Ltd, Consultant of: UCB, Kymab Ltd, Employee of: AstraZeneca Ltd

POS0708 EVALUATING THE HYPERSENSITIVITY PROFILE OF ANIFROLUMAB AND THE NEED FOR PREINFUSION PROPHYLACTIC TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH SLE

Background

Anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody (mAb), is approved in Canada, Japan, and the United States for the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) based on results from the phase 2b MUSE and the phase 3 TULIP-1/-2 trials.1–3 Anaphylactic reactions (ARs), hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), and infusion-related reactions (IRRs) are risks of mAb infusions, so physicians prescribing anifrolumab may wish to understand the hypersensitivity profile and whether prophylactic pretreatments are required to mitigate HSR/IRRs.

Objectives

To evaluate the hypersensitivity profile of anifrolumab and the need for pretreatment.

Methods

Pooled data were analyzed from patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard therapy who received intravenous infusions (every 4 weeks, 48 weeks) of anifrolumab or placebo in the randomized, 52-week MUSE (NCT01438489),1 TULIP-1 (NCT02446912),2 and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899)3 trials. An AR (analyzed in the anifrolumab 150/300/1000 mg and placebo groups) was defined as acute illness onset within minutes to several hours of infusion with involvement of skin and/or mucosal tissue, and/or respiratory compromise, and/or reduced blood pressure, and/or persistent gastrointestinal symptoms. HSRs and IRRs were analyzed in the anifrolumab 300 mg group (as this is the approved dose) and the placebo group. An HSR was defined as acute illness onset with involvement of skin and/or mucosal tissue during infusion (not meeting the AR definition); IRR was defined as any other reaction occurring during/within 24 hours of infusion. Patients did not receive pretreatment unless they had experienced a previous IRR/HSR in the program. Pretreatment was assumed if a patient received prophylactic antihistamine, corticosteroid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and/or dopamine antagonist 1 day before/on the day of infusion.

Results

Of patients who received anifrolumab 300 mg (n=459), anifrolumab 1000 mg (n=105), or placebo (n=466), none experienced ARs; 1 patient who received anifrolumab 150 mg (n=93) experienced an AR. HSRs occurred in 3% (n=12) of anifrolumab 300 mg-treated patients (of whom 4 had a history of HSRs) vs 1% (n=3) in the placebo group. IRRs occurred in 9% (n=43) of anifrolumab-treated patients vs 7% (n=33) in the placebo group. All HSRs and IRRs were mild/moderate in intensity. There were no discontinuations due to HSRs or IRRs in the anifrolumab group, while there were 2 in the placebo group (HSR: n=1; IRR: n=1). In the anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo groups, more patients experienced HSR/IRRs with the initial (1–6) vs later infusions (Figure 1). In the anifrolumab group, the median (median absolute deviation) time to first HSR or IRR was 30.5 (29.5) days or 27.0 (26.0) days, respectively. Of the 12 anifrolumab-treated patients with ≥1 HSR, 3 received subsequent pretreatment, and none had any HSR after the use of pretreatment. Of the 43 anifrolumab-treated patients with ≥1 IRR, 2 received pretreatment, of whom 1 had an IRR after pretreatment and anifrolumab dosage remained unchanged.

Conclusion

Following anifrolumab infusion, ARs were uncommon, and few (3%) patients experienced HSRs. HSRs and IRRs with the approved anifrolumab 300 mg dose were mild to moderate, occurred early in treatment, did not lead to discontinuation, and only rarely required pretreatment. Our data support a safe and manageable hypersensitivity profile for anifrolumab.

References

[1]Furie R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69:376–86.

[2]Furie R, et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[3]Morand E, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

Acknowledgements

Writing assistance was provided by Rosie Butler, PhD, of JK Associates Inc., part of Fishawack Health. This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests

Kenneth C Kalunian Consultant of: Aurinia, Equillium, Kezar, BMS, Chemocentryx, Eli Lilly, Biogen, Roche/Genentech, Grant/research support from: Horizon, UCB, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: Gilead, Abbvie, Behringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Amgen, YL Biologics, Eisai, Astellas, Bristol-Myers, Astra-Zeneca, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Taisho, Ayumi, Sanofi, GSK, Abbvie, Grant/research support from: Asahi-Kasei, Abbvie, Chugai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Eisai, Takeda, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Kowa, Behringer-Ingelheim, Ihor Hupka Employee of: AstraZeneca, Lijin (Jinny) Zhang Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Manish Shroff Employee of: AstraZeneca, Shanti Werther Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca AB, Catharina Lindholm Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca

OP0282 IMPACT OF ANIFROLUMAB ON NEUROPSYCHIATRIC MANIFESTATIONS OF DEPRESSION AND SUICIDALITY IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS

Background

Neuropsychiatric (NP) disease is more common in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than in the general population.1 Increased incidence of NP events (depression and suicidality) has been reported with biologic therapies, including SLE therapies.2 Depression and suicidality were evaluated in patients with SLE treated with anifrolumab, a type I interferon receptor antibody, in the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials.3,4

Objectives

To understand the impact of anifrolumab treatment on NP manifestations (depression and suicidality) in patients with SLE relative to standard therapy using pooled data from the TULIP trials.

Methods

TULIP-1/-2 were randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab every 4 weeks in patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard therapy.3,4 Patients with active severe or unstable NP SLE were excluded. Patients who received ≥1 dose of anifrolumab 300 mg or placebo were analyzed for depression and suicidality.3,4 The Personal Health Questionnaire Depression Scale-8 (PHQ-8) and Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) were used to assess clinical depression and suicidal ideation and behavior, respectively. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) within the standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities query of depression (excluding suicide and self-injury) and antidepressant use at baseline and during the study were also assessed.

Results

In the TULIP pooled analysis, 360 patients received anifrolumab and 365 received placebo. Mean PHQ-8 scores were in the mild range (≥5 to <10); 9.7 in both groups at baseline (Table 1). Excluding patients taking antidepressants, mean PHQ-8 scores were 9.5 in the anifrolumab group and 9.7 in the placebo group at baseline. No clinically meaningful worsening in mean PHQ-8 scores was observed from baseline to Week 52 in the anifrolumab (–2.0) or placebo (–1.3) groups; excluding patients taking antidepressants, mean changes in PHQ-8 were –2.0 and –1.2, respectively. Depression AEs during the study were reported in 11 anifrolumab-treated patients (3.1%) and 9 patients who received placebo (2.5%). At baseline, antidepressant use was comparable between groups (anifrolumab group, 7 patients [1.9%]; placebo group, 9 patients [2.5%]). During the study, 8 anifrolumab-treated patients (2.2%) and 12 patients who received placebo (3.3%) used antidepressants; 1 (0.3%) and 4 (1.1%) patients, respectively, initiated antidepressant therapy during the study (1 in the placebo group stopped therapy). Suicidal ideation or behavior, as assessed by C-SSRS, during the study was reported in 5 anifrolumab-treated patients (1.4%) and 11 patients who received placebo (3.0%). Excluding patients taking antidepressants, suicidal ideation or behavior during the study was reported in 4 anifrolumab-treated patients (1.1%) and 9 patients who received placebo (2.5%) (Figure 1).

Table 1.

PHQ-8 Summary

All patientsExcluding patients taking antidepressantsAnifrolumab 300 mg N=360Placebo N=365Anifrolumab 300 mg N=360Placebo N=365nMeanaSDChangebnMeanaSDChangebnMeanaSDChangebnMeanaSDChangebBaseline3419.76.26–3489.76.11–3359.56.21–3389.76.09–Week 242957.65.89–2.13038.06.00–1.52897.55.84–2.12938.16.00–1.5Week 522667.85.99–2.02617.96.03–1.32627.76.00–2.02527.95.96–1.2

SD, standard deviation.

aPHQ-8 classifications: 0–4 = none, 5–9 = mild, 10–14 = moderate, 15–19 = moderately severe, and 20–24 = severe.

bMean change from baseline.

Conclusion

Patients with SLE treated with anifrolumab did not experience increased depression, suicidality, or need for antidepressants when compared with standard therapy, irrespective of baseline antidepressant use.

References

[1]Zhang L, et al. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17:70.

[2]Benlysta (belimumab) [prescribing information]. Philadelphia, PA: GlaxoSmithKline; 2021.

[3]Furie RA, et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[4]Morand EF, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

Acknowledgements

Writing assistance by Andrea Y. Angstadt, PhD (Fishawack Health). This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests

Susan Manzi Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Exagen Diagnostics, Inc, Cugene, GSK, Lilly, Lupus Foundation of America, UCB Advisory Board, Grant/research support from: HGS/GSK, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Catharina Lindholm Employee of: AstraZeneca, Ihor Hupka Employee of: AstraZeneca, Lijin (Jinny) Zhang Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Manish Shroff Employee of: AstraZeneca, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca AB, Shanti Werther Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca

POS0709 SUSTAINED BICLA AND BILAG ORGAN DOMAIN RESPONSES IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS (SLE) RECEIVING ANIFROLUMAB IN TWO PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background

Incomplete SLE disease control is associated with progressive organ damage, poor quality of life, and increased mortality.1–3 Sustained reduction in overall disease activity is therefore an important treatment goal.

Objectives

To investigate sustained British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) responses by organ domain in pooled data from the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials of the type I interferon receptor monoclonal antibody, anifrolumab, in patients with SLE.4,5

Methods

TULIP-1 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) were phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab administered every 4 weeks for 48 weeks in eligible patients with moderate to severe SLE who were receiving standard therapy.4,5 Sustained BICLA and BILAG response rates, measured as the number of consecutive patient visits with BICLA or BILAG domain responses, respectively, from Week 4 to Week 52 were compared between the anifrolumab vs placebo groups. BILAG-2004 response was defined as a reduction from A (severe disease) at baseline to B (moderate), C (mild), or D (no current disease) or reduction from B at baseline to C or D.6

Results

In total, 360 patients received anifrolumab 300 mg and 366 patients received placebo in the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials. Analysis of pooled TULIP data revealed that more patients who received anifrolumab had sustained BICLA responses compared with placebo (Table 1). The proportions of patients who had BICLA responses sustained for ≥3, ≥6, ≥9, and 12 months inclusive of Week 52 were 33.6%, 27.2%, 16.4%, and 9.2% in the anifrolumab group, and 20.5%, 15.0%, 8.5%, and 1.9% in the placebo group, respectively. The most commonly affected organ domains were musculoskeletal (645/726 patients) and mucocutaneous (627/726 patients) (Figure 1). More patients receiving anifrolumab had BILAG responses for 12 months compared with placebo in these two domains (musculoskeletal: 19.9% vs 13.1%; mucocutaneous: 17.1% vs 7.1%); analyses of all other organ domains were limited by small sample sizes.

Table 1.

Number of Patients With Consecutive Visits of Sustained BICLA Response Up to and Including Week 52 in Pooled TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 Trials

n (%)Anifrolumab 300 mgPlacebo(n=360)(n=366)≥3 months121 (33.6)75 (20.5)(≥5 visits, Week 36–52)≥6 months98 (27.2)55 (15.0)(≥8 visits, Week 24–52)≥9 months59 (16.4)31 (8.5)(11 visits, Week 12–52)12 months33 (9.2)7 (1.9)(13 visits, Week 4–52)

BICLA, British Isles Lupus Assessment Group–based Composite Lupus Assessment.

Conclusion

In two phase 3 studies, more anifrolumab-treated patients achieved sustained BICLA and BILAG responses compared with placebo. In the frequently affected musculoskeletal and mucocutaneous domains, sustained treatment benefit of anifrolumab over placebo was observed. These data support the durable clinical benefit of anifrolumab treatment in patients with moderate to severe SLE who are receiving standard therapy.

