Search

Background: Vagus nerve stimulation delivered with an implanted device has been shown to improve rheumatoid arthritis severity. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of non-invasive stimulation of the auricular branch of the vagus nerve for the treatment of patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: This prospective, multicentre, open-label, single-arm proof-of-concept study enrolled patients aged 18-80 years with active rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and up to one biological DMARD. Biological DMARDs were stopped at least 4 weeks before enrolment and concomitant use was not allowed during the study. All eligible participants were assigned to use a non-invasive, wearable vagus nerve stimulation device for up to 30 min per day, which delivered pulses of 20 kHz. Follow-up visits occurred at week 1, week 2, week 4, week 8, and week 12 after the baseline visit. The primary endpoint was the mean change in Disease Activity Score of 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) at week 12 compared with baseline. Secondary endpoints included the mean change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), the proportion of patients with a minimal clinically important difference of 0·22 on HAQ-DI, the proportion achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50, and ACR70 response, and safety analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04116866)., Findings: Of 35 patients screened for eligibility, 30 (86%) were enrolled at six centres in Spain between Dec 27, 2018, and Oct 24, 2019, of whom 27 (90%) completed the week 12 visit. The mean change in DAS28-CRP at 12 weeks was -1·4 (95%CI -1·9 to -0·9; p<0·0001) from a mean baseline of 5·3 (SD 1·0). 11 (37%) of 30 patients reached DAS28-CRP of 3·2 or less, and seven (23%) patients reached DAS28-CRP of less than 2·6 at week 12. The mean HAQ-DI change was -0·5 (95%CI -0·7 to -0·2; p<0·0001) from a mean baseline of 1·6 (SD 0·7), and 17 (57%) patients reached a minimal clinically important difference of 0·22 or more. ACR20 responses were reached by 16 (53%) patients, ACR50 responses by 10 (33%) patients, and ACR70 by five (17%) patients. Four adverse events were reported, none of which were serious and all of which resolved without intervention., Interpretation: Use of the device was well tolerated, and patients had clinically meaningful reductions in DAS28-CRP. This was an uncontrolled, open-label study, and the results must be interpreted in this context. Further evaluation in larger, controlled studies is needed to confirm whether this non-invasive approach might offer an alternative treatment for rheumatoid arthritis., Funding: Nēsos., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Otilimab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), a driver in many immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. We evaluated the effect of otilimab on the GM-CSF-chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 17 (CCL17) axis and synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: This phase 2a, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was done at nine sites across the USA, Poland, and Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis per American College of Rheumatology-European League Against Rheumatism 2010 criteria and receiving stable methotrexate were randomly assigned (3:1) by an interactive response technology system to either subcutaneous otilimab 180 mg or placebo once weekly for 5 weeks, then every other week until week 10 (within a 12-week treatment period), followed by a 10-week safety follow-up. Randomisation was stratified by early rheumatoid arthritis (≤2 years since diagnosis) and established rheumatoid arthritis (>2 years since diagnosis). Patients and study personnel (except for an unblinded coordinator or nurse who prepared and administered the study drug) were blinded to treatment assignment; the syringe was shielded during administration. Patients were enrolled by study investigators and allocated to a treatment by central randomisation on the basis of a schedule generated by the sponsor. The primary endpoint was change over time (assessed at baseline and weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 22 of follow-up) in 112 biomarkers, including target engagement biomarkers and those that may be indicative of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity and response to otilimab. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in synovitis, osteitis and erosion assessed by rheumatoid arthritis MRI scoring system (RAMRIS) and rheumatoid arthritis MRI quantitative score (RAMRIQ), and safety evaluation. The primary, secondary, and safety endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Biomarker and MRI endpoints were analysed for differences between treatment groups using a repeated measures model. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02799472., Findings: Between Aug 9, 2016, and Oct 30, 2017, 39 patients were randomly assigned and included in the analysis (otilimab n=28; placebo n=11). In the otilimab group, mean serum concentrations of GM-CSF-otilimab complex peaked at week 4 (138·4 ng/L, 95% CI 90·0-212·9) but decreased from week 6-12. CCL17 concentrations decreased from baseline to week 1, remained stable to week 8, and returned to baseline at week 12; least-squares mean ratio to baseline was 0·65 (95% CI 0·49-0·86; coefficient of variation 13·60) at week 2, 0·68 (0·53-0·88; 12·51) at week 4, 0·78 (0·60-1·00; 12·48) at week 6, and 0·68 (0·54-0·85; 11·21) at week 8. No meaningful change in CCL17 concentrations was observed with placebo. In the otilimab group, the least-squares mean ratio to baseline in MMP-degraded type I collagen was 0·86-0·91 over weeks 1-8, returning to baseline at week 12; concentrations remained above baseline at all timepoints in the placebo group. There were no observable differences between otilimab and placebo for all other biomarkers. At week 12, least-squares mean change in RAMRIS synovitis score from baseline was -1·3 (standard error [SE] 0·6) in the otilimab group and 0·8 (1·2) with placebo; RAMRIQ synovitis score showed a least-squares mean change from baseline of -1417·0 μl (671·5) in the otilimab group and -912·3 μl (1405·8) with placebo. Compared with placebo, otilimab did not show significant reductions from baseline to week 12 in RAMRIS synovitis, osteitis and bone erosion, or in RAMRIQ synovitis and erosion damage. Adverse events were reported in 11 (39%) of 28 otilimab-treated and four (36%) of 11 placebo-treated patients, most commonly cough in the otilimab group (2 [7%] of 28; not reported in placebo group), and pain in extremity (four [36%] of 11) and rheumatoid arthritis (two [18%] of 11) in the placebo group (not reported in otilimab group). There