Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Lupus disease measures such as the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) and the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index are challenging to interpret. The Lupus Foundation of America-Rapid Evaluation of Activity in Lupus (LFA-REAL) is intended to provide an efficient application of anchored visual analog scores, each representing the individual severity of active symptoms, with the sum of individual scores deriving an overall disease activity assessment. Our objective was to compare the performance of LFA-REAL to systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity assessments and compare scores between trained lupus clinical investigators and clinicians. METHODS:Investigators scored the SLEDAI, BILAG, physician's global assessment (PGA), and LFA-REAL, while the clinicians scored the LFA-REAL. The level of agreement between physicians and instruments was determined. RESULTS:The study included 99 patients (93% women, 31% white, mean ± SD ages 43.4 ± 13.2 years). At the first visit, the mean ± SD SLEDAI score was 5.5 ± 4.5, BILAG score 6.7 ± 7.8, and PGA score 33.6 ± 24.5. The mean ± SD investigator LFA-REAL score was 46.2 ± 42.9, and clinician LFA-REAL score 56.1 ± 53.6. At the second visit, the mean ± SD investigator LFA-REAL score was 41.3 ± 36.7, and clinician LFA-REAL score 48.3 ± 42.6. Total LFA-REAL scores correlated positively with PGA, SLEDAI, and BILAG (ρ = 0.58-0.88, P < 0.001). LFA-REAL scores produced correlation coefficients of ρ > 0.7 for musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous, and renal BILAG domains. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the LFA-REAL scores of investigators and clinicians was 0.79 for visit 1 (P < 0.001) and 0.86 for visit 2 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION:The LFA-REAL provides a reliable surrogate for more complicated disease activity measures when used by lupus clinical investigators or clinicians.

BACKGROUND:Targeted inhibitors of B-cell activating factor (BAFF) have been evaluated in phase III trials in over 4000 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Post hoc analyses of these studies identify greater treatment effect in patients entering with higher disease activity, greater corticosteroid doses, anti double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) and low complement C3 or C4. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of blisibimod, a BAFF inhibitor, in a population of patients with SLE enriched for high disease activity. METHODS:442 patients with SLE with antinuclear antibodies or anti-dsDNA and Safety of Estrogen in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment - Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI) score ≥10 on standard-of-care medications were randomised to receive weekly subcutaneous blisibimod (200 mg) or placebo. Corticosteroid taper was encouraged from week 8. The primary end point was the week 52 SLE Responder Index-6 (SRI-6). RESULTS:The SRI-6 primary end point was not met. There was a statistically significant steroid-sparing effect, and significantly more blisibimod-treated subjects achieved corticosteroid taper. Increased blisibimod treatment effect on SRI-6 was observed in subjects who achieved a concomitant decrease in corticosteroid dose from baseline. In subjects with baseline urinary protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) ≥56.5 mg/mmol, significantly higher proportions of blisibimod subjects achieved >50% reduction in UPCR and/or UPCR <56.5 mg/mmol. Reductions in SLE autoantibodies and B cells, and increases in complement C3 and C4 were observed with blisibimod.Blisibimod was well-tolerated. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, injection site erythema/reaction and diarrhoea. CONCLUSIONS:Although the SRI-6 end point was not met, blisibimod was associated with successful steroid reduction, decreased proteinuria and biomarker responses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01395745.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:To review progress in the field of clinical trials for SLE. RECENT FINDINGS:Treatment development for SLE has been marked by failures of many later phase studies, representing billions of dollars of lost research and development funding. Recently, more successful Phase II trials have tested reductions in background medications, novel stringent endpoints, and identification of informative immunologic subsets to achieve greater treatment effects. A large number of agents with promising novel biologic mechanisms have continued to enter clinical development, and momentum is building to capitalize on newer strategies for trial designs. Widespread SLE drug development is proceeding despite setbacks and controversies. Approaches focusing on patients with high disease activity, reduction of background polypharmacy, or increased endpoint stringency provide strategies that might improve interpretation of trial results. Pharmacodynamics of immune-modulation is a field in its infancy, but ripe for development.

