Recaticimab Monotherapy for Nonfamilial Hypercholesterolemia and Mixed Hyperlipemia: The Phase 3 REMAIN-1 Randomized Trial.

Monoclonal antibodies against proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) have been used to reduce the level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but require either biweekly or monthly dosing frequency. Recaticimab is a new humanized monoclonal antibody selectively targeting PCSK9, with long-acting characteristic. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of recaticimab monotherapy in patients with nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia and mixed hyperlipemia at low-to-moderate atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, and to explore different dosing strategies to provide patients with flexible administration options. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study conducted at 59 sites in China. Patients with fasting LDL-C ≥2.6 to <4.9 mmol/L, fasting triglyceride ≤5.6 mmol/L, and 10-year ASCVD risk score <10% were randomly assigned (2:2:2:1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous injections of recaticimab at 150 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), 300 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W), or 450 mg every 12 weeks (Q12W), or matching placebo, on background lipid-lowering diet. Primary endpoint was percentage change in LDL-C from baseline to week 12 for 150 mg Q4W and 450 mg Q12W and to week 16 for 300 mg Q8W. A total of 703 patients underwent randomization and received recaticimab (n = 157, 156, and 155 for 150 mg Q4W, 300 mg Q8W, and 450 mg Q12W, respectively) or placebo (n = 78, 79, and 78, respectively). Compared with placebo, recaticimab further reduced LDL-C by 49.6% (95% CI: 44.2%-54.9%) at 150 mg Q4W, 52.8% (95% CI: 48.3%-57.2%) at 300 mg Q8W, and 45.0% (95% CI: 41.0%-49.0%) at 450 mg Q12W (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Safety with recaticimab was comparable to placebo. After 12 or 16 weeks of treatment, patients who received recaticimab continued treatment until week 24, whereas those allocated to placebo were switched to recaticimab treatment with the same dosing strategy. Both 24-week recaticimab and 12- or 8-week recaticimab switched from placebo were effective. With 24 weeks of recaticimab treatment, the most common treatment-related adverse event was injection site reaction (n = 23 [4.9%]). Recaticimab monotherapy yielded significant LDL-C reductions and showed comparable safety vs placebo in patients with nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia and mixed hyperlipemia at low-to-moderate ASCVD risk, even with an infrequent dosing interval up to Q12W.

Xu M ，Wang Z ，Zhang Y ，Liu Y ，Huang R ，Han X ，Yao Z ，Sun J ，Tian F ，Hu X ，Ma L ，Lai C ，Zhang X ，Sheng J ，Han Q ，Jin C ，Luo L ，Zhao R ，Li L ，Xu B ，Yin D ，Luo S ，Ge X ，Liu Z ，Yang P ，Huang Z ，Li T ，Feng W ，Wu Y ，Ling Z ，Ma L ，Lv C ，Deng C ，Wei W ，Wang Y ，Yan L ，Ge J ，REMAIN-1 Investigators ... -  《-》

Recaticimab as Add-On Therapy to Statins for Nonfamilial Hypercholesterolemia: The Randomized, Phase 3 REMAIN-2 Trial.

Currently available antiproprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 monoclonal antibodies can effectively decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, but require frequent dosing. Recaticimab is a novel humanized monoclonal antibody against proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9. In a phase 1b/2 trial, recaticimab as add-on to stable statins showed robust LDL-C reduction with a dosing interval up to every 12 weeks (Q12W) in patients with hypercholesterolemia. REMAIN-2 (REcaticiMab Add-on therapy In patients with Nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia) aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of 48-week treatment with recaticimab as add-on therapy to statins in nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia. REMAIN-2 was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. During the run-in period, patients received stable moderate or high-intensity statin, with or without cholesterol absorption inhibitors (ezetimibe) or fenofibrate, for ≥4 weeks. Patients with an LDL-C of ≥1.8 mmol/L (if with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD]) or ≥2.6 mmol/L (if without ASCVD) were then randomized (2:2:2:1:1:1) to receive recaticimab 150 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), 300 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W), or 450 mg Q12W, or matching placebo injections (Q4W, Q8W, or Q12W) for 48 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change from baseline to week 24 in LDL-C level. A total of 689 randomly assigned patients received treatment (mean age, 55.8 years; male, 64.4%; ASCVD history, 69.5%; concomitant ezetimibe, 11.2%; mean baseline LDL-C, 2.8 mmol/L). Percentage change in LDL-C from baseline to week 24 was significantly more pronounced with recaticimab vs placebo (P < 0.0001), with least-squares mean differences of -62.2% (95% CI: -67.0% to -57.4%), -59.7% (95% CI: -65.0% to -54.4%), and -53.4% (95% CI: -58.7% to -48.2%) for the 150 mg Q4W, 300 mg Q8W, and 450 mg Q12W regimens, respectively. The decreases in LDL-C with recaticimab were maintained through week 48. Secondary lipid variables, including non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) also favored the recaticimab groups. During the treatment period, the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (28.5% vs 26.6%) and serious treatment-related adverse events (0.4% vs 0.4%) was similarly low in both the recaticimab and placebo groups. Recaticimab as add-on to stable statin therapy significantly decreased LDL-C levels at week 24 and sustained the decreases through week 48, providing a novel therapeutic alternative with a dosing interval of up to every 12 weeks in patients with nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia.

