overview
DESCRIPTION
Safety & Tolerability of Biologics Dubai, United Arab Emirates January 19th, 2009 Prof. Joachim R. Kalden Director emeritus Department of Internal Medicine III Div. of Molecular Immunology Niklolaus-Fiebiger-Center University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Overview. Monitoring of safety: registries - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Safety & Tolerability of Safety & Tolerability of BiologicsBiologics
Dubai, United Arab EmiratesDubai, United Arab EmiratesJanuary 19th, 2009January 19th, 2009
Prof. Joachim R. KaldenProf. Joachim R. KaldenDirector emeritusDirector emeritus
Department of Internal Medicine IIIDepartment of Internal Medicine IIIDiv. of Molecular ImmunologyDiv. of Molecular Immunology
Niklolaus-Fiebiger-CenterNiklolaus-Fiebiger-CenterUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergUniversity of Erlangen-Nuremberg
![Page 2: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
OverviewOverviewMonitoring of safety: registriesSafety: TuberculosisSafety: Serious infectious eventsSafety: MalignancySafety: Lymphoma
![Page 3: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
European registriesEuropean registriesPost approval commitment to EMEA that Wyeth would monitor safetyProfessional Societies independently supported establishment of registries to monitor safetyEstablished in a number of countries independently but with different approaches, with or without Reference groups Efficacy endpoints
![Page 4: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Why important?Why important?Only source of comparisons with competitorsProviding rich stream of data for differentiationCurrently under analysed – registries focusing on limited number of questionsPotential for pooled analyses to give even greater power
![Page 5: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Why are registries important Why are registries important to Wyethto Wyeth
Meet post approval commitmentLarge cohorts of Enbrel patients treated in clinical practiceSource of comparative data with MAbsResource for evaluation of safety and efficacyPotential to combine data to provide increased power to undertake analyses of rare events
![Page 6: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Original registriesOriginal registriesSweden ARTIS – nationwide but organised on a regional basis
– STURE – Stockholm registry– SSAGT – Southern Sweden
Both ARTIS and the regional registries publish results No concurrently recruited controls but use other RA cohorts for reference
UK BSRBR - national registry powered to detect 2 fold increase in lymphoma in
comparison to a DMARD treated cohortGermany RABBIT – national registry to describe the long term effectiveness
– treatment continuation – clinical outcomes – long term hazards– direct and indirect costs
Comparison with conventional DMARD treatment from national databaseThese 3 registers meet together annually with companiesUse standard report which is sent companies twice a year for inclusion in safety reports to regulators
![Page 7: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Estimates of patient Estimates of patient numbersnumbers
Country Started Date of Estimate
Total TNFi Controls
Sweden 1999 2008 14000 National DB
UK 2001 2008 12000 3300
Germany 2001 2008 5300 National DB
France
Spain 2000 2007 8320 N/A
Norway 2000 2006 1500 DMARDs
Denmark 2000 2006 1021 None
Czech 2001 2007 1040
Switzerland 2000 2005 1600 SCQM
Total 44781
![Page 8: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Monitoring of safety: Monitoring of safety: problemsproblems
Controlled trials Relatively few pts, not the same patient population as
in clinical practice, seldom long-term, randomisation may create well-balanced comparator
Spontaneous reporting Very low reporting rates; only certain adverse drug
reactions (with attribution)Long-term observational studies Difficult to obtain enough compliance, need for
comparator data
![Page 9: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Advantages and Advantages and disadvantages of registriesdisadvantages of registries
Advantages Usually much larger than
clinical trials Greater power than RCTs to
detect rare events Enrolment reflects clinical
practice Potential for studying
numerous outcomes Suited to long term follow-up Can examine complex
situations not suited to RCTs Results can usually be
generalised
Disadvantages Non randomised, subject to
bias Confounding by indication Missing data Potential for confounding Channelling bias Choice of reference group
![Page 10: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Conditions Where Mechanism of Conditions Where Mechanism of Action Differences May Affect Action Differences May Affect
Safety ProfileSafety Profile
TBSerious Infectious Events (SIEs)Malignancy
![Page 11: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Tuberculosis (TB)Tuberculosis (TB)
![Page 12: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
FDA MedWatch spontaneous FDA MedWatch spontaneous reporting system (AERS): reporting system (AERS):
20012001TB associated with infliximab70 reported cases of TB after treatment with infliximab for a median of 12 weeks 40/70 had extra-
pulmonary disease
Normal
Post-infliximab
Keane J. et al. NEJM 2001;345:1098-1104.