Objectives/UNASSIGNED:To describe glucocorticoid (GC) use in the SLICC inception cohort and to explore factors associated with GC use. In particular we aimed to assess temporal trends in GC use and to what extent physician-related factors may influence use. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Patients were recruited within 15 months of diagnosis of SLE from 33 centres between 1999 and 2011 and continue to be reviewed annually. Descriptive statistics were used to detail oral and parenteral GC use. Cross sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed to explore factors associated with GC use at enrolment and over time. Results/UNASSIGNED:We studied 1700 patients with a mean (s.d.) follow-up duration of 7.26 (3.82) years. Over the entire study period, 1365 (81.3%) patients received oral GCs and 447 (26.3%) received parenteral GCs at some point. GC use was strongly associated with treatment centre, age, race/ethnicity, sex, disease duration and disease activity. There was no change in the proportion of patients on GCs or the average doses of GC used over time according to year of diagnosis. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:GCs remain a cornerstone in SLE management and there have been no significant changes in their use over the past 10-15 years. While patient and disease factors contribute to the variation in GC use, between-centre differences suggest that physician-related factors also contribute. Evidence-based treatment algorithms are needed to inform a more standardized approach to GC use in SLE.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the longterm efficacy and safety of subcutaneous tocilizumab (TCZ-SC) every 2 weeks (q2w) over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). METHODS:Patients (n = 656) were randomized 2:1 to TCZ-SC 162 mg q2w or placebo-SC q2w plus DMARD. After a 24-week double-blind period, patients (n = 457) were rerandomized to open-label TCZ-SC q2w by means of prefilled syringe or autoinjector. Escape therapy with weekly TCZ-SC was available for patients with inadequate efficacy from Week 12. Maintenance of response and safety to 2 years was assessed. Analyses used nonresponder imputation. RESULTS:The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response after TCZ-SC was maintained beyond Week 24 and was > 70% at each timepoint. ACR50/70, 28-joint Disease Activity Score remission, and ≥ 0.30 decrease from baseline in the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index response rates were also maintained after Week 24 in the TCZ-SC arm (≥ 50%, > 25%,> 32% and > 56%, respectively). Following escape for inadequate efficacy, many patients achieved ACR20 at the end of the study, 35% after escape from TCZ-SC, and 63% from placebo. The rates of serious adverse events [(11.20/100 patient-years (PY)] including serious infections (3.25/100 PY) were stable through Week 96. No association between anti-TCZ antibody development and loss of efficacy or adverse events was observed. CONCLUSION:Efficacy and safety of TCZ-SC q2w was maintained up to 2 years and remained comparable with previously published data for intravenous TCZ. Dose escalation to weekly TCZ-SC was associated with ACR responses in prior nonresponders and was well tolerated.

OBJECTIVE:Studies in mouse models implicate complement activation as a causative factor in adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). We investigated whether activation of complement early in pregnancy predicts APOs in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and/or antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. METHODS:The PROMISSE Study enrolled pregnant women with SLE and/or aPL antibodies (n=487) and pregnant healthy controls (n=204) at <12 weeks gestation and evaluated them monthly. APOs were: fetal/neonatal death, preterm delivery <36 weeks because of placental insufficiency or preeclampsia and/or growth restriction <5th percentile. Complement activation products were measured on serial blood samples obtained at each monthly visit. RESULTS:APO occurred in 20.5% of SLE and/or aPL pregnancies. As early as 12-15 weeks, levels of Bb and sC5b-9 were significantly higher in patients with APOs and remained elevated through 31 weeks compared with those with normal outcomes. Moreover, Bb and sC5b-9 were significantly higher in patients with SLE and/or aPL without APOs compared with healthy controls. In logistic regression analyses, Bb and sC5b-9 at 12-15 weeks remained significantly associated with APO (ORadj=1.41 per SD increase; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.89; P=0.019 and ORadj=1.37 per SD increase; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.80; P=0.022, respectively) after controlling for demographic and clinical risk factors for APOs in PROMISSE. When analyses were restricted to patients with aPL (n=161), associations between Bb at 12-15 weeks and APOs became stronger (ORadj=2.01 per SD increase; 95% CI 1.16 to 3.49; P=0.013). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In pregnant patients with SLE and/or aPL, increased Bb and sC5b-9 detectable early in pregnancy are strongly predictive of APOs and support activation of complement, particularly the alternative pathway, as a contributor to APOs.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atacicept, an antagonist of B lymphocyte stimulator/APRIL-mediated B cell activation, in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS:ADDRESS II is a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, phase IIb study evaluating the safety and efficacy of atacicept in patients with SLE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01972568). Patients with active, autoantibody-positive SLE receiving standard therapy were randomized (1:1:1) to receive atacicept (75 mg or 150 mg) or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the SLE responder index 4 (SRI-4) at week 24. RESULTS:The intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 306 patients. There was a trend toward an improved SRI-4 response rate with atacicept 75 mg (57.8%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.78, P = 0.045) and 150 mg (53.8%; adjusted OR 1.56, P = 0.121) at week 24 as compared with placebo (44.0%) (primary analysis; using the screening visit as baseline). In a prespecified sensitivity analysis using study day 1 as baseline, a significantly larger proportion of patients receiving atacicept 75 mg and 150 mg achieved an SRI-4 response at week 24 compared with placebo. In predefined subpopulations with high levels of disease activity (HDA) at baseline, serologically active disease, or both, statistically significant improvements in the SRI-4 and SRI-6 response rates were seen with atacicept versus placebo. A severe risk of disease flare was reduced with atacicept therapy in both the ITT and the HDA populations. The risks of serious adverse events and serious or severe infection were not increased with atacicept as compared with placebo. CONCLUSION:Atacicept treatment showed evidence of efficacy in SLE, particularly in HDA and serologically active patients. Reductions in disease activity and severe flare were observed with atacicept treatment, with an acceptable safety profile.

