User login
DENVER — , with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial.
‘Impressive’ Results
The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data.
“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.
An Open-Label Phase 2 Study
The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male).
At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.
The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups.
Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions.
Challenging the Current Standard of Care
The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis.
Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.
DENVER — , with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial.
‘Impressive’ Results
The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data.
“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.
An Open-Label Phase 2 Study
The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male).
At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.
The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups.
Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions.
Challenging the Current Standard of Care
The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis.
Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.
DENVER — , with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial.
‘Impressive’ Results
The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data.
“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.
An Open-Label Phase 2 Study
The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male).
At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.
The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups.
Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions.
Challenging the Current Standard of Care
The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis.
Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.
<!--$RCSfile: InCopy_agile.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.35 $-->
<!--$RCSfile: drupal.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.7 $-->
<root generator="drupal.xsl" gversion="1.7"> <header> <fileName>167853</fileName> <TBEID>0C04FD0B.SIG</TBEID> <TBUniqueIdentifier>MD_0C04FD0B</TBUniqueIdentifier> <newsOrJournal>News</newsOrJournal> <publisherName>Frontline Medical Communications</publisherName> <storyname>AAN: CIDP phase II trial</storyname> <articleType>2</articleType> <TBLocation>QC Done-All Pubs</TBLocation> <QCDate>20240501T125525</QCDate> <firstPublished>20240506T090806</firstPublished> <LastPublished>20240506T090806</LastPublished> <pubStatus qcode="stat:"/> <embargoDate/> <killDate/> <CMSDate>20240506T090806</CMSDate> <articleSource>FROM AAN 2024</articleSource> <facebookInfo/> <meetingNumber>2962-24</meetingNumber> <byline>Jim Kling</byline> <bylineText>JIM KLING</bylineText> <bylineFull>JIM KLING</bylineFull> <bylineTitleText>MDedge News</bylineTitleText> <USOrGlobal/> <wireDocType/> <newsDocType>News</newsDocType> <journalDocType/> <linkLabel/> <pageRange/> <citation/> <quizID/> <indexIssueDate/> <itemClass qcode="ninat:text"/> <provider qcode="provider:imng"> <name>IMNG Medical Media</name> <rightsInfo> <copyrightHolder> <name>Frontline Medical News</name> </copyrightHolder> <copyrightNotice>Copyright (c) 2015 Frontline Medical News, a Frontline Medical Communications Inc. company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, copied, or otherwise reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of Frontline Medical Communications Inc.</copyrightNotice> </rightsInfo> </provider> <abstract/> <metaDescription>A first-in-class monoclonal antibody (riliprubart, Sanofi) that inhibits complement activation showed good activity versus IVIG in chronic inflammatory demyelin</metaDescription> <articlePDF/> <teaserImage/> <teaser>Phase 2 study shows riliprubart performs well in both refractory and treatment-naive patients. </teaser> <title>Complement Inhibitor Scores Impressive Data in CIDP</title> <deck/> <disclaimer/> <AuthorList/> <articleURL/> <doi/> <pubMedID/> <publishXMLStatus/> <publishXMLVersion>1</publishXMLVersion> <useEISSN>0</useEISSN> <urgency/> <pubPubdateYear>2024</pubPubdateYear> <pubPubdateMonth/> <pubPubdateDay/> <pubVolume/> <pubNumber/> <wireChannels/> <primaryCMSID/> <CMSIDs/> <keywords/> <seeAlsos/> <publications_g> <publicationData> <publicationCode>nr</publicationCode> <pubIssueName>January 2021</pubIssueName> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> <journalTitle>Neurology Reviews</journalTitle> <journalFullTitle>Neurology Reviews</journalFullTitle> <copyrightStatement>2018 Frontline Medical Communications Inc.,</copyrightStatement> </publicationData> </publications_g> <publications> <term canonical="true">22</term> </publications> <sections> <term canonical="true">53</term> <term>39313</term> </sections> <topics> <term canonical="true">259</term> <term>285</term> </topics> <links/> </header> <itemSet> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>Main</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title>Complement Inhibitor Scores Impressive Data in CIDP</title> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> <p><span class="dateline">DENVER </span>— <span class="tag metaDescription">A first-in-class monoclonal antibody (riliprubart, Sanofi) that inhibits complement activation showed good activity versus IVIG in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP)</span>, with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial. </p> <h2>‘Impressive’ Results</h2> <p>The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data. </p> <p>“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit. <br/><br/>“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.<br/><br/></p> <h2>An Open-Label Phase 2 Study</h2> <p>The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male). </p> <p>At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center. <br/><br/>The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups. <br/><br/>Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions. <br/><br/></p> <h2>Challenging the Current Standard of Care </h2> <p>The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis. </p> <p>Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.<br/><br/>The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.<span class="end"/> </p> </itemContent> </newsItem> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>teaser</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title/> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> </itemContent> </newsItem> </itemSet></root>
FROM AAN 2024