![Page 13: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Inhibition of IFN gammaInhibition of IFN gamma
Effect of drugs on IFN production in whole blood cultures stimulated with M tb culture filtrate. Median and interquartile ranges n=15
Saliu et al. J Infect Dis 2006 .
![Page 14: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
TB associated with clinical TB associated with clinical trials: Ttrials: TB events despite B events despite
screeningscreeningAnti-TNF Agent Required
Screening for TBTB Event Rate(per 1000 pt-yr)
Etanercept (soluble receptor) Not mandated
Pooled analysis of all clinical trials across indications (Europe / N. America)4 (N=11,390; 2 cases TB)
0.11
Adalimumab (mAb) Yes
Pooled analysis Europe1 3.3Pooled analysis N. America1 0.8REACT Trial7 5.0
Infliximab (mAb) Yes
Pooled analysis Not availableSTART Trial2 13.1Infliximab vs abatacept trial3 12.1
Certolizumab (mAb) Yes
Pooled analysis Not availableRAPID I Trial4 6.9RAPID II Trial5 12.5
![Page 15: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Enbrel and TB: PortugalEnbrel and TB: Portugal
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
% TB
Infliximab Adalimumab Etanercept
Percentage of Treated Patients Developing TB
EtanerceptInfliximabAdalimumab
2.3%(4/171)
1.5%(8/456)
0.3%(1/333)
TB events associated with anti-TNF agents were compared for 960 pts treated between 1999 – 2005 in Portugal*:
* 13 events total: 9 RA (n=639); 3 AS (n=200); 1 PsA (n=101).
Fonseca JE et al. Acta Reumatol Port. 2006;31:247-53.
![Page 16: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
BIOBADASER: Risk and BIOBADASER: Risk and incidence of TB in Spainincidence of TB in Spain
Treatments starts
Patient-years of exposure
to TNF antagonists
Cases TB rate per 100,000 p/y
RR vs. general population
(IC 95%)
RR vs. EMECAR (IC 95%)
<March 2002 8,671 41 472 (384–642) 19 (11–32) 5,8 (2,5–15,4)
>March 2002100% compliance<100% compliance
8,7174,5764,170
15213
172 (103–285)43 (11–175)
311 (181–636)
7 (3–13)1,8 (0,28–7,1)
13 (6–25)
2,4 (0,8–7,2)Undetermined4,8 (1,04–44,3)
Annual incidence rate / 100,000 p. y. General population 25; EMECAR (RA pre-biologic era)
Carmona et al. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52(6):1766-72; Gómez-Reino et al. Arthritis Care & Research 2007.
![Page 17: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
BSRBR: Anti-TNFs and risk of BSRBR: Anti-TNFs and risk of TBTB
50
191
136
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Rat
e/10
0,00
0 yr
s
Etanerc
ept
Adalimumab
Inflixim
ab
Dixon WG et al. THU0134. EULAR 2008
![Page 18: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
RATIO: Factors predictive of RATIO: Factors predictive of TBTB
Last anti-TNF received
No. of cases HR (95% CI) vs etanercept
P-value
Adalimumab 27 10.05 (1.92-52.61) 0.006Etanercept 35Infliximab 5 8.63 (1.38-53.78) 0.02
Use of specific biologics is predictive of TB in anti-TNF-treated patients (n=67)
• Incidence TBC 39.2/100,000 pt/year • ETA: 6.0/100,000 pt/year • INF or ADA: 71.5/100,000 • General Population: 8.7/100,000 pt/year• Two thirds (30/45) of the patients who developed TB had negative skin tests
Tubach F et al. OP-0014. EULAR 2008
![Page 19: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Serious Infectious Serious Infectious Events (SIEs)Events (SIEs)
![Page 20: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Etanercept and serious infectious Etanercept and serious infectious eventsevents