OBJECTIVE: We examined rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) by race/ethnicity among women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with and without anti-phospholipid antibodies (aPL), and whether socioeconomic status (SES) accounted for differences. METHODS: Data were from PROMISSE, a multi-center study that enrolled 346 patients with SLE and 62 patients with SLE and aPL (50% White, 20% Black, 17% Hispanic, 12% Asian/Pacific Islander). Measures of SES were educational attainment, median community income, and community education. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine odds of APO for each racial/ethnic group, controlling first for age and clinical variables, and then for SES. RESULTS: The frequency of APOs in White women with SLE, with and without aPL, was 29% and 11%, respectively. For Black and Hispanic, women it was approximately 2-fold greater. In Black women with SLE alone, adjustment for clinical variables attenuated odds ratio from 2.7 (95% CI 1.3.-5.5) to 2.3 (95% CI 1.1-5.1), and after additional adjustment for SES, there were no longer significant differences in APOs compared to Whites. In contrast, in SLE patients with aPL, Whites, Blacks and Hispanics had markedly higher risks of APO compared to White SLE patients without aPL (OR 3.5, CI 1.4-7.7; OR 12.4, CI 1.9-79.8, OR 10.4,.CI 2.5-42.4, respectively), which were not accounted for by clinical or SES covariates. CONCLUSION: This finding suggests that for Black women with SLE without aPL, SES factors are key contributors to disparities in APOs, despite monthly care from experts, whereas other factors contribute to disparities in SLE with aPL

Objective/UNASSIGNED:The SLE Responder Index (SRI) is a composite endpoint used in SLE trials. This investigation examined the clinical trial elements that drive response measured by the SRI. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Analyses are based on data from two phase 3 trials (n = 2262) that evaluated the impact of an anti-B-cell activating factor antibody on disease activity using SRI-5 as the primary endpoint (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01196091 and NCT01205438). Results/UNASSIGNED:The SRI-5 response rate at week 52 for all patients was 32.8%. Non-response due to a lack of SLEDAI improvement, concomitant medication non-compliance or dropout was 31, 16.5 and 19.1%, respectively. Non-response due to deterioration in BILAG or Physician's Global Assessment after SLEDAI improvement, concomitant medication compliance and trial completion was 0.5%. Disease activity in three SLEDAI organ systems was highly prevalent at baseline: mucocutaneous, 90.6%; musculoskeletal, 82.9%; and immunologic, 71.6%. Disease activity in each of the other organ systems was <11% of patients. Four clinical manifestations were highly prevalent at baseline: arthritis, 82.6%; rash, 69.2%; alopecia, 58.2%; and mucosal ulcer, 32.5%. The combined prevalence of renal, vascular and CNS disease at baseline was 17.6%; these patients had high SRI-5 response rates. Adjustments to corticosteroids were allowed during the first 24 weeks. Increases in corticosteroids above 2.5 mg/day were observed in 16.2% of placebo patients over the first 24 weeks after randomization. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:The primary drivers of SRI-5 response were SLEDAI improvement, concomitant medication adherence and trial completion. Arthritis, rash, alopecia and mucosal ulcer were the most prevalent clinical manifestations at baseline. Corticosteroid increases and rare, highly weighted disease manifestations in SLEDAI can confound the SRI signal.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:This post hoc analysis compared anifrolumab 300 mg every 4 weeks with placebo on rash and arthritis measures with different stringency in patients with moderate to severe SLE (phase IIb; MUSE; NCT01438489). Subgroups were analysed by type I interferon gene signature (IFNGS test-high or test-low). Methods/UNASSIGNED:Rash was measured with the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) Index and modified Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index (mCLASI). Arthritis was evaluated using SLEDAI-2K, BILAG and swollen and tender joint counts. Outcomes were measured at week 52. Results/UNASSIGNED:More anifrolumab-treated patients demonstrated resolution of rash by SLEDAI-2K versus placebo: 39/88 (44.3%) versus 13/88 (14.8%), OR (90% CI) 4.56 (2.48 to 8.39), p<0.001; improvement of BILAG: 48/82 (58.5%) versus 24/85 (28.2%), OR (90% CI) 3.59 (2.08 to 6.19), p<0.001; and ≥50% improvement by mCLASI: 57/92 (62.0%) versus 30/89 (33.7%), OR (90% CI) 3.31 (1.97 to 5.55), p<0.001. More anifrolumab-treated patients had improved arthritis by SLEDAI-2K versus placebo: 55/97 (56.7%) versus 42/99 (42.4%), OR (90%  CI) 1.88 (1.16 to 3.04), p=0.032;  and BILAG: 65/94 (69.1%) versus 47/95 (49.5%), OR (90% CI) 2.47 (1.48 to 4.12), p=0.003; and mean (SD) swollen and tender joint reductions: -5.5 (6.3) versus -3.4 (5.9), p=0.004. Comparable results were demonstrated in IFNGS test-high patients (n=151). In IFNGS test-low patients (n=50), substantial numerical differences in partial rash and arthritis responses were observed in anifrolumab-treated patients versus placebo, with statistical significance only for rash by BILAG in this small population. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Anifrolumab treatment was associated with improvements versus placebo in specific SLE features of arthritis and rash using measures of different stringency. Although driven by robust data in the prevalent IFNGS test-high population, further evaluation in IFNGS test-low patients is warranted.