References

[1]Chambers SA. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009;48:673–5.

[2]Murimi-Worstell IB. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e031850.

[3]Olesińska M. Reumatologia. 2018;56:45–54.

[4]Furie RA. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[5]Morand EF. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

[6]Isenberg DA. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005;44:902–6.

Acknowledgements

Writing assistance by Victoria Alikhan (Fishawack Health). This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests

Ronald van Vollenhoven Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, R-Pharma, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Miltenyi, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: MSD, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, GSK, UCB, Richard Furie Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Genentech, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Eric F. Morand Speakers bureau: GSK, Novartis, Paid instructor for: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Servier, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Raj Tummala Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Emmanuelle Maho Employee of: AstraZeneca, Catharina Lindholm Employee of: AstraZeneca

POS0733 DISCORDANCE BETWEEN PATIENT GLOBAL ASSESSMENT AND PHYSICIAN GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF DISEASE ACTIVITY IN THE MODERATE TO SEVERE SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS PROSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL COHORT STUDY (SPOCS)

Background

Emphasis in clinical research and care has been placed on the need to include evaluations that reflect the perspectives of both patients and physicians.

Objectives

The goal of this study was to analyze patient and physician assessments and to determine characteristics associated with concordance and discordance of these assessments.

Methods

Baseline data of patients with moderate to severe SLE enrolled in the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Prospective Observational Cohort Study (SPOCS)1 were analyzed. Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) representing disease activity during the 4-week interval prior to baseline and Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) representing the impact of disease during a 1-month interval prior to baseline were independently scored on visual analogue scales (PGA 0-3; PtGA 0-100). Spearman’s rank (rho) was calculated to assess their correlation. A difference between PGA and PtGA scores ≥25 points defined discordance (after rescaling PGA to 0–100).2 Baseline characteristics associated with concordance and discordance were assessed.

Results

827 patients were included in this analysis. At baseline, the mean PGA score was 1.5 (SD 0.6, n=824), and the mean PtGA score was 51.1 (SD 25.5, n=790). The correlation between PGA and PtGA was low (rho=0.19, P<0.001, n=787) (Figure 1). PGA and PtGA scores were discordant in 301 (38%) of patients. Among those patients exceeding the threshold defining discordance, 152 (19%) had higher PGA scores than PtGA scores, and 149 (19%) had higher PtGA scores than PGA scores. The subgroup of PGA-higher discordant patients had higher mean SLEDAI-2K scores, greater serological activity, and more frequent type 1 interferon gene signature positivity, whereas PtGA-higher discordant patients were more likely to be using analgesics and/or anti-depressants, had higher mean BMI and were less likely to be employed (Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics associated with PGA and PtGA scoresa

Concordant (N=486)PGA higher (N=152)PtGA higher (N=149)P-value-1bP-value-2bAge, years45.5 (13.7)42.7 (14.4)46.4 (14.0)0.0220.043Race, White326 (71%)96 (66%)94 (69%)0.1920.360BMI, kg/m227.6 (7.2)25.6 (5.4)27.2 (6.4)0.0320.011Employed249 (51%)80 (53%)51 (34%)0.0010.001SLEDAI-2K total score10.0 (4.8)10.8 (5.1)8.2 (3.0)<0.001<0.001Positive ANA/anti-dsDNA436 (90%)143 (94%)127 (85%)0.0120.041Low Complement (C3 or C4)132 (46%)58 (60%)41 (43%)0.0140.026High IFNGS313 (71%)101 (78%)89 (64%)0.0140.049≥1 mild flare115 (24%)20 (13%)45 (30%)<0.0010.001≥1 moderate flare88 (18%)37 (24%)23 (16%)0.0570.120≥1 severe flare39 (8%)11 (7%)15 (10%)0.3720.628OCS daily dose0.0520.129No OCS214 (44%)57 (38%)62 (42%)>0–7.5 mg139 (29%)38 (25%)52 (35%)>7.5–15 mg75 (15%)37 (25%)18 (12%)>15 mg57 (12%)19 (13%)17 (11%)Immunosuppressants271 (56%)80 (53%)75 (50%)0.6900.467Biologics106 (22%)25 (16%)19 (13%)0.3640.032Analgesics152 (31%)22 (14%)46 (31%)<0.001<0.001Antidepressants123 (25%)31 (20%)52 (35%)0.0050.013

aMean (SD) for continuous, n (%) for nominal variables. Missing data was <10% of patients for the variables displayed. Denominators exclude missing data. bP-value-1 compares PGA higher vs PtGA higher. P-value-2 compares all 3 groups. Based on the chi-squared test for categorical variables and t-test or ANOVA for continuous variables.

IFNGS, type 1 interferon gene signature; OCS, oral corticosteroid; PGA, physician global assessment; PtGA, patient global assessment

Conclusion

Low correlation between PGA and PtGA suggests both should be used to acquire a broad perspective of the impact of disease on the overall health of patients. Different baseline characteristics were associated with the PGA-higher compared to the PtGA-higher discordant subgroups.

References

[1]Hammond ER, et al. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e036563.

[2]Challa DNV, et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2017;4:201–8.

Acknowledgements

Editing assistance by Rebecca S. Jones, PhD (Fishawack). This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests

Laurent Arnaud Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Richard Furie Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Genentech, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Eric F. Morand Speakers bureau: GSK, Novartis, Paid instructor for: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Servier, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Christine Peschken Consultant of: AstraZeneca, GSK, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Martin Aringer Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, HEXAL, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, GSK, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Eleni Rapsomaniki Employee of: AstraZeneca, Jonatan Hedberg Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Jacob Knagenhjelm Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Caroline Seo Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Tina Grünfeld Eén Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Barnabas Desta Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Alessandro Sorrentino Shareholder of: Galapagov, Abbott LAboratories, Gilead Sciences, Moderna, Employee of: Janssen, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Heide Stirnadel-Farrant Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, GSK, Employee of: AstraZeneca

Concordance and discordance in SLE clinical trial outcome measures: analysis of three anifrolumab phase 2/3 trials

Objectives

In the anifrolumab systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) trial programme, there was one trial (TULIP-1) in which BILAG-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) responses favoured anifrolumab over placebo, but the SLE Responder Index (SRI(4)) treatment difference was not significant. We investigated the degree of concordance between BICLA and SRI(4) across anifrolumab trials in order to better understand drivers of discrepant SLE trial results.

Methods

TULIP-1, TULIP-2 (both phase 3) and MUSE (phase 2b) were randomised, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg every 4 weeks, 48 weeks; TULIP-1/TULIP-2: n=180; MUSE: n=99) or placebo (TULIP-1: n=184, TULIP-2: n=182; MUSE: n=102). Week 52 BICLA and SRI(4) outcomes were assessed for each patient.

Results

Most patients (78%–85%) had concordant BICLA and SRI(4) outcomes (Cohen’s Kappa 0.6–0.7, nominal p<0.001). Dual BICLA/SRI(4) response rates favoured anifrolumab over placebo in TULIP-1, TULIP-2 and MUSE (all nominal p≤0.004). A discordant TULIP-1 BICLA non-responder/SRI(4) responder subgroup was identified (40/364, 11% of TULIP-1 population), comprising more patients receiving placebo (n=28) than anifrolumab (n=12). In this subgroup, placebo-treated patients had lower baseline disease activity, joint counts and glucocorticoid tapering rates, and more placebo-treated patients had arthritis response than anifrolumab-treated patients.

Conclusions

Across trials, most patients had concordant BICLA/SRI(4) outcomes and dual BICLA/SRI(4) responses favoured anifrolumab. A BICLA non-responder/SRI(4) responder subgroup was identified where imbalances of key factors driving the BICLA/SRI(4) discordance (disease activity, glucocorticoid taper) disproportionately favoured the TULIP-1 placebo group. Careful attention to baseline disease activity and monitoring glucocorticoid taper variation will be essential in future SLE trials.

Trial registration numbers

NCT02446912 and NCT02446899.

Indirect treatment comparison of anifrolumab efficacy versus belimumab in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus

Aim: Assess the comparative efficacy of anifrolumab 300 mg versus belimumab 10 mg/kg in adults with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving standard therapy. Patients and methods: Population-adjusted simulated treatment comparisons (primary analyses) and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (supporting analyses) were conducted using individual patient data from TULIP-1/TULIP-2 and summary-level data from BLISS-52/BLISS-76. Results: Compared with belimumab-treated patients, anifrolumab-treated patients were more than twice as likely to achieve a reduction of four or more points in SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 score (simulated treatment comparison odds ratio: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.16-5.25) and SLE Responder Index-4 response (odds ratio: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.22-5.58) at 52 weeks. Conclusion: Patients with moderate-to-severe SLE are more likely to achieve an improvement in disease activity with anifrolumab than with belimumab.

Relationship of anifrolumab pharmacokinetics with efficacy and safety in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the relationship of anifrolumab pharmacokinetics with efficacy and safety in patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard therapy, using pooled data from two phase 3 trials.

METHODS

TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 were randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab (every 4 weeks for 48 weeks). For the exposure-response analysis, BILAG-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) or SLE Responder Index [SRI(4)] response rates at week 52 in each quartile/tertile of average anifrolumab serum concentration (Cave) were compared for anifrolumab and placebo in all-comers, patients who completed treatment, and IFN gene signature (IFNGS)-high patients who completed treatment, using average marginal effect logistic regression. Relationships between exposure and key safety events were assessed graphically.

RESULTS

Of patients in TULIP-1/TULIP-2 who received anifrolumab (150 mg, n = 91; 300 mg, n = 356) or placebo (n = 366), 574 completed treatment, of whom 470 were IFNGS high. In the exposure-efficacy analyses, BICLA and SRI(4) treatment differences favouring anifrolumab 300 mg vs placebo were observed across Cave subgroups and all analysis populations. Logistic regression identified Cave as a significant covariate for predicted BICLA response, as higher anifrolumab Cave predicted greater efficacy. There was no evidence of exposure-driven incidence of key safety events through week 52 in patients receiving anifrolumab 150 or 300 mg.

CONCLUSION

While higher Cave predicted greater efficacy, consistent positive benefit favouring anifrolumab 300 mg vs placebo was observed in BICLA and SRI(4) responses across Cave subgroups in the TULIP trials. There was no evidence of exposure-driven safety events.

CLINICALTRIAL.GOV NUMBERS

NCT02446912, NCT02446899.

Nonlinear Population Pharmacokinetics of Anifrolumab in Healthy Volunteers and Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

We characterized the population pharmacokinetics of anifrolumab, a type I interferon receptor–blocking antibody. Pharmacokinetic data were analyzed from the anifrolumab (intravenous [IV], every 4 weeks) arms from 5 clinical trials in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (n = 664) and healthy volunteers (n = 6). Population pharmacokinetic modeling was performed using a 2‐compartment model with parallel linear and nonlinear elimination pathways. The impact of covariates (demographics, interferon gene signature [IFNGS, high/low], disease characteristics, renal/hepatic function, SLE medications, and antidrug antibodies) on pharmacokinetics was evaluated. Time‐varying clearance (CL) was characterized using an empirical sigmoidal time‐dependent function. Anifrolumab exposure increased more than dose‐proportionally from 100 to 1000 mg IV every 4 weeks. Based on population pharmacokinetics modeling, the baseline median linear CL was 0.193 L/day in IFNGS‐high patients and 0.153 L/day in IFNGS‐low/healthy volunteers. After a year, median anifrolumab linear CL decreased by 8.4% from baseline. Body weight and IFNGS were significant pharmacokinetic covariates, whereas age, sex, race, disease activity, SLE medications, and presence of antidrug antibodies had no significant effect on anifrolumab pharmacokinetics. Anifrolumab at a concentration of 300 mg IV every 4 weeks was predicted to be below the lower limit of quantitation in 95% of patients ≈10 weeks after a single dose and ≈16 weeks after stopping dosing at steady state. To conclude, anifrolumab exhibited nonlinear pharmacokinetics and time‐varying linear CL; doses ≥300 mg IV every 4 weeks provided sustained anifrolumab concentrations. This study provides further evidence to support the use of anifrolumab 300 mg IV every 4 weeks in patients with moderate to severe SLE.