PooledPooled analysis of randomised clinical trials for analysis of randomised clinical trials for Enbrel in RAEnbrel in RA
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
Events per 100 pt-yr
Placebo/control
Etanercept
Etanercept open labelextensions
Serious infectious events
No difference vs. placebo
Hamza S et al. EULAR 2007 ARD 2007;66(2): THU0153 Abstract
![Page 21: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Etanercept and opportunistic Etanercept and opportunistic infectionsinfections
PooledPooled analysis of randomised clinical trials for analysis of randomised clinical trials for Enbrel in RAEnbrel in RA
00.050.1
0.150.2
0.250.3
0.35
Events per 100 pt-yr
Placebo/control
Etanercept
Etanercept open labelextensions
Opportunistic infections
No difference vs. placebo
Hamza S et al. EULAR 2007 ARD 2007;66(2): THU0153 Abstract
![Page 22: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
BSRBR: Etanercept and BSRBR: Etanercept and mAbs vs. DMARDSmAbs vs. DMARDS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio
SIE rates relative to DMARDS in first 90 days of therapy
ETN INFLIX ADAL
Dixon WG et al. A&R 2007;56(9):2896-904
![Page 23: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
RABBIT: Etanercept and SIEs RABBIT: Etanercept and SIEs - Herpes virus infections- Herpes virus infections
RABBIT Registry (Germany)*
Evaluated RA patients for reactivation or first infection of Herpes virus infections (Varicella Zoster Virus, Herpes simplex Virus) “Our data suggest a different mode of action of TNF antibodies and the soluble TNF receptor fusion protein etanercept in respect to the reactivation of a latent herpes infection.”Reactivation of Herpes virus infections suggest a loss of cell-mediated immunity
Hazard Ratio P value
Etanercept 1.2 0.53
Infliximab 2.1 0.01
Adalimumab 2.0 0.01
Risk of Infection vs. Control
*Strangfeld A. et al. Oral Presentation Abstract OP0214 Friday June 15, 2007 EULAR 2007
![Page 24: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
ARTIS: Hospitalisation risk ARTIS: Hospitalisation risk for infection – all anti-TNFs for infection – all anti-TNFs
0
0.5
1
1.5
Time since treatment start
Year 2 Year 3Year 1
Rel
ativ
e ris
k (9
.5%
CI)
Askling J, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007 66:1339–44
![Page 25: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
ARTIS: Serious infection rate in ARTIS: Serious infection rate in patients treated with a 2nd TNF patients treated with a 2nd TNF
antagonistantagonist
0
4
8
12
16
First TNF inhibitor Second TNF inhibitor
Infe
ctio
ns le
adin
g to
ho
spita
lisat
ion/
100
patie
nt-y
ears
4.5
7.0
All TNF inhibitor-treated patients
(n=4,167)
Patients hospitalized prior to treatment with TNF inhibitor
(n=2,692)
0
4
8
12
16
First TNF inhibitor Second TNF inhibitorIn
fect
ions
lead
ing
to
hosp
italis
atio
n/10
0 pa
tient
-yea
rs
5.4
10.0
Crude Incidence
Adapted from Askling J, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007 66:1339–44
![Page 26: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
MalignanciesMalignancies
![Page 27: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
MalignancyMalignancy
Lower Risk Higher Risk
Lymphoma only
All malignancies
Skin cancer
1.0
0.7(OR) 0.3-1.6
1.0 (OR) 0.8-1.3
1.2 (OR) 1.0-1.5
13001
19591
13001
Point Estimate 95% CIAnalyses Number of Patients
Malignancy Risk: ENBREL vs. control, derived from a large patient database*
*Wolfe F and Michaud K. A&R 2007;56:1433-1439; 2886-2895.
