FC057: Incidence of Infections in the Avacopan Group Versus Prednisone Group in Anca-Associated Vasculitis, Results from the Phase 3 Advocate Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND AND AIMS Standard therapy for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) includes glucocorticoids (GC), which are associated with increased infections. Avacopan is an orally administered selective inhibitor of the C5a receptor recently approved for treatment of AAV. The phase 3 ADVOCATE study tested daily avacopan as a substitute for a standard, scheduled, daily oral GC tapered regimen (all with standard background therapy), resulting in a 63% mean reduction in overall GC load for the avacopan group. At week 26, the avacopan group achieved a comparable remission rate to prednisone (72.3% versus 70.1%) and superior sustained remission at Week 52 (65.7% versus 54.9%; one-sided P = 0.0066) (1). The present analysis compared infections in avacopan and prednisone groups in the ADVOCATE trial. METHOD ADVOCATE, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in 330 patients, evaluated the efficacy and safety of avacopan. AAV patients (new onset or relapsing disease) were randomized to receive avacopan 30 mg twice daily, or a standard 20-week oral prednisone taper, plus matching placebos. Both groups had background therapy of either cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine) or rituximab, and additional GC exposure from premedication for rituximab, from taper of pre-randomization GC, and as required per investigator judgment. Patients were on blinded study drug for 52 weeks. Infections occurring from first dose of blinded study drug through day 56 after last dose were analyzed. RESULTS Total mean GC use during the first 26 weeks of the study was 1073 mg with avacopan and 3193 mg with prednisone groups, and in the last 26 weeks, 296 and 489 mg, respectively. Infections were higher in the prednisone group than with avacopan: 291 events (prednisone) versus 233 (avacopan), with a 75.6% incidence (124/164) with prednisone versus 68.1% (113/166) with avacopan (Table 1). During the prednisone taper period (first 20 weeks), infection incidence was 54.9% in prednisone group versus 49.4% for avacopan, and after the first 20 weeks 52.4% in prednisone group versus 44.0% avacopan. Fewer patients in the avacopan group experienced serious AEs of infection (13.3%/25 events) versus prednisone group (15.2%/31 events); also serious opportunistic infections (3.6% versus 6.7%), life-threatening AEs of infection (0.6% versus 1.2%), and infections resulting in death (0.6% versus 1.2%) were fewer with avacopan (Table 1). No Neisseria meningitidis infections occurred in any patient in the trial. CONCLUSION In the ADVOCATE trial, the mean dose of GCs from all sources was 63% lower in the avacopan group than the prednisone group (1349 versus 3655 total mg, respectively). The avacopan group had a numerically lower incidence of infections, including serious, life-threatening, fatal and serious opportunistic infections compared with the prednisone group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".