The Relationship between Anifrolumab Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Efficacy in Patients With Moderate to Severe Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

This study aimed to elucidate the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and pharmacodynamic/efficacy relationships of anifrolumab, a type I interferon receptor antibody, in patients with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus. Data were pooled from the randomized, 52‐week, placebo‐controlled TULIP‐1 and TULIP‐2 trials of intravenous anifrolumab (150 mg/300 mg, every 4 weeks for 48 weeks). Pharmacodynamic neutralization was measured with a 21‐gene type I interferon gene signature (21‐IFNGS) in patients with high IFNGS. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship was analyzed graphically and modeled with a nonlinear mixed‐effects model. British Isles Lupus Assessment Group–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response rates were compared across 21‐IFNGS neutralization quartiles. Overall, 819 patients received ≥1 dose of anifrolumab or placebo, of whom 676 were IFNGS high. Over 52 weeks, higher average anifrolumab serum concentrations were associated with increased median 21‐IFNGS neutralization, which was rapid and sustained with anifrolumab 300 mg (>80%, weeks 12‐52), lower and delayed with anifrolumab 150 mg (>50%, week 52), and minimal with placebo. The proportion of patients with week 24 anifrolumab trough concentration exceeding the IC₈₀ (3.88 μg/mL) was greater with anifrolumab 300 mg vs anifrolumab 150 mg (≈83% vs ≈27%), owing to the higher estimated median trough concentration (15.6 vs 0.2 μg/mL). BICLA response rates increased with 21‐IFNGS neutralization; more patients had a BICLA response in the highest vs lowest neutralization quartiles at week 52 (58.1% vs 37.6%). In conclusion, anifrolumab 300 mg every 4 weeks rapidly, substantially, and sustainably neutralized the 21‐IFNGS and was associated with clinical efficacy, supporting this dosing regimen in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

Anifrolumab efficacy and safety by type I interferon gene signature and clinical subgroups in patients with SLE: post hoc analysis of pooled data from two phase III trials

Objectives

To characterise the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) according to interferon gene signature (IFNGS), demographic and clinical subgroups.

Methods

We performed post hoc analyses of pooled data from the 52-week phase III TULIP-1/TULIP-2 placebo-controlled trials of intravenous anifrolumab in moderate-to-severe SLE. Outcomes were assessed in predefined subgroups: IFNGS (high/low), age, sex, body mass index, race, geographic region, age of onset, glucocorticoid use, disease activity and serological markers.

Results

In pooled data, patients received anifrolumab 300 mg (360/726) or placebo (366/726); 82.6% were IFNGS-high. IFNGS-high patients had greater baseline disease activity and were more likely to have abnormal serological markers versus IFNGS-low patients. In the total population, a greater proportion of patients treated with anifrolumab versus placebo achieved British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response at week 52 (difference 16.6%; nominal p<0.001). BICLA response treatment differences with anifrolumab versus placebo were comparable to the total population across most predefined subgroups, including subgroups for baseline glucocorticoid dosage (<10/≥10 mg/day prednisone/equivalent) and for clinical disease activity (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 score <10/≥10). Subgroups with larger treatment differences included IFNGS-high patients (18.2%), patients with abnormal baseline serological markers (23.1%) and Asian patients (29.2%). The safety profile of anifrolumab was similar across subgroups.

Conclusions

Overall, this study supports the consistent efficacy and safety of anifrolumab across a range of patients with moderate-to-severe SLE. In a few subgroups, small sample sizes limited conclusions from being drawn regarding the treatment benefit with anifrolumab.

Trial registration number

NCT02446912, NCT02446899.

Causal cascade of direct and indirect effects of anifrolumab on patient-reported outcomes: structural equation modelling of two Phase 3 trials

OBJECTIVES

SLE significantly impairs health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In this post hoc analysis, structural equation modelling was used to examine the 'causal cascade' of interaction between anifrolumab, disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in pooled data from the phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials.

METHODS

Data were pooled from the TULIP-1 (n = 364) and TULIP-2 (n = 362) randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg every 4 weeks for 48 weeks). We evaluated changes from baseline to week 24 and week 52 in four clinical (BICLA, BILAG-2004, SLEDAI-2K and changes in glucocorticoid dosage) and six PRO measures (SF-36, FACIT-F, EQ-5D, LupusQoL, PHQ-8 and pain NRS) in our hypothesized model of interactions.

RESULTS

Our hypothesized model had an acceptable fit to the pooled TULIP trial data. At week 24, significant paths revealed that when compared with placebo, anifrolumab treatment improved disease activity as measured by BICLA, BILAG-2004, SLEDAI-2K and changes to glucocorticoid dosage. In turn, these clinical measures reduced pain, which improved fatigue, physical functioning, mood/emotions and HRQoL. When the model incorporated number of glucocorticoid tapers as the measure of change in glucocorticoid dosage, treatment effects of anifrolumab on glucocorticoid tapers were not retained at week 52. However, at week 52 treatment indirectly improved HRQoL through its direct effects on BICLA.

CONCLUSIONS

Anifrolumab is associated with significant patient-reported improvements in aspects of HRQoL including pain, fatigue, mood and physical function. These benefits are from the direct effect of anifrolumab treatment on disease activity and reduction in glucocorticoid dosage.

Clinical meaningfulness of a British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment response in terms of patient-reported outcomes in moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus: a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials of anifrolumab

BACKGROUND

The British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) is a validated global measure of treatment response in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) clinical trials but does not include patient-reported outcomes. To evaluate the clinical meaningfulness of a BICLA response from the patient perspective, we aimed to analyse patient-reported outcomes by BICLA responses with anifrolumab or placebo in patients with moderate to severe SLE.

METHODS

We did a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from the phase 3 TULIP-1 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) trials of anifrolumab, which assessed health-related quality of life using the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36; version 2) and Lupus Quality of Life, fatigue using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), pain using the Numerical Rating Scale, and disease activity using Patient Global Assessment. Changes from baseline and proportions of patients reporting improvements in patient-reported outcomes greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to the normative values were compared in BICLA responders and non-responders and by treatment group (intravenous anifrolumab 300 mg or placebo).

FINDINGS

726 patients were included in the TULIP trials, of whom 366 received placebo (184 patients in TULIP-1 and 182 in TULIP-2) and 360 received anifrolumab 300 mg (180 patients in each trial). The mean patient age was 41·8 years (SD 11·9). 674 (93%) patients were female, 52 (7%) were male, and 479 (66%) were White; 283 (39%) were BICLA responders and 443 (61%) were BICLA non-responders. Compared with non-responders, BICLA responders reported greater mean improvements from baseline at week 52 in Patient Global Assessment, SF-36, Lupus Quality of Life, FACIT-F, and pain Numerical Rating Scale scores (all nominal p<0·0053). Compared with non-responders, a greater proportion of BICLA responders reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important difference across all SF-36 domains; eg, Physical Component Summary (165 [60%] of 277 for responders vs 63 [15%] of 416 for non-responders), Mental Component Summary (140 [51%] of 276 vs 59 [15%] of 416), and role physical (184 [70%] of 264 vs 76 [19%] of 398); Lupus Quality of Life domains; eg, physical health (151 [58%] of 262 vs 60 [15%] of 396), and intimate relationships (77 [41%] of 187 vs 33 [11%] of 286), and FACIT-F (155 [56%] of 276 vs 66 [15%] of 439). Similarly, a greater proportion of BICLA responders had scores equal to or greater than the normative values across all SF-36 domains and FACIT-F compared with BICLA non-responders at week 52. Patients who received anifrolumab reported greater numerical improvements in Patient Global Assessment, SF-36, Lupus Quality of Life, FACIT-F, and pain Numerical Rating Scale scores than those who received placebo.

INTERPRETATION

BICLA responders reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in Patient Global Assessment, health-related quality of life, fatigue, and pain compared with BICLA non-responders. More patients with moderate to severe SLE who received anifrolumab were BICLA responders and had improved health-related quality of life, fatigue, and pain than those who received placebo.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Phase II randomised trial of type I interferon inhibitor anifrolumab in patients with active lupus nephritis

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of the type I interferon receptor antibody, anifrolumab, in patients with active, biopsy-proven, Class III/IV lupus nephritis.

Methods

This phase II double-blinded study randomised 147 patients (1:1:1) to receive monthly intravenous anifrolumab basic regimen (BR, 300 mg), intensified regimen (IR, 900 mg ×3, 300 mg thereafter) or placebo, alongside standard therapy (oral glucocorticoids, mycophenolate mofetil). The primary endpoint was change in baseline 24-hour urine protein–creatinine ratio (UPCR) at week (W) 52 for combined anifrolumab versus placebo groups. The secondary endpoint was complete renal response (CRR) at W52. Exploratory endpoints included more stringent CRR definitions and sustained glucocorticoid reductions (≤7.5 mg/day, W24–52). Safety was analysed descriptively.

Results

Patients received anifrolumab BR (n=45), IR (n=51), or placebo (n=49). At W52, 24-hour UPCR improved by 69% and 70% for combined anifrolumab and placebo groups, respectively (geometric mean ratio=1.03; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.71; p=0.905). Serum concentrations were higher with anifrolumab IR versus anifrolumab BR, which provided suboptimal exposure. Numerically more patients treated with anifrolumab IR vs placebo attained CRR (45.5% vs 31.1%), CRR with UPCR ≤0.5 mg/mg (40.9% vs 26.7%), CRR with inactive urinary sediment (40.9% vs 13.3%) and sustained glucocorticoid reductions (55.6% vs 33.3%). Incidence of herpes zoster was higher with combined anifrolumab vs placebo (16.7% vs 8.2%). Incidence of serious adverse events was similar across groups.

Conclusion

Although the primary endpoint was not met, anifrolumab IR was associated with numerical improvements over placebo across endpoints, including CRR, in patients with active lupus nephritis.

Trial registration number

NCT02547922.

Exposure-response analysis for selection of optimal dosage regimen of anifrolumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

OBJECTIVES

The randomized, double-blind, phase 2 b MUSE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the type I IFN receptor antibody anifrolumab (300 mg or 1000 mg every 4 weeks) compared with placebo for 52 weeks in patients with chronic, moderate to severe SLE. Characterizing the exposure-response relationship of anifrolumab in MUSE will enable selection of its optimal dosage regimen in two phase 3 studies in patients with SLE.

METHODS

The exposure-response relationship, pharmacokinetics (PK) and SLE Responder Index (SRI(4)) efficacy data were analysed using a population approach. A dropout hazard function was also incorporated into the SRI(4) model to describe the voluntary patient withdrawals during the 1-year treatment period.