![Page 28: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Swedish national registry ARTIS Data compared with Swedish nationwide cancer & census
registers
ARTIS: Anti-TNF and solid ARTIS: Anti-TNF and solid cancerscancers
Prevalent RA n = 53067
Incident RAn = 3703
RA on anti-TNFn = 4160
n SIR (95% IC) n SIR
(95% IC) n SIR (95% IC)
All cancers 3379 1.05 (1.01-1.08) 138 1.1 (0.9-1.3) 67 0.9 (0.7-1.2)Melanoma 120 1.19 (0.99-1.42) 4 0.9 (0.2-2.2) 1 0.3 (0.0-1.8)
Askling et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1414–1420
![Page 29: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Swedish national registry ARTIS Data compared with Swedish nationwide cancer & census
registers
ARTIS: Anti-TNF and solid ARTIS: Anti-TNF and solid cancerscancers
Prevalent RA n = 53067
Incident RAn = 3703
RA on anti-TNFn = 4160
n SIR (95% IC) n SIR
(95% IC) n SIR (95% IC)
All cancers 3379 1.05 (1.01-1.08) 138 1.1 (0.9-1.3) 67 0.9 (0.7-1.2)
Melanoma 120 1.19 (0.99-1.42) 4 0.9 (0.2-2.2) 1 0.3 (0.0-1.8)
Skin (non-melanoma) 374 1.66 (1.50-1.84) 5 0.7 (0.2-1.6) 11 3.6 (1.8-6.5)
Lung 330 1.48 (1.33-1.65) 23 2.4 (1.5-3.6) 10 1.8 (0.9-3.3)
Askling et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1414–1420
![Page 30: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
ARTIS (2008): No increase in ARTIS (2008): No increase in cancer following anti-TNF cancer following anti-TNF
therapytherapy
No. primary cancers
Relative risk (95% CI)
Compared to national RA cohort
Compared to general population
Anti-TNF treatment
169 0.94 (0.80-1.12) 1.04 (0.89-1.21)
No increased cancer risk with anti-TNF therapy
Askling J et al. OP-0013. EULAR 2008
![Page 31: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
RA and cancerRA and cancerNational Data Base for Rheumatic Diseases (NDBRD) 13,001 RA patients (49,000 p/y) of observation (1998/2005)
– At least 1 year of follow-up– 49% of whom exposed to biological therapy
Cancer rates compared with population rates US National Cancer Institute database
Incidence of new cancers in patients with anti-TNF/ without anti-TNF
ORs as estimates RR adjusted for 6 confounders: age, sex, education level, smoking history, RA severity and prednisone use
Wolfe , ACR 2006 and Arthritis and Rheum 2007
![Page 32: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
LymphomaLymphoma
![Page 33: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Lymphoma and rheumatic Lymphoma and rheumatic diseasedisease
Several studies suggested an increased lymphoma risk in patients with rheumatic diseaseRisk may be tied to degree of disease severity and inflammationWhat is the impact of biologics on this?
![Page 34: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Lymphoma risk and RA Lymphoma risk and RA disease activity: Pre-disease activity: Pre-
biologicsbiologicsPatients: Swedish in-patient registry with RA 1964–1995, who developed lymphoma > 1 year after discharge (RA and lymphoma diagnosis validated)Controls: Individually matched RA patients without lymphoma from same source (378 cases and controls)All records retrospectively reviewed to assess disease activity and DMARD therapy
Baecklund E, et al. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:692-701.
![Page 35: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
OutlookTNFalpha antagonists might improve or prevent important comorbidities
Cardiovascular diseases Lymphomas
By:
Decreasing inflammation Decreasing activation of endothelial cells Normalizing pathologic lipid profiles Normalizing insulin resistance
![Page 36: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
0.1 1 10 100
Low
Medium
High
Unadjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)
Lymphoma risk and Lymphoma risk and rheumatoid arthritis rheumatoid arthritis
disease activitydisease activity
7.7
71.3
Infla
mm
ator
y A
ctiv
ity
Baecklund E, et al. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:692-701.
![Page 37: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
No increased risk of lymphoma No increased risk of lymphoma in RA patients upon treatment in RA patients upon treatment
with anti-TNFwith anti-TNFSwedish population-based cohort study of RA pts:
one prevalent cohort (n = 53067) one incident cohort (n = 3703) one TNFi -treated cohort 1999 through 2003 (n = 4160)
Prevalent and incident RA pts have an increased risk of lymphoma (SIR = 1.9 and 2.0, respectively) and leukaemia (SIR = 2.1 and 2.2, respectively)
RA pts treated with TNF antagonists had a tripled lymphoma risk (SIR = 2.9)
However, after adjustment (sex, age, and disease duration) the risk was not higher than in the other RA cohorts
.
Askling et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1414–1420
![Page 38: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Further safety issues1. Infections2. Pregnancies3. Non-tb pulmonary disease4. Heart failures5. Surgical issues6. Vaccination7. Haematological chances8. Demylating diseases9. Allergic reactions
![Page 39: Overview](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56814be4550346895db8bcc4/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Summary: Areas in which data Summary: Areas in which data suggest a difference between mAbs suggest a difference between mAbs
and Etanerceptand EtanerceptTuberculosis Risk of developing TB appears to be greater with mAbs than with Etanercept based upon: Pooled analyses of randomized controlled trials Multiple national registries MOA
MalignancyPossible risk for development of lymphomas or other malignancies in patients treated with a TNF-antagonist, including Etanercept, cannot be excluded Further analyses pending
Serious Infections Differences in risk for infections may exist between Etanercept and mAbs; however, data are inconclusive RCTs suggest a difference Registries suggest no difference