Jinmei Su1, Mengtao Li1, Lan He2, Dongbao Zhao3, Weiguo Wan4, Yi Liu5, Jianhua Xu6, Jian Xu7, Huaxiang Liu8, Lindi Jiang9, Huaxiang Wu10, Xiaoxia Zuo11, Cibo Huang12, Xiumei Liu13, Fen Li14, Zhiyi Zhang15, Xiangyuan Liu16, Lingli Dong17, Tianwang Li18, Haiying Chen19, Jingyang Li20, Dongyi He21, Xin Lu22, Anbin Huang23, Yi Tao24, Yanyan Wang25, Zhuoli Zhang26, Wei Wei27, Xiaofeng Li28, Xiaofeng Zeng1. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Clinical Research Center for Immunologic Diseases, Ministry of Science and Technology, Key Laboratory of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. 3. Department of Rheumatology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Rheumatology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Rheumatology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 6. Department of Rheumatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. 7. Department of Rheumatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China. 8. Department of Rheumatology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China. 9. Department of Rheumatology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 10. Department of Rheumatology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China. 11. Department of Rheumatology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. 12. Department of Rheumatology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, China. 13. Department of Rheumatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China. 14. Department of Rheumatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China. 15. Department of Rheumatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. 16. Department of Rheumatology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. 17. Department of Rheumatology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 18. Department of Rheumatology, Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, China. 19. Department of Rheumatology, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China. 20. Department of Rheumatology, Zhuzhou Central Hospital, Zhuzhou, China. 21. Department of Rheumatology, Shanghai Guanghua Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Shanghai, China. 22. Department of Rheumatology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China. 23. Department of Rheumatology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 24. Department of Rheumatology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 25. Department of Rheumatology, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing, China. 26. Department of Rheumatology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China. 27. Department of Rheumatology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China. 28. Department of Rheumatology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China.
Abstract
Objectives: A phase III, 24-weeks Chinese clinical trial demonstrated that efficacy and safety outcomes of treatments with 40 mg/0.8 ml HS016 (n = 416) or adalimumab (n = 232) for active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients was comparable. In the present study, a subanalysis of the clinical trial was conducted to determine whether also individual efficacy indicators were comparable between HS016 and adalimumab. Methods: The individual efficacy indicators total and nocturnal back pain, global assessment of disease activity, swollen joint count, Maastricht AS Enthesitis Score, Bath AS Disease Activity Index, Bath AS Functional Index, Bath AS Metrology Index and chest expansion, were assessed at baseline and every 2 weeks during the treatment period. Results: This subanalysis revealed no significant difference between the patient groups treated with HS016 or adalimumab for any individual efficacy indicator investigated at any time point (all p > 0.05) beside faster total back pain score improvements in the adalimumab group on week 10, 12 and 22, which became equal at week 24. Among these indicators, chest expansion showed a significant increase at each time point compared with baseline, whereas all other efficacy indicators showed significant decreases compared with baseline at each time point (all p < 0.05). All efficacy indicators had increased or decreased rapidly by week 2, and the values continued to increase/decrease up to week 12, with subsequent smaller changes thereafter up to week 24 of treatment. Conclusion: The response trajectory of most individual efficacy indicators was comparable between HS016 and adalimumab at each time point during the 24 weeks of the trial. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=37910, identifier [ChiCTR1900022520].
RCT Entities:
Objectives: A phase III, 24-weeks Chinese clinical trial demonstrated that efficacy and safety outcomes of treatments with 40 mg/0.8 ml HS016 (n = 416) or adalimumab (n = 232) for active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients was comparable. In the present study, a subanalysis of the clinical trial was conducted to determine whether also individual efficacy indicators were comparable between HS016 and adalimumab. Methods: The individual efficacy indicators total and nocturnal back pain, global assessment of disease activity, swollen joint count, Maastricht AS Enthesitis Score, Bath AS Disease Activity Index, Bath AS Functional Index, Bath AS Metrology Index and chest expansion, were assessed at baseline and every 2 weeks during the treatment period. Results: This subanalysis revealed no significant difference between the patient groups treated with HS016 or adalimumab for any individual efficacy indicator investigated at any time point (all p > 0.05) beside faster total back pain score improvements in the adalimumab group on week 10, 12 and 22, which became equal at week 24. Among these indicators, chest expansion showed a significant increase at each time point compared with baseline, whereas all other efficacy indicators showed significant decreases compared with baseline at each time point (all p < 0.05). All efficacy indicators had increased or decreased rapidly by week 2, and the values continued to increase/decrease up to week 12, with subsequent smaller changes thereafter up to week 24 of treatment. Conclusion: The response trajectory of most individual efficacy indicators was comparable between HS016 and adalimumab at each time point during the 24 weeks of the trial. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=37910, identifier [ChiCTR1900022520].
Authors: Michael M Ward; Atul Deodhar; Elie A Akl; Andrew Lui; Joerg Ermann; Lianne S Gensler; Judith A Smith; David Borenstein; Jayme Hiratzka; Pamela F Weiss; Robert D Inman; Vikas Majithia; Nigil Haroon; Walter P Maksymowych; Janet Joyce; Bruce M Clark; Robert A Colbert; Mark P Figgie; David S Hallegua; Pamela E Prete; James T Rosenbaum; Judith A Stebulis; Filip van den Bosch; David T Y Yu; Amy S Miller; John D Reveille; Liron Caplan Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Janneke J de Winter; Leonieke J van Mens; Désirée van der Heijde; Robert Landewé; Dominique L Baeten Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Ruifu Sun; Xuesong Wang; Xiaohong Sun; Bing Zhao; Xiugong Zhang; Xiaojin Gong; Sunny Hei Wong; Matthew Tak Vai Chan; William Ka Kei Wu Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 7.561