RESULTS

The population PK model found that type I IFNGS-high patients, and patients with a higher body weight, had significantly greater clearance of anifrolumab. Stochastic clinical simulations demonstrated that doses <300 mg would lead to a greater-than-proportional reduction in drug exposure owing to type I IFN alpha receptor-mediated drug clearance (antigen-sink effect, more rapid drug clearance at lower concentrations) and suboptimal SRI(4) responses with wider confidence intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on PK, efficacy and safety considerations, anifrolumab 300 mg every 4 weeks was recommended as the optimal dosage for pivotal phase 3 studies in patients with SLE.

What Does It Mean to Be a British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-Based Composite Lupus Assessment Responder? Post Hoc Analysis of Two Phase III Trials

OBJECTIVE

The British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) is a validated global measure of treatment response in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) clinical trials. To understand the relevance of BICLA in clinical practice, we investigated relationships between BICLA response and routine SLE assessments, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and medical resource utilization.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from the phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week TULIP-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02446912; n = 457) and TULIP-2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02446899; n = 362) trials of intravenous anifrolumab (150/300 mg once every 4 weeks) in patients with moderate-to-severe SLE. Changes from baseline to week 52 in clinical assessments, PROs, and medical resource use were compared in BICLA responders versus nonresponders, regardless of treatment assignment.

RESULTS

BICLA responders (n = 318) achieved significantly improved outcomes compared with nonresponders (n = 501), including lower flare rates, higher rates of attainment of sustained oral glucocorticoid taper to ≤7.5 mg/day, greater improvements in PROs (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, Short Form 36 Health Survey), and fewer SLE-related hospitalizations/emergency department visits (all nominal P < 0.001). Compared with nonresponders, BICLA responders had greater improvements in global and organ-specific disease activity (Physician's Global Assessment, SLE Disease Activity Index 2000, Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index Activity, and joint counts; all nominal P < 0.001). BICLA responders had fewer lupus-related serious adverse events than nonresponders.

CONCLUSION

BICLA response is associated with clinical benefit in SLE assessments, PROs, and medical resource utilization, confirming its value as a clinical trial end point that is associated with measures important to patient care.

POS0688 CHARACTERIZATION OF PK/PD OF ANIFROLUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE SLE

Background:

In the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials, anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antibody, at a dosage of 300 mg once every 4 weeks (Q4W), demonstrated consistent median pharmacokinetic (PK) concentrations1 and sustained neutralization of the pharmacodynamic (PD) 21-gene type I IFN gene signature (IFNGS)2–4 in patients with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) despite standard therapy.

Objectives:

To characterize the PK/PD relationship of anifrolumab and to confirm anifrolumab 300 mg provides adequate PD neutralization in IFNGS test–high patients.

Methods:

This study included IFNGS test–high patients from the phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week TULIP-12 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-23 (NCT02446899) trials of intravenous anifrolumab 150 mg or 300 mg Q4W plus standard therapy. IFNGS test status (high or low) at screening was classified with an analytically validated 4-gene qPCR based test on whole blood.2 PD neutralization was measured with 21-gene type I IFNGS and expressed as a percentage change from baseline.3 For the graphic PK/PD analysis, patients with ≥1 quantifiable serum PK sample and ≥1 PD measurement before discontinuation were categorized depending on Cave (individual predicted average anifrolumab concentration over treatment duration) median and tertiles (T) for anifrolumab 150 mg and 300 mg, respectively. Median PD IFNGS neutralization and medium absolute deviations were compared across Cave subgroups. PK/PD modeling was assessed in patients with ≥1 quantifiable serum PK sample and a baseline and ≥1 postbaseline PD measurement before discontinuation, using a nonlinear mixed-effects model (NONMEM; version 7.3; ICON) to estimate parameters and characterize the PK/PD data. The PD/efficacy analysis included patients with ≥1 postbaseline PD measurement before discontinuation. BILAG-based Combined Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response rates at Week (W)52 were compared across median PD neutralization quartiles (Q) for pooled anifrolumab 300 mg and 150 mg groups.

Results:

The PK/PD graphic analysis included 654 IFNGS test–high patients (placebo [n=293]; anifrolumab 150 mg [n=72] or 300 mg [n=289]). Cave was generally higher with anifrolumab 300 mg (µg/mL, TULIP-1: T1 <32, T2 32–<44.3, T3 ≥44.3; TULIP-2: T1 <32.4, T2 32.4–<47.9, T3 ≥47.9) than with anifrolumab 150 mg (median 11.5 µg/mL); overlap between anifrolumab 300 mg and 150 mg Cave subgroups was small owing to nonlinearity. Anifrolumab 300 mg elicited rapid (by W44) and sustained median PD neutralization >80%, vs a lower and delayed PD neutralization (median >50% at W52) with anifrolumab 150 mg, and minimal PD neutralization with placebo. The median PD neutralization increased with higher Cave subgroups, plateauing at ~90% at W12–W52. All anifrolumab 300 mg Cave tertiles had a median PD neutralization ~80%; however, the variability was greater in the lowest Cave tertiles vs higher Cave tertiles across trials (Figure 1). The PK/PD modeling, which included 646 IFNGS test–high patients (placebo [n=289], anifrolumab 150 mg [n=70] or 300 mg [n=287]), gave an IC80 estimate of 3.88 μg/mL. The median W24 (study midpoint) Ctrough was higher with anifrolumab 300 mg vs 150 mg (15.6 vs 0.2 μg/mL); thus, the W24 Ctrough exceeded the IC80 in a higher proportion of patients treated with anifrolumab 300 mg vs 150 mg (~83% vs ~27%). The PD/efficacy analysis included 341 patients who received anifrolumab. Higher median percentage PD neutralization quartiles (Q1 <51.7%, Q2 51.7%–85.3%, Q3 85.3%–92.6%, Q4 >92.6%) were associated with higher W52 BICLA response rates (Q1 37.6%, Q2 49.4%, Q3 51.8%, Q4 58.1%).

Conclusion:

In TULIP-1 and TULIP-2, anifrolumab 300 mg yielded higher anifrolumab Cave vs 150 mg. High Cave was associated with rapid (W44–W12), substantial, and sustained PD neutralization of the 21-gene IFNGS in IFNGS test–high patients, which in turn was associated with higher efficacy.

References:

[1]Kuruvilla D. Poster 360, AAPS 2020.

[2]Furie RA. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[3]Morand EF. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

[4]Furie R. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69:379–86.

Acknowledgements:

Writing assistance by Matilda Shackley, MPhil, of JK Associates Inc., part of Fishawack Health. This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests:

Yen Lin Chia Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca, Tu Mai Employee of: Genentech, Tomas Rouse Employee of: AstraZeneca, Wendy White Employee of: AstraZeneca, Eric F. Morand Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Richard Furie Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca

POS0691 EFFECTS OF ANIFROLUMAB ON RENAL DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH SLE

Background:

The type I interferon (IFN) receptor antibody anifrolumab has shown efficacy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials.1,2 Type I IFN dysregulation is associated with lupus nephritis (LN) pathogenesis.3

Objectives:

Pooled TULIP data were analyzed post hoc to assess baseline characteristics of patients with and without renal involvement and to evaluate the effects of anifrolumab on renal disease.

Methods:

TULIP-1 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) were randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab every 4 weeks in patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard therapy, which excluded patients with severe active LN.1,2 Renal involvement at baseline was defined as any of the following: BILAG-2004 renal score A–C; SLEDAI-2K renal score >0; urine protein–creatinine ratio (UPCR) >0.5 mg/mg. Baseline characteristics were evaluated in patients with and without renal involvement, and the following endpoints were compared for the anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo groups: cumulative UPCR (area under the curve, AUC) through Week (W)52; percentage of patients with UPCR >0.5 mg/mg at baseline who improved to UPCR ≤0.5 mg/mg at W52; percentage of patients with renal flares (new BILAG-2004 A/B renal score vs prior visit); cumulative glucocorticoid (GC) use (AUC) through W52; and percentage changes in complement C3/C4 from baseline to W52.

Results:

Of the 726 patients in TULIP-1/-2 (anifrolumab, n=360; placebo, n=366), 99 had renal involvement at baseline (anifrolumab, n=45; placebo, n=54), 57 of whom had UPCR >0.5 mg/mg (anifrolumab, n=24; placebo, n=33). Patients with renal involvement vs without renal involvement had a lower mean age (37.8 vs 42.4 years) and were more likely to be male (14.1% vs 6.1%), Asian (16.2% vs 9.6%), IFN gene signature test–high (89.9% vs 81.5%), and anti-dsDNA positive (69.7% vs 40.4%); have a SLEDAI-2K score ≥10 (91.9% vs 68.4%); and be receiving GC ≥10 mg/day (67.7% vs 49.1%) or mycophenolate (26.3% vs 11.5%) at baseline. Among patients with baseline renal involvement, anifrolumab treatment was associated with a numerically greater improvement vs placebo in cumulative UPCR (AUC) through W52 (LS mean difference [SE]: –54.1 [54.26]) (Table 1). Numerically more patients improved from UPCR >0.5 mg/mg at baseline to ≤0.5 mg/mg at W52 with anifrolumab vs placebo (difference [SE], 4.9% [13.3]). Among all TULIP patients, fewer had ≥1 BILAG-2004 renal flare with anifrolumab vs placebo (5.0% vs 7.4%).4 Among patients with renal involvement, cumulative GC use (AUC) through W52 was lower with anifrolumab vs placebo (LS mean difference [SE]: –210.3 mg [332.6]) and there were numerically greater improvements in C3 and C4 from baseline to W52 (Table 1).

Conclusion:

TULIP data suggest renal benefit with anifrolumab in patients with SLE with mild/stable renal disease, supporting further investigation into anifrolumab’s efficacy in patients with active LN.

References:

[1]Furie R. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[2]Morand E. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

[3]Feng X. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:2951–62.

[4]Furie R [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(supp 10).

Table 1.

Renal Endpoints in TULIP-1 and TULIP-2

Endpoint (baseline to Week 52)PlaceboAnifrolumab 300 mgUPCR AUCan5445LS mean (SE)271.8 (54.8)217.7 (60.0)LS mean difference (SE), 95% CI−54.1 (54.3), −161.9, 53.6Improvement from >0.5 to ≤0.5 mg/mg UPCRbn3324Patients with improvement (%)36.341.2Difference, % (SE), 95% CI4.9 (13.3), −21.1, 30.9Glucocorticoid AUCan5445LS mean (SE)3524.5 (339.0)3314.2 (365.2)LS mean difference (SE), 95% CI−210.3 (332.6), −870.7, 450.1Change in C3/C4 (%)cC3N3121Mean (SE)20.3 (6.2)26.6 (5.0)C4N1914Mean (SE)29.1 (12.0)38.7 (13.8)

AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; LS, least squares; UPCR, urine protein–creatinine ratio; SE, standard error.

n, number satisfying baseline inclusion criteria for subgroup.

aPatients with baseline renal involvement; analysis of covariance.

bStratified Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel.

cPatients with renal involvement and abnormal C3/C4 at baseline.

Acknowledgements:

Writing assistance by Rosie Butler, PhD, of JK Associates Inc. part of Fishawack Health. This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests:

Eric F. Morand Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Richard Furie Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and YL Biologics, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Takeda, and UCB, Tsutomu Takeuchi Speakers bureau: AbbVie GK., Bristol–Myers K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co,. Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Pfizer Japan Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., Sanofi K.K., Teijin Pharma Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Novartis Pharma K.K., Consultant of: AstraZeneca K.K., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Novartis Pharma K.K., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Abbvie GK, Nipponkayaku Co.Ltd, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Astellas Pharma Inc,. Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., Grant/research support from: Astellas Pharma Inc, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., AbbVie GK, Asahikasei Pharma Corp., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Pfizer Japan Inc., Eisai Co., Ltd., AYUMI Pharmaceutical Corporation, Nipponkayaku Co.Ltd., Novartis Pharma K.K., Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca, Catharina Lindholm Employee of: AstraZeneca

POS0684 RELATIONSHIP OF ANIFROLUMAB PK WITH EFFICACY AND SAFETY IN PATIENTS WITH SLE

Background:

In patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the type I interferon (IFN) receptor inhibitor anifrolumab was well tolerated and was associated with greater percentages of patients with BILAG–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) responses vs placebo in 2 phase 3 trials: TULIP-11 (secondary endpoint) and TULIP-22 (primary endpoint).

