Inflammatory diseases may display atypical features making such patients impossible to classify. Management of these cases in daily practice cannot rely on the results of clinical trials nor on guidelines. DNA and RNA mapping have become major tools to understand and sometimes direct the treatment strategy in oncology. This study aims to test whether a precise analysis of molecular pathways in inflammatory, non classified diseases, can constitute a predictive tool of therapeutic efficiency
This is a phase IIb study. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of targeted treatments in patients displaying a non-classified, severe and resistant inflammatory disease. Targeted treatments for each patient will have been selected through an algorithm based on molecular analysis of specific altered inflammatory signaling pathway. Treatments consist in targeted therapies approved in other indications (Kineret®, Humira®, Stelara®, Cosentyx®, Roactemra® and Rituximab®) that will be given once selected using molecular analysis and decision making procedure by the Scientific committee. For each patient, one targeted treatment will be administered according to the SmPC procedure for a treatment period of 6 months. Primary efficacy endpoint: Response will be assessed at month 6 with a composite endpoint defined as improvement of at least 2 of the 3 following parameters: * 50% improvement of the systemic activity assessed by the clinician following a visual analog scale (0-10 mm), * and/or 50% improvement of cutaneous activity assessed by the involved skin surface area, * and/or 50% decrease or normalisation of biological markers of inflammation (either CRP, ESR or fibrin). An independent adjudication committee blinded to the treatment received, will review primary endpoint for all patients based on clinical files and standardized photographs, to validate the response. Other secondary criteria will be assessed. Overall, this study will require a molecular analysis done on patient's tissue, the final aim being to evaluate efficiency and tolerance of targeted treatments chosen in a personalized analysis when classification is impossible.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
32
100 mg, once/day sc 6 months
40 mg/15 days sc 6 months
45 mg/12 weeks sc, 6 months
300mg sc every week for 1 month, then 300 mg/month sc for 5 months
480 mg/perf/4 weeks 6 months
2 sessions of 1000 mg at inclusion and 15 days after inclusion
Hôpital Cochin
Paris, France
RECRUITINGComposite clinico-biological evaluation
Response will be assessed at month 6 with a composite endpoint defined as improvement of at least of 2 of the 3 following parameters: * 50% improvement of the systemic activity assessed by the clinician following a visual analog scale (0-10), where clinician will be asked the following question: "Please indicate, according to your clinical experience and taking into account all systemic manifestations, the level of disease activity in this patient using the following scale:" * and/or 50% improvement of cutaneous activity assessed by the involved skin surface area (according the rule of 9%). Standardised skin pictures will be done in order to centrally review cutaneous response. * and/or 50% decrease or normalisation of biological markers of inflammation (either CRP, ESR or fibrin)
Time frame: 6 months
Number of Infections
to evaluate tolerance
Time frame: 12 months
liver cell count toxicities
to evaluate tolerance
Time frame: 12 months
kidney cell count toxicities
to evaluate tolerance
Time frame: 12 months
blood cell count toxicities
to evaluate tolerance
Time frame: 12 months
Change in Physician Global Assessment (PGA)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 1 month,
Change in Physician Global Assessment (PGA)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 3 months,
Change in Physician Global Assessment (PGA)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 6 months,
Change in continuous PGA
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 9 months
Change in continuous PGA
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 12 months
Change in British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 3 months
Change in British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 6 months
Change in British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 9 months
Change in British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 12 months
Change in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Responder Index (SRI)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 3 months
Change in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Responder Index (SRI)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 6 months
Change in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Responder Index (SRI)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 9 months
Change in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Responder Index (SRI)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 12 months
Change in Cutaneous Lupus Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 3 months
Change in Cutaneous Lupus Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 6 months
Change in Cutaneous Lupus Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 9 months
Change in Cutaneous Lupus Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 12 months
Change in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF36)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 3 months
Change in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF36)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 6 months
Change in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF36)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 9 months
Change in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF36)
to evaluate clinical efficiency
Time frame: 12 months
Change in CRP
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 1 month
Change in CRP
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 3 months
Change in CRP
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 6 months
Change in CRP
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 9 months
Change in CRP
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 12 months
Change in ESR (Erythrocyte sedimentation rate)
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 1 month
Change in ESR (Erythrocyte sedimentation rate)
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 3 months
Change in ESR (Erythrocyte sedimentation rate)
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 6 months
Change in ESR (Erythrocyte sedimentation rate)
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 9 months
Change in ESR (Erythrocyte sedimentation rate)
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 12 months
Change in Fibrin
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 1 month,
Change in Fibrin
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 3 months
Change in Fibrin
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 6 months
Change in Fibrin
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 9 months
Change in Fibrin
to evaluate biological efficiency
Time frame: 12 months
Decreased in serum increased cytokines, in selected RNA in peripheral blood and skin specimens
to evaluate targeted biological efficiency
Time frame: 1 month
Decreased in serum increased cytokines, in selected RNA in peripheral blood and skin specimens
to evaluate targeted biological efficiency
Time frame: 3 months
Decreased in serum increased cytokines, in selected RNA in peripheral blood and skin specimens
to evaluate targeted biological efficiency
Time frame: 6 months
Decreased in serum increased cytokines, in selected RNA in peripheral blood and skin specimens
to evaluate targeted biological efficiency
Time frame: 12 months
RNA analysis of targeted cytokines and RNA sequencing
Time frame: 6 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.