Sun Y ，Lv Q ，Guo Y ，Wang Z ，Huang R ，Gao X ，Han Y ，Yao Z ，Zheng M ，Luo S ，Li Y ，Gu X ，Zhang Y ，Wang J ，Hong L ，Ma X ，Su G ，Sheng J ，Lai C ，Shen A ，Wang M ，Zhang W ，Wu S ，Zheng Z ，Li J ，Zhong T ，Wang Y ，He L ，Du X ，Ma CS ... -  《-》

Cenerimod, a sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator, versus placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (CARE): an international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

Sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) is a signalling molecule that has an inhibitory role in atherosclerosis, inflammation, cell proliferation, and immunity. Cenerimod is a selective S1P1 receptor modulator under investigation for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We aimed to determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of four doses of cenerimod in adults with moderate-to-severe SLE receiving standard of care background therapy. CARE was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, in adults (aged 18-75 years) with moderate-to-severe SLE (a score of at least 6 out of 105 on the SLE disease activity index-2000, modified to exclude leukopenia [mSLEDAI-2K] score). Participants were recruited from 189 hospitals, specialist centres, and outpatient clinics in 22 countries in Asia Pacific, Latin America, Europe, and the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1), using an interactive response technology via balanced block randomisation (block size of 5) and stratified by oral glucocorticoid dose at randomisation and disease activity at screening, to once-daily oral cenerimod at 0·5 mg, 1·0 mg, 2·0 mg, or 4·0 mg or placebo, in addition to stable background SLE therapy, and followed up for 12 months. After 6 months, participants assigned to cenerimod 4·0 mg were randomly assigned again (1:1) to either cenerimod 2.0 mg or placebo for a further 6 months. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to month 6 in mSLEDAI-2K score, assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment (full analysis set). To meet the primary endpoint, the doses had to show a significant improvement over placebo, when adjusting for multiplicity, considering the hierarchical testing strategy, per a prespecified plan. Safety analyses included all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03742037, and is complete. Between Dec 21, 2018, and Aug 25, 2022, 810 patients were screened and 427 were randomly assigned to 0·5 mg (n=85), 1·0 mg (n=85), 2·0 mg (n=86), and 4·0 mg (n=85) cenerimod or placebo (n=86). Median age was 42 years (IQR 33-51), 406 (95%) of 427 participants were women, 21 (5%) were men, and 337 (79%) were White. At month 6, the least squares mean change from baseline in mSLEDAI-2K score was -2·85 (95% CI -3·60 to -2·10) for the placebo group and -3·24 (-3·98 to -2·49; difference vs placebo -0·39 [95% CI -1·45 to 0·68]; p=0·47) for the cenerimod 0·5 mg group, -3·41 (-4·16 to -2·67; difference vs placebo -0·57 [-1·62 to 0·49]; p=0·29) for the 1·0 mg group, -2·84 (-3·58 to -2·09; difference vs placebo 0·01 [-1·05 to 1·08]; p=0·98) for the 2·0 mg group, and -4·04 (-4·79 to -3·28; difference vs placebo -1·19 [-2·25 to -0·12]; p=0·029) for the 4·0 mg group; hence, the primary endpoint was not met. Treatment-emergent adverse events up to 12 months had no clear treatment-related or dose-related pattern across the groups. At month 6, treatment-emergent lymphopenia was reported in one (1%) of 85 patients who received cenerimod 0·5 mg, five (6%) of 85 patients who received 1·0 mg, nine (10%) of 86 patients who received 2·0 mg, 12 (14%) of 84 patients who received 4·0 mg, and no patients who received placebo. Two deaths due to adverse events occurred (both in the cenerimod 1·0 mg group; one due to acute coronary syndrome and the other due to upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage), and were determined to be unrelated to study treatment. The primary endpoint was not met. Cenerimod was well tolerated over 12 months. Cenerimod 4·0 mg is being investigated for the treatment of SLE in two ongoing phase 3 trials (NCT05648500, NCT05672576). Idorsia Pharmaceuticals.