Objectives:

To characterize the relationship of anifrolumab pharmacokinetics (PK) with BICLA response and safety using pooled data from the TULIP trials.

Methods:

This analysis included patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard therapy who had ≥1 dose of investigational product and ≥1 quantifiable PK observation in the randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week TULIP-1 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) trials of intravenous anifrolumab (every 4 weeks).1,2 The distributions of average anifrolumab serum concentrations (Cave) during treatment were similar between TULIP-1 and TULIP-2, allowing for data pooling for all analyses. For the exposure–BICLA analysis, the proportions of patients with BICLA responses at Week (W)52 (and corresponding 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) in each quartile/tertile of Cave were compared for anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo groups in all patients, patients who completed treatment, and IFN gene signature (IFNGS) test–high patients who completed treatment, using average marginal effect logistic regression (stratified by SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 total score at screening, IFNGS status at screening, and Day 1 glucocorticoid dosage [mg/day]). The relationships between exposure and key safety events were similarly assessed. Analyses presented focus on the anifrolumab 300 mg dose.

Results:

Of the patients in TULIP-1/TULIP-2 who received anifrolumab 300 mg (n=356) or placebo (n=366), 574 completed treatment, of whom 470 were IFNGS test–high at screening. In the exposure–BICLA response analyses, differences favoring anifrolumab 300 mg vs placebo were observed across Cave subgroups among all patients, patients who completed treatment, and IFNGS test–high patients who completed treatment (Table 1). Among IFNGS test–high patients who completed treatment, logistic regression identified Cave as a significant covariate for BICLA response. There was no evidence that the incidence of non-opportunistic serious infections, or increased incidence of herpes zoster (HZ) or infusion-related reactions associated with anifrolumab, were exposure-driven (Figure 1); the incidence of malignancy was low in the anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo groups (<1%), with no evidence that malignancy was exposure-driven through W52.

Conclusion:

Consistent benefit in favor of anifrolumab 300 mg vs placebo was observed in W52 BICLA responses across Cave subgroups. Cave was a significant covariate of efficacy in IFNGS test–high patients who completed treatment. There was no evidence of exposure-driven HZ, non-opportunistic serious infections, infusion-related reactions, or malignancy during the TULIP trials.

References:

[1]Furie R. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[2]Morand E. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

Table 1.

Exposure–BICLA Analysis for Pooled TULIP Data

BICLA response, W52PK subgroupaAnifrolumab 300 mg,n/Nb(%)Anifrolumab vs placebo difference, % [95% CI]All patients (n=722)Q140/100 (40)9.6 [–1.0, 20.3]Q244/98 (44)13.4 [2.6, 24.2]Q343/81 (53)22.5 [10.7, 34.3]Q444/77 (58)27.4 [15.4, 39.4]Placebo112/366 (31)–Patients completing treatment (n=574)Q140/75 (54)12.7 [0.1, 25.2]Q244/74 (57)15.5 [2.7, 28.3]Q343/74 (58)17.2 [4.7, 29.8]Q444/75 (60)18.7 [6.2, 31.2]Placebo112/276 (41)–IFNGS test–high patients completing treatment (n=470)T144/81 (54)15.4 [3, 27.8]T246/81 (54)15.4 [2.8, 27.9]T352/81 (66)26.7 [14.7, 38.7]Placebo88/227 (39)–

BICLA, British Isles Lupus Assessment Group–based Composite Lupus Assessment;

CI, confidence interval; IFNGS, interferon gene signature; PK, pharmacokinetic; Q, quartile; T, tertile.

aPK was stratified by quartiles/tertiles based on sample size.

bn, number of BICLA responders; N, number of patients in the subgroup.

Acknowledgements:

Writing assistance by Alexus Rivas, PharmD, and Rosie Butler, PhD, of JK Associates Inc., part of Fishawack Health.

This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests:

Yen Lin Chia Employee of: AstraZeneca, Jianchun Zhang Employee of: Fate Therapeutics, AstraZeneca (former), Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca, Tomas Rouse Employee of: AstraZeneca, Richard Furie Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Eric F. Morand Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca

AB0289 PATIENT REPORTED PHYSICAL HEALTH COMPARED TO CLINICIAN RECORDED BILAG-2004 MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM SCORES – DISCORDANCE BETWEEN PATIENTS AND CLINICIANS

Background:

The musculoskeletal organ system BILAG-2004 (MSK BILAG) assessment is of critical importance in SLE clinical trials. Severe active polyarthritis, MSK BILAG A, by definition includes significant impairment of basic activities of daily living (ADLs), as opposed to MSK BILAG C, D, or E where ability to perform ADLs is expected to be preserved. In clinical trials, BILAG is scored by clinicians without formal review of patient reported outcomes (PROs). The Physical Health domain of the LupusQoL (LQol PH) (range 0 – 100) can be used to assess the patient’s physical function and ADLs. LQoL PH score thresholds defining impairment severity have not been established; however, a transformed LQoL PH score ≤50 suggests more impaired function, which would not be expected in MSK BILAG C, D, or E. Conversely, a score >50 implies no major issues with ADLs, which would be contradictory to the definition of MSK BILAG A.

Objectives:

To assess correlation of patient reported LQoL PH with MSK BILAG scores recorded by clinicians at various timepoints using data from the phase 3 TULIP studies 1,2 and to investigate the percent of discordance between patients and clinicians.

Methods:

Data from TULIP 1 and 2 studies (anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo arms) were pooled to evaluate the relationship between LQoL PH and MSK BILAG scores at baseline, weeks 24 and 52 using Spearman correlations as post-hoc analysis. Mean LQoL PH scores were assessed for each MSK BILAG category at the three timepoints using one-way ANOVA. Percent of patients with MSK BILAG A and LQoL PH scores >50 and patients with MSK BILAG C, D, or E and LQoL PH scores ≤50 was calculated at baseline, week 24 and 52. MSK BILAG B was excluded from the analysis because discordance could not be easily defined for this category compared with the more extreme MSK BILAG categories.

Results:

Total of 690 patients were included in the pooled analysis (Table 1). Significant correlations between LQoL PH and MSK BILAG scores were found at each time point (nominal p<0.0001); this relationship became stronger over time. Mean LQoL PH scores were different in each MSK BILAG category, with the highest in MSK BILAG D/E and the lowest in the MSK BILAG A category, thus confirming the discriminatory ability of the LQoL PH (Table 1).

Table 1.

Correlation coefficients (CC) between LQoL PH and MSK BILAG scores, and mean LQoL PH scores with standard deviations (SD) per each MSK BILAG category at baseline, weeks 24 and 52.

BaselineWeek 24Week 52CCNCCNCCNTotal Population-0.25690-0.36626-0.41552MSK BILAGMean LQoL PH Score (SD)Mean LQoL PH Score (SD)Mean LQoL PH Score (SD)0 (D/E)69.3 (24.7)1774.2 (22.1)18674.5 (21.3)2371 (C)62.3 (25.4)6064.0 (23.9)23360.6 (22.5)1848 (B)56.6 (24.4)39855.1 (24.2)16351.3 (24.3)10512 (A)44.9 (25.8)21543.9 (25.9)4444.2 (26.2)26

At baseline, 40% of patients who were assessed by clinicians as having MSK BILAG A reported minimal impairment in physical function and ADLs (LQoL PH >50) and 24.1% who had MSK BILAG C, D, or E reported difficulties with ADLs (LQoL HP ≤50), suggesting discordance between patients and clinicians. This discordance slightly decreased over time (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Percent of patients with MSK BILAG A and LQoL PH scores >50 and patients with MSK BILAG C, D, or E and LQoL PH scores ≤50 at baseline, weeks 24 and 52.

Conclusion:

Patient reported LQoL PH scores correlated with MSK BILAG scores and showed discriminant validity for MSK BILAG scores. Greater discordance was seen between LQoL PH and MSK BILAG A compared with C, D, or E. These findings suggest a need for further investigation of a role for PROs in MSK BILAG scoring. Formal review of PROs by clinicians during MSK BILAG assessment could be considered in future SLE clinical trials.

References:

[1]Furie R et al. Lancet 2019

[2]Morand EF et al. N Engl J Med 2020

Acknowledgements:

This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests:

Ewa Olech Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: BMS, Donald Stull: None declared, Betsy Williams: None declared, Stephanie Bean: None declared, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Erik Schwetje Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca, Sean O’Quinn Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca

POS0690 RANDOMIZED, CONTROLLED, PHASE 2 TRIAL OF TYPE 1 IFN INHIBITOR ANIFROLUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PROLIFERATIVE LUPUS NEPHRITIS

Background:

Anifrolumab, a type I interferon receptor antibody, has shown efficacy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE),1,2 >30% of whom develop lupus nephritis (LN).

Objectives:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab vs placebo alongside standard therapy in patients with active proliferative LN.

Methods:

TULIP-LN (NCT02547922) was a phase 2 double-blind trial in adult patients with active, biopsy-proven LN and 24-hour (h) urine protein–creatinine ratio (UPCR) >1 mg/mg. Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to anifrolumab basic regimen (BR, 300 mg, based on SLE dosing1,2), anifrolumab intensified regimen (IR, 900 mg for 3 doses, 300 mg thereafter), or placebo, intravenously every 4 weeks alongside standard therapy of oral glucocorticoids (GCs; mandatory taper ≤10 mg/day by Week [W]12, ≤7.5 mg/day by W24) and mycophenolate mofetil (target 2 g/day by W8). The primary endpoint was the relative difference in change from baseline to W52 in 24-h UPCR, measured with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the change in the combined anifrolumab vs placebo groups (GMR <1 favors anifrolumab). The key secondary endpoint was complete renal response (CRR) at W52 (24-h UPCR ≤0.7 mg/mg, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or no decrease ≥20%, no treatment discontinuation, and no restricted medication use). Sustained GC taper (≤7.5 mg/day, W24–52) was an exploratory endpoint. CRR0.5 (CRR with UPCR ≤0.5 mg/mg) and time to CRR0.5 sustained to W52 were analyzed post hoc. Responder rates were calculated with a stratified Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel approach.

Results:

Patients received anifrolumab BR (n=45) or IR (n=51) or placebo (n=49); demographics and baseline disease characteristics were generally balanced between groups. No difference in change from baseline to W52 in 24-h UPCR was observed for combined anifrolumab vs placebo groups (Table 1). Anifrolumab clearance was higher in patients with LN vs SLE; proteinuria in LN elicited suboptimal anifrolumab serum concentrations (early trough from BR 50%–60% lower than in SLE trials1,2), so anifrolumab IR results are presented. CRR rate at W52 was numerically higher with the IR vs placebo (45.5% vs 31.1%) (Table 1). Time to sustained CRR0.5 (Figure 1), rate of CRR0.5 at W52, and rate of sustained GC taper to ≤7.5 mg/day (Table 1) were improved with the IR vs placebo. Most adverse events were nonserious, mild, or moderate and did not lead to discontinuation; rates were similar in the combined anifrolumab vs placebo groups (89.8% vs 93.8%). In the combined anifrolumab vs placebo groups, there was a higher incidence of herpes zoster (HZ, 16.7% vs 8.2%); most HZ cases were of mild to moderate intensity, cutaneous, and resolved with treatment.

