↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus patients with the BAFF antagonist “peptibody” blisibimod (AMG 623/A-623): results from randomized, double-blind phase 1a and phase 1b trials

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
patent
2 patents

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus patients with the BAFF antagonist “peptibody” blisibimod (AMG 623/A-623): results from randomized, double-blind phase 1a and phase 1b trials
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13075-015-0741-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

William Stohl, Joan T. Merrill, R. John Looney, Jill Buyon, Daniel J. Wallace, Michael H. Weisman, Ellen M. Ginzler, Blaire Cooke, Donna Holloway, Arunan Kaliyaperumal, Kameswara Rao Kuchimanchi, Tsui Chern Cheah, Erik Rasmussen, John Ferbas, Shelley S. Belouski, Wayne Tsuji, Debra J. Zack

Abstract

Blisibimod is a potent B cell-activating factor (BAFF) antagonist that binds to both cell membrane-expressed and soluble BAFF. The goal of these first-in-human studies was to characterize the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of blisibimod in subjects with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). SLE subjects with mild disease that was stable/inactive at baseline received either a single dose of blisibimod (0.1, 0.3, 1, or 3 mg/kg subcutaneous [SC] or 1, 3, or 6 mg/kg intravenous [IV]) or placebo (phase 1a; N = 54), or four weekly doses of blisibimod (0.3, 1, or 3 mg/kg SC or 6 mg/kg IV) or placebo (phase 1b; N = 63). Safety and tolerability measures were collected, and B cell subset measurements and pharmacokinetic analyses were performed. All subjects (93 % female; mean age 43.7 years) carried the diagnosis of SLE for ≥ 1 year. Single- and multiple-dose treatment with blisibimod produced a decrease in the number of naïve B cells (24-76 %) and a transient relative increase in the memory B cell compartment, with the greatest effect on IgD(-)CD27+; there were no notable changes in T cells or natural killer cells. With time, memory B cells reverted to baseline, leading to a calculated 30 % reduction in total B cells by approximately 160 days after the first dose. In both the single- and multiple-dosing SC cohorts, the pharmacokinetic profile indicated slow absorption, dose-proportional exposure from 0.3 through 3.0 mg/kg SC and 1 through 6 mg/kg IV, linear pharmacokinetics across the dose range of 1.0-6.0 mg/kg, and accumulation ratios ranging from 2.21 to 2.76. The relative increase in memory B cells was not associated with safety signals, and the incidence of adverse events, anti-blisibimod antibodies, and clinical laboratory abnormalities were comparable between blisibimod- and placebo-treated subjects. Blisibimod changed the constituency of the B cell pool and single and multiple doses of blisibimod exhibited approximate dose-proportional pharmacokinetics across the dose range 1.0-6.0 mg/kg. The safety and tolerability profile of blisibimod in SLE was comparable with that of placebo. These findings support further studies of blisibimod in SLE and other B cell-mediated diseases. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02443506 . Registered 11 May 2015. NCT02411136 Registered 7 April 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 91 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 28 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 33%
Psychology 10 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 29 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,202,280
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#399
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,251
of 277,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#9
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.