Efficacy and Safety of Canakinumab Vs Triamcinolone Acetonide in Patients with Gouty Arthritis Unable to Use Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Colchicine, and On Stable Urate Lowering Therapy (ULT) or Unable to Use ULT

Background/Purpose: The primary treatment goals for gouty arthritis (GA) are rapid relief of pain and inflammation during acute attacks, and long-term hyperuricemia management. A post-hoc analysis of 2 pivotal trials was performed to assess efficacy and safety of canakinumab (CAN), a fully human monoclonal anti-IL-1_ antibody, vs triamcinolone acetonide (TA) in GA patients unable to use NSAIDs and colchicine, and who were on stable urate lowering therapy (ULT) or unable to use ULT. Methods: In these 12-week, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled studies (_-RELIEVED and _-RELIEVED II), patients had to have frequent attacks (_3 attacks in previous year) meeting preliminary GA ACR 1977 criteria, and were unresponsive, intolerant, or contraindicated to NSAIDs and/or colchicine, and if on ULT, ULT was stable. Patients were randomized during an acute attack to single dose CAN 150 mg s.c. or TA 40 mg i.m. and were redosed "on demand" for each new attack. Patients completing the core studies were enrolled into blinded 12-week extension studies to further investigate on-demand use of CAN vs TA for new attacks. The subpopulation selected for this post-hoc analysis was (a) unable to use NSAIDs and colchicine due to contraindication, intolerance or lack of efficacy for these drugs, and (b) currently on ULT, or contraindication or previous failure of ULT, as determined by investigators. Subpopulation comprised 101 patients (51 CAN; 50 TA) out of 454 total. Results: Several co-morbidities, including hypertension (56%), obesity (56%), diabetes (18%), and ischemic heart disease (13%) were reported in 90% of this subpopulation. Pain intensity (VAS 100 mm scale) was comparable between CAN and TA treatment groups at baseline (least-square [LS] mean 74.6 and 74.4 mm, respectively). A significantly lower pain score was reported with CAN vs TA at 72 hours post dose (1st co-primary endpoint on baseline flare; LS mean, 23.5 vs 33.6 mm; difference _10.2 mm; 95% CI, _19.9, _0.4; P_0.0208 [1-sided]). CAN significantly reduced risk for their first new attacks by 61% vs TA (HR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.91, P_0.0151 [1-sided]) for the first 12 weeks (2nd co-primary endpoint), and by 61% vs TA (HR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.79, P_0.0047 [1-sided]) over 24 weeks. Serum urate levels increased for CAN vs TA with mean change from baseline reaching a maximum of _0.7 _ 2.0 vs _0.1 _ 1.8 mg/dL at 8 weeks, and _0.3 _ 2.0 vs _0.2 _ 1.4 mg/dL at end of study (all had GA attack at baseline). Adverse Events (AEs) were reported in 33 (66%) CAN and 24 (47.1%) TA patients. Infections and infestations were the most common AEs, reported in 10 (20%) and 5 (10%) patients treated with CAN and TA respectively. Incidence of SAEs was comparable between CAN (gastritis, gastroenteritis, chronic renal failure) and TA (aortic valve incompetence, cardiomyopathy, aortic stenosis, diarrohea, nausea, vomiting, bicuspid aortic valve) groups (2 [4.0%] vs 2 [3.9%]). Conclusion: CAN provided superior pain relief and reduced risk of new attack in highly-comorbid GA patients unable to use NSAIDs and colchicine, and who were currently on stable ULT or unable to use ULT. The safety profile in this post-hoc subpopulation was consistent with the overall _-RELIEVED and _-RELIEVED II population.