Conclusion:

Although the primary endpoint was not met, the anifrolumab IR was associated with numeric improvements across clinical endpoints vs placebo; thus, intensified dosing may be required to reach clinical efficacy in LN vs SLE without active renal disease. Anifrolumab had a similar safety profile in patients with LN and SLE; despite higher frequency of HZ vs placebo, anifrolumab was well tolerated.

References:

[1]Morand EF. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

[2]Furie RA. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

Table 1.

Summary of Clinical Efficacy Endpoints

EndpointAnifrolumabPlaceboCombinedBasicIntensified24-hour urine protein–creatinine ratio improvement W52N91415041GMR vs placebo1.0311.1040.963–95% CI0.621, 1.7130.612, 1.9920.548, 1.693CRR rate W52n/N (%)27/87 (31.0)7/43 (16.3)20/44 (45.5)14/45 (31.1)Δ−0.08−14.8314.34–95% CI−16.92, 16.76−32.89, 3.22−5.77, 34.46CRR0.5rate W52n/N (%)25/87 (28.7)7/43 (16.3)18/44 (40.9)12/45 (26.7)Δ2.07−10.3914.24–95% CI−14.25, 18.39−28.07, 7.29−5.42, 33.90Glucocorticoid≤7.5 mg/dayW24–52n/N (%)31/67 (46.3)11/31 (35.5)20/36 (55.6)11/33 (33.3)Δ12.942.1522.22–95% CI−7.26, 33.13−21.40, 25.70−0.79, 45.23

Δ Percentage difference vs placebo.

CI, confidence interval; CRR, complete renal response; GMR, geometric mean ratio; n, number of responders; N, number analyzed; W, Week.

Acknowledgements:

Writing assistance by Matilda Shackley, MPhil, of JK Associates, Inc, a member of Fishawack Health. This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests:

David Jayne Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GSK, Roche/Genentech and Sanofi-Genzyme, Brad H Rovin Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Eduardo Mysler Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, GSK, Eli Lilly, Sandoz, Roche, AbbVie, Pfizer, Janssen, Gemma, and Amgen, Richard Furie Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Frederic Houssiau Consultant of: GSK, Teodora Trasieva Employee of: AstraZeneca, Jacob Knagenhjelm Employee of: AstraZeneca, Erik Schwetje Employee of: AstraZeneca, Yen Lin Chia Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca, Catharina Lindholm Employee of: AstraZeneca

OP0131 ANIFROLUMAB EFFECTS ON RASH AND ARTHRITIS IN PATIENTS WITH SLE AND IMPACT OF INTERFERON SIGNAL IN POOLED DATA FROM PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background:

Treatment with the type I interferon (IFN) receptor antibody anifrolumab was associated with clinical improvements in mucocutaneous and musculoskeletal disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the phase 2 MUSE trial (NCT01438489) and phase 3 TULIP trials.1–4 Because rash and arthritis are the most common manifestations of SLE, the effect of anifrolumab on these symptoms can be examined in biomarker-defined subsets, as previously reported for the MUSE trial.2

Objectives:

To evaluate the effect of anifrolumab on rash and arthritis in patients with SLE, and the impact of IFN gene signature (IFNGS) on treatment response, using disease measures of different stringency in pooled data from the phase 3 TULIP trials.

Methods:

TULIP-1 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) were placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab administered every 4 weeks in patients with moderate to severe SLE.3,4 In this post hoc analysis, outcomes of rash and arthritis were evaluated using mucocutaneous and musculoskeletal domains of the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) and the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index. In addition, the modified Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index (mCLASI) score was used to evaluate rash, and tender and swollen joint counts were used to assess arthritis.

Results:

360 patients received anifrolumab 300 mg (IFNGS test–high, n=298; IFNGS test–low, n=62) and 366 patients were given placebo (IFNGS test–high, n=302; IFNGS test–low, n=64). Change from baseline to Week 52 compared with placebo was measured by outcomes, ordered by their stringency. More anifrolumab-treated patients achieved rash improvement using SLEDAI-2K (complete resolution: difference 13.5%, nominal P<0.001), BILAG (at least 1 severity grade lowering: difference 15.5%, nominal P<0.001), and mCLASI (≥50% improvement, if baseline score >0: difference 15.6%, nominal P<0.001). Results were comparable in the IFNGS test–high subset (SLEDAI-2K: difference 17.0%, nominal P<0.001, BILAG: difference 16.1%, nominal P<0.001; mCLASI: difference 18.1%, nominal P<0.001). There was a trend toward anifrolumab-associated rash improvement in IFNGS test–low patients using BILAG (Figure). More patients receiving anifrolumab had SLEDAI-2K–defined resolution in arthritis (difference 8.2%, nominal P=0.029), BILAG severity lessening (difference 11.8%, nominal P=0.002), and ≥50% decrease in tender/swollen joint counts, when ≥6 at baseline (difference 12.6%, nominal P=0.016). Results were comparable in the IFNGS test–high subset (SLEDAI-2K: difference 11.7%, nominal P=0.005; BILAG: difference 12.9%, nominal P=0.003; joint counts: difference 11.3%, nominal P=0.054). In IFNGS test–low patients, there was a trend toward anifrolumab-associated arthritis improvement when measured using BILAG, and the effect of anifrolumab on the number of swollen/tender joint counts was similar to the IFNGS test–high group, although the IFNGS test–low sample size in this analysis was very small (Figure).

Conclusion:

In pooled data from the TULIP trials, anifrolumab treatment was associated with improvements in rash and arthritis using measures of different stringency. The SLEDAI-2K findings were largely driven by the subset of patients who were IFNGS test–high. However, using measures that were more sensitive to change, despite small sample sizes, IFNGS test–low patients may also have benefit.

References:

[1]Furie R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69:376–86.

[2]Merrill JT, et al. Lupus Sci Med. 2018;5:e000284.

[3]Furie RA, et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[4]Morand EF, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

Acknowledgements:

Writing assistance by Victoria Alikhan, PhD, of JK Associates Inc., part of Fishawack Health. This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests:

Joan T Merrill Consultant of: AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, EMD Serono, GSK, Remegen, Janssen, Provention, and UCB, Grant/research support from: BMS and GSK, Victoria Werth Speakers bureau: University of Pennsylvania, who own the copyright for the CLASI and SDASI, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Argenx, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chrysalis, CSL Behring, Cugene, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GSK, Incyte, Idera, Janssen, Kirin, Medimmune, Medscape, Nektar, Octapharma, Pfizer, Principa, Regeneron, Resolve, and Viela Bio, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Celgene, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Syntimmune, and Viela Bio, Richard Furie Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Eric F. Morand Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, J Michelle Kahlenberg Consultant of: Admirex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Ventus Therapeutics, Grant/research support from: BMS/Celgene and Q32 Bio, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca

Anifrolumab reduces flare rates in patients with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus

BACKGROUND

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) management objectives include preventing disease flares while minimizing glucocorticoid exposure. Pooled data from the phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials in patients with moderate to severe SLE were analyzed to determine anifrolumab's effect on flares, including those arising with glucocorticoid taper.

METHODS

TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 were randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg every 4 weeks for 48 weeks). For patients receiving baseline glucocorticoid ≥10 mg/day, attempted taper to ≤7.5 mg/day prednisone or equivalent from Weeks 8-40 was required and defined as sustained reduction when maintained through Week 52. Flares were defined as ≥1 new BILAG-2004 A or ≥2 new BILAG-2004 B scores versus the previous visit. Flare assessments were compared for patients receiving anifrolumab versus placebo.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo (n = 366), anifrolumab (n = 360) was associated with lower annualized flare rates (rate ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.95), prolonged time to first flare (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.55-0.89), and fewer patients with ≥1 flare (difference -9.3%, 95% CI -16.3 to -2.3), as well as flares in organ domains commonly active at baseline (musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous). Fewer BILAG-based Composite Lupus Assessment responders had ≥1 flare with anifrolumab (21.1%, 36/171) versus placebo (30.4%, 34/112). Of patients who achieved sustained glucocorticoid reductions from ≥10 mg/day at baseline, more remained flare free with anifrolumab (40.0%, 76/190) versus placebo (17.3%, 32/185).

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of pooled TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 data support that anifrolumab reduces flares while permitting glucocorticoid taper in patients with SLE.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiersTULIP-1 NCT02446912 (clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02446912);TULIP-2 NCT02446899 (clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02446899).

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Anifrolumab in Adults With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results of a Phase II Open-Label Extension Study

Objective

To investigate long‐term safety and tolerability of anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody to the type I interferon (IFN) receptor subunit 1, in patients with moderate‐to‐severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Methods

This 3‐year, multinational, open‐label extension study included adult patients who completed treatment (48 weeks of anifrolumab or placebo; 12‐week follow‐up) in the MUSE phase IIb randomized controlled trial (RCT). Patients initially received 1,000 mg of anifrolumab intravenously every 4 weeks, which was reduced to 300 mg every 4 weeks based on the benefit/risk profile established in the MUSE trial. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed monthly. Exploratory end points included the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI‐2K), Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI), pharmacodynamics, and health‐related quality of life (HRQoL).

Results

Of the 246 patients who completed the RCT, 218 (88.6%) enrolled in the open‐label extension study, of which 139 (63.8%) completed 3 years of treatment. Approximately 69.7% of patients reported ≥1 AE during the first year of open‐label extension treatment. Frequency and patterns of serious AEs and AEs of special interest over 3 years were consistent with those reported for 1 year of treatment in the RCT. Few patients (6.9%) discontinued treatment due to AEs. No new safety signals were identified. Improvement in the SLEDAI‐2K was sustained over 3 years. SDI and Short Form 36 health survey scores remained stable. Neutralization of type I IFN gene signatures was maintained in the IFN‐high population, and C3, C4, and anti–double‐stranded DNA showed trends toward sustained improvement.

Conclusion

Long‐term anifrolumab treatment demonstrates an acceptable safety profile with sustained improvement in SLE disease activity, HRQoL, and serologic measures.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of subcutaneous anifrolumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, active skin disease, and high type I interferon gene signature: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

300 mg of intravenous anifrolumab every 4 weeks added to standard-of-care treatment for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) reduced disease activity and glucocorticoid requirement in a previous phase 3 trial. Because patients might find subcutaneous administration more convenient than intravenous delivery, we aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy of subcutaneous anifrolumab in patients with SLE, active skin disease, and a high type I interferon gene signature.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study was done at 12 hospitals and outpatient clinics in Hungary, South Korea, Poland, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years, and had SLE with high type I interferon gene signature and an activity score on the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI) of at least 10. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned (3:1:3:1) by use of a voice-web response system to receive either 150 mg of subcutaneous anifrolumab or corresponding placebo, or 300 mg of subcutaneous anifrolumab or corresponding placebo in addition to stable standard-of-care treatment. The study was double-blinded with respect to intervention but not dose, until 12 weeks. Doses of oral glucocorticoids were tapered after week 12. The primary pharmacokinetic endpoint was the serum concentration of anifrolumab based on the maximum concentration after the first dose and the minimum (trough) concentration before subsequent doses and was measured in all patients who received anifrolumab and had at least one quantifiable serum pharmacokinetics observation following the first dose. The primary pharmacodynamic endpoint was neutralisation of the type I interferon pharmacodynamic signature at week 12 and was assessed in all patients with a high type I interferon pharmacodynamics signature at baseline based on a 21-gene test. Safety was evaluated in the full analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of anifrolumab. This trial is completed and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02962960.

