Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26301100›Full record

ArticleLupus science & medicine2015

Safety and efficacy of hCDR1 (Edratide) in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus: results of phase II study.

Murray B Urowitz, David A Isenberg, Daniel J Wallace

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lupus science & medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00203151 (A Multi-National, Multi-Center, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multiple-Dose, Parallel Group Study to Assess the Efficacy, Tolerability and Safety of Edratide for Subcutaneous Injection in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00203151 phase2terminatednot on this map

A Multi-National, Multi-Center, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multiple-Dose, Parallel Group Study to Assess the Efficacy, Tolerability and Safety of Edratide for Subcutaneous Injection in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE)

TypeinterventionalSponsorTeva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc.Ran2005 to 2007Enrolled340ConditionsSystemic Lupus ErythematosusArmsedratide
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Peptide-based immunotherapy in lupus: Where are we now?Rheumatology and immunology research · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Getting Under the Skin: Targeting Cutaneous Autoimmune Disease.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2020
    Review
  12. Peptide-Based Vaccination Therapy for Rheumatic Diseases.Journal of immunology research · 2020
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Regulatory T cells in the treatment of disease.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2018
    Review
  17. Article
  18. New Trials in Lupus and where Are we Going.Current rheumatology reports · 2018
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Murray B UrowitzToronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario , Canada.
David A IsenbergUniversity College London , London , UK.
Daniel J WallaceUCLA & Cedars-Sinai Medical Center , Los Angeles, California , USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of hCDR1 (Edratide) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

methodsPatients (n=340) with SLE ≥4 ACR criteria (4-11, mean 7) with active disease (SLEDAI-2K of 6-12). Patients were on average 7.1 years post-diagnosis and their organ involvement was mainly musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous and haematologic. Placebo or Edratide was administered subcutaneously weekly at doses of 0.5, 1.0 or 2.5 mg. The co-primary endpoints were SLEDAI-2K SLE Disease Activity and Adjusted Mean SLEDAI (AMS) reduction in patients compared with controls using a landmark analysis. Secondary outcomes were improvement in British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) Responder Index and medicinal flare analysis.

resultsEdratide was safe and well tolerated. The primary endpoints based solely on SLEDAI-2K and AMS were not met. The secondary predefined endpoint, BILAG, was met for the 0.5 mg Edratide arm in the intention to treat (ITT) cohort (N=316) (OR=2.09, p=0.03) with trends in the 1.0 and 2.5 mg doses. There was also a positive trend in the Composite SLE Responder Index of the ITT cohort. Post hoc analysis showed that the BILAG secondary endpoint was also met for the 0.5 mg Edratide for a number of subgroup dose levels, including low or no steroids, seropositivity and patients with 2 grade BILAG improvement.

conclusionsThe favourable safety profile and encouraging clinically significant effects noted in some of the endpoints support the need for additional longer term Edratide studies that incorporate recent advances in the understanding and treatment of SLE, including steroid treatment algorithms, and using a composite primary endpoint which is likely to include BILAG. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00203151.

Indexed as

Autoimmune DiseasesSystemic Lupus ErythematosusTreatment

Identifiers

PMID26301100
PMCPMC4538379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.