were no serious adverse events or deaths., Interpretation: Serum concentrations of GM-CSF-otilimab complex indicated that target engagement was achieved with initial weekly dosing, but not sustained with every other week dosing. CCL17 might be a pharmacodynamic biomarker for otilimab activity in future studies. Otilimab was well tolerated and, despite suboptimal exposure, showed some evidence for improved synovitis over 12 weeks in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background The inflammatory reflex plays a role in regulating innate and adaptive immunity by modulating cellular and molecular inflammatory pathways. The vagus nerve is a major constituent of the inflammatory reflex and studies have shown that the reflex can be activated by electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve. In this first in-human pilot study, we assessed the safety and efficacy of a novel miniaturised vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device for the treatment of multidrug-refractory rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: Participants with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis and prior insufficient response to two or more biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs or Janus kinase inhibitors with at least two different modes of action were enrolled in a two-stage study done at five clinical research sites in the USA. Stage 1 was open label; participants were implanted with a miniaturised VNS device, which was activated for 1 min once a day. In stage 2, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive active stimulation (1 min once a day or 1 min four times a day) or sham stimulation (device implanted but not activated), with the sites and participants masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Clinical efficacy was assessed as a key secondary outcome. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03437473., Findings: 14 patients were enrolled between March 13 and Aug 8, 2018. Three patients received stimulation in stage 1 and, following safety review board approval, the remaining 11 patients were implanted during stage 2 and randomly assigned to receive 1 min of stimulation once daily (n=3), 1 min of stimulation four times daily (n=4), or no stimulation (n=4) for 12 weeks. There were no device-related or treatment-related serious adverse events. Surgery-related adverse events were Horner's syndrome and vocal cord paralysis (in one patient each), which resolved without clinically significant sequelae. No deaths were recorded., Interpretation: VNS with a miniaturised neurostimulator was safe and well tolerated and reduced signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with multidrug-refractory disease. These results support further evaluation in a larger randomised sham-controlled study., Funding: SetPoint Medical., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Baricitinib is an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2, approved for the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Because baricitinib, like other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, is used chronically, continuous assessment of its long-term safety profile is important. Here we provide updated data supporting the existing safety profile of baricitinib in this patient population., Methods: In this safety analysis, integrated data were included from nine phase 3, phase 2, and phase 1b clinical trials, and one long-term extension study with data up to 360 weeks, ending Feb 13, 2018. We analysed three integrated datasets, the largest of which was the all-bari-RA dataset, which includes patients who received any dose of baricitinib. We compared the safety of baricitinib with placebo on the basis of data from seven studies with baricitinib 4 mg and placebo and four studies with baricitinib 2 mg, including placebo to week 24 (placebo-controlled dataset). We did a dose-response assessment based on four studies with baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg, including long-term extension data (2-4 mg extended dataset). We did an exploratory analysis of deaths and venous thromboembolic events in a subset of data from the all-bari-RA dataset that included patients who had ever taken baricitinib 2-mg or baricitinib 4-mg. We did an analysis for malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) in the as-randomised population (patients not censored at rescue or dose change)., Findings: We collected data for 3770 patients who were given baricitinib for 10 127 patient-years of exposure in the all-bari-RA dataset (median 1115 days [IQR 426-1441], maximum 2520 days). The placebo-controlled dataset comprised 2836 patients, with 1215 in the placebo group, with 451 patient-years of exposure data; 479 in the baricitinib 2 mg group, with 186 patient-years of exposure data; and 1142 in the baricitinib 4 mg group, with 472 patient-years of exposure data. The 2-4 mg extended dataset comprised 958 patients, with 479 in both the 2 mg and 4 mg groups. No significant differences were seen for baricitinib 4 mg or 2 mg versus placebo, or for 4 mg versus 2 mg in the incidence of death, malignancy, serious infection, or major adverse cardiovascular events. Incidence of herpes zoster per 100 patient-years was higher for baricitinib (4 mg: 4·4 [95% CI 2·7-6·7]; 2 mg: 3·1 [1·1-6·8]) versus total placebo group (1·1 [0·4-2·5]), as were treatment-emergent infections (4 mg: 89·7 [81·3-98·6]; 2 mg: 84·0 [71·3-98·2] vs placebo 75·4 [67·6-83·9]). Consistent with previous reports, incidences in the all-bari-RA dataset for venous thromboembolic events was 0·5 (95% CI 0·4-0·6) per 100 patient-years, deep-vein thrombosis was 0·3 (0·2-0·5) per 100 patient-years, and pulmonary embolism was 0·2 (0·2-0·4) per 100 patient-years. Incidences of malignancy (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) in the 2-4 mg extended dataset were 0·8 (0·4-1·5) per 100 patient-years for baricitinib 2 mg and 1·0 (0·5-1·7) per 100 patient-years for baricitinib 4 mg, without censoring patients who had dose changes or received rescue treatment. We found no indication of higher incidence of venous thromboembolic events in the baricitinib 4 mg group compared with the 2 mg group in the 2-4 mg extended dataset., Interpretation: In this updated integrated analysis of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis exposed to baricitinib for a maximum of almost 7 years, baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg maintained a similar safety profile to earlier analyses. No new safety signals were identified. Patients in the long-term extension study continue to be followed up to date., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company, under license from Incyte Corporation., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)