FINDINGS

Between March 14, 2017, and Oct 26, 2017, 36 patients were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg of anifrolumab (n=14), 300 mg of anifrolumab (n=13), or placebo (n=9). Two patients in the anifrolumab 150 mg group were excluded from the pharmacodynamic analysis set (n=34). Ten (71%) of 14 patients in the anifrolumab 150 mg group, ten (77%) of 13 patients in the anifrolumab 300 mg group, and nine (100%) of the nine patients in the placebo group completed 52 weeks of treatment. At week 12, pre-dose mean trough serum concentrations of anifrolumab were more than dose proportional between the anifrolumab 150 mg group (19·82 μg/mL [SD 15·01]) and the anifrolumab 300 mg group (60·28 μg/mL [43·66]), and the pharmacokinetics were non-linear. At week 12, the median percentage neutralisation of the type I interferon gene signature was higher with 150 mg (88·0% [median absolute deviation 7·4]) and 300 mg (90·7% [3·3]) of anifrolumab than with placebo (18·5% [8·1]), and more patients in the anifrolumab 150 mg group and the anifrolumab 300 mg group than in the placebo group had neutralisation of 75% or more (eight [67%] of 12 vs ten [77%] of 13 vs one [11%] of nine). At least one adverse event was reported by 23 (85%) of 27 patients in the anifrolumab groups and by seven (78%) of nine patients in the placebo group; most adverse events were of mild-to-moderate severity. Serious adverse events were reported in six (22%) of 27 patients in the anifrolumab groups (four patients in the 150 mg group and two in the 300 mg group). No serious adverse events were reported in the placebo group. Herpes zoster infection was reported by three (11%) of 27 patients in the anifrolumab groups and by one (11%) of nine patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

Anifrolumab, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks to patients with SLE and moderate-to-severe skin manifestations, had non-linear pharmacokinetics that were more than dose proportional, and neutralised the type I interferon gene signature in a dose-dependent manner. The safety profile was consistent with previous studies of intravenous anifrolumab, supporting the continued development of anifrolumab as a subcutaneously administered therapy for patients with SLE.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Safety profile of anifrolumab in patients with active SLE: an integrated analysis of phase II and III trials

OBJECTIVE

In phase II and III trials, anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody that binds type I interferon receptor subunit 1, has shown efficacy in adults with moderate to severe SLE. We evaluated the safety and tolerability of anifrolumab using data pooled from these trials to more precisely estimate the rate and severity of adverse events (AEs).

METHODS

Data were pooled from patients receiving monthly intravenous anifrolumab 300 mg or placebo in MUSE, TULIP-1 and TULIP-2. Key safety endpoints included percentages and exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) of patients who experienced AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation and AEs of special interest.

RESULTS

During treatment, 86.9% of patients receiving anifrolumab 300 mg (n=459) experienced AEs (≥1) versus 79.4% receiving placebo (n=466), and 4.1% versus 5.2% experienced an AE leading to discontinuation of investigational product. SAEs (≥1) were experienced by 11.8% and 16.7% of patients receiving anifrolumab and placebo, respectively (EAIR risk difference (95% CI) -7.2 (-12.5 to -1.9)), including lupus exacerbations classified as SAEs (1.5% and 3%, respectively). Infections occurred in 69.7% and 55.4% of patients receiving anifrolumab and placebo, respectively; difference in reported rates was driven by herpes zoster (HZ) and mild and moderate respiratory (excluding pneumonia) infections. The risk of HZ was increased with anifrolumab versus placebo (6.1% vs 1.3%, respectively; EAIR risk difference (95% CI) 5.4 (2.8 to 8.4)); most HZ events were mild or moderate, cutaneous and resolved without treatment discontinuation. Serious infections occurred in 4.8% and 5.6% of patients receiving anifrolumab and placebo, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pooled analysis of 925 patients with moderate to severe SLE, monthly intravenous anifrolumab 300 mg was generally well tolerated over 52 weeks with an acceptable safety profile. Anifrolumab was associated with an increased incidence of HZ and respiratory tract infections and lower reported rate of SLE worsening as SAEs.

Anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody to the type I interferon receptor subunit 1, for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: an overview from clinical trials

Chronic activation of the type I interferon (IFN) pathway plays a critical role in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) pathogenesis. Anifrolumab is a human monoclonal antibody to the type I IFN receptor subunit 1, which blocks the action of type I IFNs. Two phase 3 studies (TULIP-1 and TULIP-2) and a phase 2b study (MUSE) provide substantial evidence for the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab for moderately to severely active SLE. In all three studies, monthly intravenous anifrolumab 300 mg was associated with treatment differences >16% compared with placebo at Week 52 in British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment response rates. The combined data across a range of other clinically significant endpoints (e.g. oral corticosteroid reduction, improved skin disease, flare reduction) further support the efficacy of anifrolumab for SLE treatment. The safety profile of anifrolumab was generally similar across all studies; serious adverse events occurred in 8-16% and 16-19% of patients receiving anifrolumab and placebo, respectively. Herpes zoster incidence was greater with anifrolumab (≤7%) vs placebo (≤2%). Evidence from these clinical trials suggests that in patients with active SLE, anifrolumab is superior to placebo in achieving composite endpoints of disease activity response and oral corticosteroid reduction.

Study protocol for the international Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Prospective Observational Cohort Study (SPOCS): understanding lupus and the role of type I interferon gene signature

INTRODUCTION

The Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Prospective Observational Cohort Study (SPOCS) aims to describe the disease course of SLE and its association with type I interferon gene signature (IFNGS) status.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

SPOCS is an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study designed to follow patients through biannual study visits during a 3-year observation period. Patients ≥18 years old with a physician diagnosis that meets the American College of Rheumatology or Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics SLE classification criteria will be included. SPOCS will comprehensively analyse clinical features, disease progression and treatment, SLE outcomes, health status assessments and quality of life, and healthcare resource utilisation of patients with moderate to severe SLE. A four-gene test will be used to measure IFNGS status; scores will be compared with a pre-established cut-off. Patients will be stratified by low or high IFNGS expression levels. Enrolment began in June 2017, and study completion is expected in 2022. The total number of anticipated patients was initially planned for 1500 patients and was amended to 900 patients owing to slow accrual of eligible patients.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The ethics committee/institutional review board/independent ethics committee at each study site approved the SPOCS protocol prior to study initiation (protocol number: D3461R00001, version 3.0, 26 June 2019). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03189875.

SAT0174 FLARE ASSESSMENTS IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS TREATED WITH ANIFROLUMAB IN 2 PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background:

Anifrolumab treatment resulted in improved British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response rates in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the phase 3 TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 trials.1,2In addition, annualized flare rates were lower among the groups treated with anifrolumab compared with placebo.1,2

Objectives:

TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 data were analyzed to assess the effects of anifrolumab on the number of SLE flares and time to first flare during 52 weeks of treatment.

Methods:

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 trials evaluated efficacy and safety of intravenous anifrolumab 300 mg vs placebo every 4 weeks for 48 weeks, with the primary endpoints assessed at Week 52, in patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard-of-care treatment. Flares were defined as ≥1 new BILAG-2004 A or ≥2 new (worsening) BILAG-2004 B domain scores compared with the prior month’s visit. Time to first flare was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Annualized flare rate was analyzed using a negative binomial regression model.

Results:

In TULIP-2 (anifrolumab, n=180; placebo, n=182) and TULIP-1 (anifrolumab, n=180; placebo, n=184), fewer patients experienced ≥1 BILAG-2004 flare in the anifrolumab groups (TULIP-2: 31.1%, n=56; TULIP-1: 36.1%, n=65) compared with the placebo groups (TULIP-2: 42.3%, n=77; TULIP-1: 43.5%, n=80; Figure 1). Results favoring anifrolumab were observed in time to first flare (TULIP-2: hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46–0.91 and TULIP-1: HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55–1.06; Figure 2) and BILAG-based annualized flare rates (TULIP-2: adjusted rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.48–0.94 and TULIP-1: rate ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.60–1.14) across both trials.

Conclusion:

Across 2 phase 3 trials, we observed reductions in the total number of flares and annualized flare rates, as well as prolongation of time to first flare with anifrolumab treatment compared with placebo. These results support the potential of anifrolumab to reduce disease activity and reduce flares, benefiting patients with SLE.

References:

[1]Morand EF, et al.N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–221.

[2]Furie RA, et al.Lancet Rheumatol.2019;1:e208–e219.

Disclosure of Interests:

Richard Furie Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eric F. Morand Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Anca Askanase Grant/research support from: Regeneron and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie and BMS, Employee of: GSK, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Lilly, and Mallinckrodt, Edward Vital Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche/Genentech, and Sandoz, Speakers bureau: Becton Dickinson and GSK, Rubana Kalyani Employee of: AstraZeneca, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Lilia Pineda Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca

OP0049 EFFICACY OF ANIFROLUMAB IN ACTIVE SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: PATIENT SUBGROUP ANALYSIS OF BICLA RESPONSE IN 2 PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background:

Treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with the type I interferon (IFN) receptor inhibitor anifrolumab resulted in higher British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response rates vs placebo at Week 52 in the phase 3 randomized trials, TULIP-2 (primary endpoint; 16.3% difference)1and TULIP-1 (secondary endpoint; 16.4% difference).2BICLA is a validated composite global disease measure that registers both partial and complete improvement within organ systems.

Objectives:

TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 data were analyzed to evaluate BICLA responses to anifrolumab vs placebo at Week 52 in protocol-defined subgroups of patients with active SLE.

Methods:

TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated efficacy and safety of intravenous anifrolumab vs placebo administered every 4 weeks, with the primary endpoints assessed at Week 52, in patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard-of-care treatment.1,2BICLA responses are defined by all of the following: reduction of baseline BILAG-2004 A and B domain scores to B/C/D and C/D, respectively, and no worsening in any organ system; no worsening of the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score; no worsening of ≥0.3 points in the Physician’s Global Assessment (range 0–3); no trial treatment discontinuation; and no use of medications restricted by the protocol.3BICLA responses were compared between anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo groups, and robustness of BICLA responses was assessed across protocol-defined subgroups. TULIP-1 data were analyzed incorporating the amended restricted medication rules, as described.2

Results:

In TULIP-2 and TULIP-1, 180 patients in each trial received anifrolumab 300 mg (182 and 184 patients received placebo, respectively). Baseline demographics, disease characteristics, and standard-of-care medications were balanced between anifrolumab and placebo groups within both TULIP trials. Patients in TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 had comparable BICLA responses (Figure). Across multiple subgroups, higher percentages of patients achieved BICLA responses at Week 52 in the anifrolumab vs placebo arms (Figure). There was concordance of BICLA responses favoring anifrolumab across the protocol-defined subgroups of baseline disease severity (SLEDAI-2K <10 points [difference 15.3%, TULIP-2; 16.9%, TULIP-1] vs ≥10 points [difference 16.7%, TULIP-2; 17.1%, TULIP-1]) and baseline oral corticosteroid use (prednisone or equivalent <10 mg/d [difference 20.1%, TULIP-2; 16.2%, TULIP-1] vs ≥10 mg/d [difference 12.0%, TULIP-2; 17.7%, TULIP-1]). Numerically different BICLA effect sizes between the anifrolumab vs placebo arms were observed in both studies in relation to baseline IFN gene signature status (high [difference 17.3%, TULIP-2; 19.1%, TULIP-1] vs low [difference 11.2%, TULIP-2; 7.5%, TULIP-1]). Other subgroups including age, sex, age at onset, race, and anti-drug antibody status showed similar uniformity of response.

