MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2939104789 · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kez107.072

256 Secukinumab provides sustained improvements in the signs and symptoms of active psoriatic arthritis: 4-year results from the Phase 3 FUTURE 2 study

2019· article· en· W2939104789 sur OpenAlexaff
Iain B. McInnes, Bruce Kirkham, Peter Nash, Proton Rahman, Alice B. Gottlieb, Kevin Ding, Luminita Pricop

Notice bibliographique

RevueLara D. Veeken · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Établissements canadiensMemorial University of Newfoundland
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSecukinumabMedicinePsoriatic arthritisDermatologyArthritisPhysical therapyPsoriasisInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Secukinumab (SEC), a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively neutralises interleukin-17A, provided significant and sustained improvement in the signs and symptoms of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) over 2 years in the FUTURE 2 study (NCT01752634). Objectives: To report 4-year efficacy and safety results from the FUTURE 2 study. 3-year data is presented here, with 4-year data to follow. Methods: Overall, 397 patients with active PsA were randomised to receive subcutaneous SEC (300, 150 or 75 mg) or placebo (PBO) at baseline (BL), Weeks 1, 2, 3 and 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Assessments at week 156 are from patients originally randomised to SEC and included ACR20/50, PASI 75, HAQ-DI, and resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis. Analyses by prior anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) use (naive/inadequate response [IR]) and with/without concomitant methotrexate (MTX) were assessed. Data are reported as observed for SEC 300 and 150 mg (approved doses). Safety analyses included all patients who received ≥1 dose of SEC. Results: In total, 73/100 (73.0%) and 72/100 (72.0%) patients in the SEC 300 and 150 mg groups, respectively, completed 156 weeks of treatment. Sustained clinical improvements were observed in those continuing with SEC across all endpoints through week 156 (Table 1). ACR20 response rates at week 156 in anti-TNF-naive patients were 85.2% and 76.5% with SEC 300 and 150 mg respectively; corresponding rates in anti-TNF-IR patients were 55.6% and 54.5%, respectively. ACR20 response rates in patients receiving concomitant MTX were 73.0% and 77.1% with SEC 300 and 150 mg, respectively; rates in patients without concomitant MTX use were 77.3% and 63.2%, respectively. Over the study (mean SEC exposure of 991.3 days) the type, incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) were consistent with that reported previously. Exposure adjusted incidence rates with SEC for selected AEs of interest were: serious infections (1.8), Candida infections (1.8), inflammatory bowel disease (0.1), major adverse cardiovascular event (0.2) and malignant/unspecified tumours (1.2). Conclusion: SEC 300 and 150 mg provided sustained improvements in the signs and symptoms of active PsA through 3 years. Secukinumab was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that reported previously. Summary of efficacy results at Wk 156 PASI responses assessed in pts with psoriasis affecting ≥3% body surface area at BL (n = 41 [300 mg] and n = 58 [150 mg]); Assessed in pts (n = 56 [300 mg] and n = 64 [150 mg]) with this symptom at BL; Assessed in pts (n = 46 [300 mg] and 32 [150 mg]) with this symptom at BL. SEC 150 mg arm includes 42 pts who were up-titrated to SEC 300 mg starting at Wk 128. ACR, American College Rheumatology; BL, baseline; HAQ-DI, health assessment questionnaire-disability index; N, number of pts randomised; n, number of pts with evaluation; PASI, psoriasis area and severity index; pts, patients; SEC, secukinumab; s.c., subcutaneous; Wk, week. Disclosures: I.B. McInnes: Consultancies; I. M. consulted for: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; I. M. participated in speaker bureaus for: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Grants/research support; I. M. received grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. B. Kirkham: Consultancies; B. K consulted for: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis. B. K.. Member of speakers’ bureau; B. K. participated in speaker bureaus for: Janssen, Lilly, Novartis. Grants/research support; B. K. received grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis, UCB. P. Nash: Consultancies; P. N. consulted for: Novartis, AbbVie, Roche, Pfizer, BMS, Janssen, Celgene. Grants/research support; P. N. received grant/research support from: Novartis, AbbVie, Roche, Pfizer, BMS, Janssen, Celgene. P. Rahman: Consultancies; P. R. consulted for: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Roche and pharmaceutical companies dealing with biologic agents in rheumatology. A.B. Gottlieb: Consultancies; A.G. consulted for: AbbVie, Allergan, Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Beiersdorf, Inc., Celgene Corp., Dermira, Incyte, Janssen Inc., Lilly, Novartis, Reddy Labs, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, UCB, Valeant. Member of speakers’ bureau; A.G. participated in speaker bureaus with: AbbVie, Allergan, Beiersdorf, Inc., Grants/research support; A. G. received grant/research support from: Janssen, Incyte. K. Ding: Shareholder/stock ownership; K. D. is a shareholder at Novartis. Other; K. D. is an employee of Novartis. L. Pricop: Shareholder/stock ownership; L. P. is a shareholder at Novartis. Other; L. P. is an employee of Novartis.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,018

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,264
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLara D. VeekenMême sujetSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207