Askanase AD ，D'Cruz D ，Kalunian K ，Merrill JT ，Navarra SV ，Cahuzac C ，Cornelisse P ，Murphy MJ ，Strasser DS ，Trokan L ，Berkani O ... -  《Lancet Rheumatology》

Lomitapide for the treatment of paediatric patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (APH-19): results from the efficacy phase of an open-label, multicentre, phase 3 study.

Homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HoFH) is a rare inherited disorder characterised by extremely high concentrations of LDL cholesterol, leading to early-onset atherosclerosis. Lomitapide is an orally administered microsomal triglyceride transfer protein (MTP) inhibitor that effectively lowers LDL cholesterol and is approved for adults with HoFH. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of lomitapide in paediatric patients with HoFH receiving standard-of-care lipid-lowering therapy. APH-19 is an open-label, single-arm, phase 3 trial performed at 12 study centres in Germany, Israel, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and Tunisia. A 6-week run-in period was followed by a 24-week efficacy phase and an 80-week safety phase. Patients aged 5-17 years, on stable lipid-lowering therapy, with HoFH diagnosed using the criteria from the 2014 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel on HoFH were titrated to maximum tolerated doses of oral lomitapide, starting at 2 mg (patients aged 5-15 years) or 5 mg (patients aged 16-17 years). The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline to week 24 in LDL cholesterol, which was assessed in patients who had received at least one dose of lomitapide, and who had a baseline and at least one post-baseline measurement. The secondary outcomes were the percentage change from baseline at week 24 in total cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, VLDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, triglycerides, and lipoprotein(a). Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04681170. Between Dec 20, 2020, and Oct 16, 2022, 43 patients were included and treated (24 [56%] were female and 19 [44%] were male, and median age was 10·7 years [7·0-14·0]). Mean change from baseline in LDL cholesterol at week 24 was -53·5% (95% CI -61·6 to -45·4, p<0·0001). Mean percentage reductions were observed at week 24 for non-HDL cholesterol (-53·9%, 95% CI -61·7 to -46·1, p<0·0001), total cholesterol (-50·0%, 95% CI -57·6 to -42·4, p<0·0001), VLDL cholesterol (-50·2%, -59·1 to -41·2, p<0·0001), apolipoprotein B (-52·4%, -60·3 to -44·5, p<0·0001), triglycerides was -49·9% (-58·8 to -41·0, p<0·0001), and lipoprotein(a) (-11·3%, -32·9 to 10·3 [in 21 patients with measurements in mg/dL]; -23·6%, -38·2 to -9·0 [in 22 patients with measurements in nmol/L]; p=0·0070 combined). Adverse events were mostly mild, and gastrointestinal and hepatic in nature. Adverse events of special interest were reported for five (12%) patients (gastrointestinal in two patients and hepatic in three). One serious treatment-emergent adverse event was reported (also classed as an adverse event of special interest): an increase in hepatic enzymes, resulting in two dose interruptions, two dose reductions, and a repeated dose escalation. Lomitapide provided a significant, clinically meaningful LDL cholesterol reduction and has the potential to be an efficient, LDL receptor-independent option for paediatric patients with HoFH. Amryt Pharmaceuticals.

Masana L ，Zambon A ，Schmitt CP ，Taylan C ，Driemeyer J ，Cohen H ，Buonuomo PS ，Alashwal A ，Al-Dubayee M ，Kholaif N ，Diaz-Diaz JL ，Maatouk F ，Martinez-Hervas S ，Mangal B ，Löwe S ，Cunningham T ... -  《-》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》