4.2 Article

The efficacy and safety of anifrolumab in Japanese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: TULIP-2 subanalysis

Journal

MODERN RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 134-144

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mr/roac010

Keywords

Systemic lupus erythematosus; treatment; anifrolumab

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab in Japanese patients with SLE. The results showed that anifrolumab was more effective than placebo in improving patients' condition and reducing skin activity. In terms of safety, anifrolumab had a profile consistent with the overall population.
Objectives Evaluate the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab in the subpopulation of Japanese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in phase 3 TULIP-2 trial. Methods TULIP-2 was a 52-week randomized placebo-controlled trial (N = 362) that evaluated efficacy and safety of anifrolumab 300 mg IV every 4 weeks vs. placebo in patients with moderate to severe SLE who were receiving standard therapy. We performed a post hoc analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints, and safety, of TULIP-2 in the Japanese subpopulation. Results In the Japanese subpopulation (anifrolumab, n = 24; placebo, n = 19), the proportion of patients who achieved a British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment response at Week 52 (primary endpoint) was greater in the anifrolumab group vs. placebo [50.0% (12/24) vs. 15.8% (3/19); treatment difference: 34.2%, 95% confidence interval 6.9, 61.5; nominal p = .014]. Improvement in skin activity and flare rates (key secondary endpoints) were favourable for anifrolumab vs. placebo. Consistent with the overall population, anifrolumab had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. Conclusions The efficacy and safety of anifrolumab 300 mg in Japanese patients with SLE was consistent with the demonstrated clinical profile of anifrolumab for the overall TULIP-2 population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available