Conclusion:

The uniformity of robust BICLA response rates across prespecified subgroups in both phase 3 trials shows consistent clinical benefit of anifrolumab irrespective of patient baseline characteristics. However, given the small patient numbers in some subgroups, these results should be interpreted with caution.

References:

[1]Morand EF, et al.N Engl J Med.2020;382:211–221.

[2]Furie RA, et al.Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–e219.

[3]Wallace DJ, et al.Ann Rheum Dis.2014;73:183–190.

Disclosure of Interests:

Eric F. Morand Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Richard Furie Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Rubana Kalyani Employee of: AstraZeneca, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Lilia Pineda Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca

OP0003 EARLY AND SUSTAINED RESPONSES WITH ANIFROLUMAB TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS (SLE) IN 2 PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background:

In the phase 3 TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 trials in SLE, treatment with the type I interferon receptor antibody anifrolumab resulted in higher percentages of patients with BICLA responses vs placebo at Week 52, with differences of 16.3% (primary endpoint; P=0.001, 95% CI 6.3–26.3) and 16.4% (secondary endpoint; 95% CI 6.7–26.2), respectively.1,2

Objectives:

To better understand the time course of BICLA responses to anifrolumab, we examined responses over time compared with placebo in TULIP-2 and TULIP-1, including those that were sustained from attainment through Week 52.

Methods:

The TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab (300 mg Q4W) over 52 weeks in patients with moderately to severely active SLE who were receiving standard-of-care treatment. Time to onset of BICLA response that was sustained from attainment through Week 52 was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. For TULIP-1, BICLA response rate and time to onset of BICLA response were analyzed using the amended restricted medication rules.2

Results:

Overall, 180 patients each in TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 received anifrolumab compared with 182 and 184 patients in the placebo arms, respectively. At the first 3 assessments in TULIP-2 (Weeks 4, 8, and 12), numerically greater percentages of patients treated with anifrolumab (26.8%, 35.3%, and 42.9%, respectively) were classified as having a BICLA response compared with placebo (21.3%, 21.6%, and 31.8%). A similar trend was observed in TULIP-1 with anifrolumab (23.3%, 34.2%, and 36.5%) vs placebo (18.3%, 23.2%, and 27.5%). The time to onset of BICLA response sustained from onset through Week 52 favored anifrolumab in both TULIP-2 (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.11–2.18) and TULIP-1 (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.38–2.73) (Figure). In TULIP-2, 86 (47.8%) patients treated with anifrolumab had BICLA responses that were sustained from time of onset through Week 52 compared with 57 (31.3%) patients in the placebo group. In TULIP-1, 85 (47.2%) patients in the anifrolumab treatment arm had BICLA responses that were sustained from time of onset through Week 52 compared with 55 (29.9%) patients in the placebo group.

Conclusion:

In 2 Phase 3 studies, a greater proportion of patients achieved BICLA responses sustained from onset through Week 52 with anifrolumab treatment compared with placebo. Anifrolumab resulted in numerically favorable differences in time to onset of BICLA responses maintained through Week 52 across the TULIP studies. These data support the sustainability of clinical benefit derived from anifrolumab treatment of patients with active SLE.

References:

[1]Morand EF, et al.N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–221.

[2]Furie RA, et al.Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–e219.

Disclosure of Interests:

Eric F. Morand Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Richard Furie Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Ian N. Bruce Grant/research support from: Genzyme Sanofi, GSK, and UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, UCB, Iltoo, and Merck Serono, Speakers bureau: UCB, Kenneth Kalunian Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Resolve, Takeda, Idorsia, BMS, and Kirin, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Nektar, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, GSK, AbbVie, Chemocentryx, Genentech-Roche, Biogen, and Equillium, Rubana Kalyani Employee of: AstraZeneca, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Lilia Pineda Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca

Trial of Anifrolumab in Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

BACKGROUND

Anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody to type I interferon receptor subunit 1 investigated for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), did not have a significant effect on the primary end point in a previous phase 3 trial. The current phase 3 trial used a secondary end point from that trial as the primary end point.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. The primary end point of this trial was a response at week 52 defined with the use of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA). A BICLA response requires reduction in any moderate-to-severe baseline disease activity and no worsening in any of nine organ systems in the BILAG index, no worsening on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index, no increase of 0.3 points or more in the score on the Physician Global Assessment of disease activity (on a scale from 0 [no disease activity] to 3 [severe disease]), no discontinuation of the trial intervention, and no use of medications restricted by the protocol. Secondary end points included a BICLA response in patients with a high interferon gene signature at baseline; reductions in the glucocorticoid dose, in the severity of skin disease, and in counts of swollen and tender joints; and the annualized flare rate.

RESULTS

A total of 362 patients received the randomized intervention: 180 received anifrolumab and 182 received placebo. The percentage of patients who had a BICLA response was 47.8% in the anifrolumab group and 31.5% in the placebo group (difference, 16.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 6.3 to 26.3; P = 0.001). Among patients with a high interferon gene signature, the percentage with a response was 48.0% in the anifrolumab group and 30.7% in the placebo group; among patients with a low interferon gene signature, the percentage was 46.7% and 35.5%, respectively. Secondary end points with respect to the glucocorticoid dose and the severity of skin disease, but not counts of swollen and tender joints and the annualized flare rate, also showed a significant benefit with anifrolumab. Herpes zoster and bronchitis occurred in 7.2% and 12.2% of the patients, respectively, who received anifrolumab. There was one death from pneumonia in the anifrolumab group.

CONCLUSIONS

Monthly administration of anifrolumab resulted in a higher percentage of patients with a response (as defined by a composite end point) at week 52 than did placebo, in contrast to the findings of a similar phase 3 trial involving patients with SLE that had a different primary end point. The frequency of herpes zoster was higher with anifrolumab than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02446899.).

Type I interferon inhibitor anifrolumab in active systemic lupus erythematosus (TULIP-1): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Type I interferons are involved in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) pathogenesis. In a phase 2 trial, anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody to type I interferon receptor subunit 1, suppressed interferon gene signatures and substantially reduced SLE disease activity. Here, we sought to confirm the efficacy of anifrolumab versus placebo in a phase 3 trial of adult patients with SLE and moderate-to-severe disease activity despite standard-of-care treatment.

METHODS

TULIP-1 was a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 123 sites in 18 countries. Included patients were aged 18-70 years, with moderate-to-severe SLE, and ongoing stable treatment with either prednisone or equivalent, an antimalarial, azathioprine, mizoribine, mycophenolate mofetil or mycophenolic acid, or methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:2) to receive placebo, anifrolumab 150 mg, or anifrolumab 300 mg intravenously every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. Stable standard-of-care treatment continued except for mandatory attempts at oral corticosteroid tapering for patients receiving prednisone or equivalent of 10 mg/day or more at baseline. The primary outcome was the difference between the proportion of patients who achieved an SLE responder index-4 (SRI-4) response at week 52 with anifrolumab 300 mg versus with placebo. Key secondary outcomes were the difference between the anifrolumab 300 mg group and the placebo group in: proportion of patients in the interferon gene signature test-high subgroup who achieved SRI-4 at week 52; proportion of patients on 10 mg/day or more corticosteroids at baseline who achieved a sustained dose reduction to 7·5 mg/day or less from week 40 to 52; proportion of patients with a cutaneous lupus erythematosus disease area and severity index (CLASI) activity score of 10 or higher at baseline who achieved a 50% or more reduction in CLASI score by week 12; proportion of patients who achieved SRI-4 at week 24; and annualised flare rate through week 52. Other measures of disease activity were also assessed at week 52, including the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based composite lupus assessment (BICLA). Safety was also assessed. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the population of patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02446912).

FINDINGS

Between June 9, 2015, and June 16, 2017, 457 patients were randomly assigned to the anifrolumab 300 mg group (n=180), the anifrolumab 150 mg group (n=93), or the placebo group (n=184). The proportion of patients at week 52 with an SRI-4 response was similar between anifrolumab 300 mg (65 [36%] of 180) and placebo (74 [40%] of 184; difference -4·2 [95% CI -14·2 to 5·8], p=0·41). Similarly, proportions of patients with an SRI-4 response at week 24, and at week 52 in patients in the interferon gene signature test-high subgroup, did not differ between the anifrolumab and placebo groups. In patients with baseline oral corticosteroids of at least 10 mg/day, sustained dose reduction to 7·5 mg/day or less was achieved by 42 (41%) of 103 patients in the anifrolumab 300 mg group and 33 (32%) of 102 patients in the placebo group (difference 8·9 [95% CI -4·1 to 21·9]). In patients with CLASI activity score of at least 10 at baseline, at least 50% reduction by week 12 was achieved by 24 (42%) of 58 patients in the anifrolumab 300 mg group and 14 (25%) of 54 in the placebo group (difference 17·0 [95% CI -0·3 to 34·3]). Annualised flare rates were 0·60 for anifrolumab and 0·72 for placebo (rate ratio 0·83 [95% CI 0·60 to 1·14]). BICLA response was achieved by 67 (37%) of 180 patients receiving anifrolumab 300 mg versus 49 (27%) of 184 receiving placebo (difference 10·1 [95% CI 0·6 to 19·7]). Anifrolumab's safety profile was similar to that observed in phase 2, with similar proportions of patients having a serious adverse event between groups (25 [14%] of 180 for anifrolumab 300 mg, ten [11%] of 93 for anifrolumab 150 mg, and 30 [16%] of 184 for placebo).

INTERPRETATION

The primary endpoint was not reached. However, several secondary endpoints, including reduction in oral corticosteroid dose, CLASI responses, and BICLA responses, suggest clinical benefit of anifrolumab compared with placebo. Conclusive evidence for the efficacy of anifrolumab awaits further phase 3 trial data. Despite the inherent limitations of a 1-year phase 3 study, such as incomplete knowledge of applicability to the general population and scarce detection of rare safety signals, in addition to complications from prespecified restricted medication rules, our results suggest that anifrolumab might have the potential to provide a treatment option for patients who have active SLE while receiving standard therapy.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Safety and tolerability of sifalimumab, an anti-interferon-α monoclonal antibody, in Japanese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A multicenter, phase 2, open-label study

Objectives: To evaluate the safety of sifalimumab in Japanese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).Methods: This phase 2, open-label study consisted of a 52-week initial stage (Stage I) and a long-term extension (Stage II). In Stage I, sequential cohorts of patients received ascending doses of sifalimumab (intravenous [IV] 1.0, 3.0, and 10.0 mg/kg or subcutaneous 100 mg every 2 weeks; IV 600 and 1200 mg every 6 weeks). In Stage II, patients enrolled before June 2012 received the same dose of sifalimumab as during Stage I for up to 157 weeks or sifalimumab 600 mg IV every 4 weeks if they enrolled later. The safety of sifalimumab was assessed by adverse events (AEs).Results: Thirty patients enrolled in Stage I and 21 patients entered Stage II. The majority of patients experienced AEs (96.7% in Stage I and 100% in Stage II); most were mild or moderate in severity. Serious AEs occurred in 30.0% and 57.1% of patients in Stage I and II, respectively; most were instances of SLE flares. The proportion of patients in Stage I and II who had AEs leading to discontinuation was 10.0% and 28.6%, respectively.Conclusion: Sifalimumab was well tolerated in Japanese patients with SLE.