Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is an immune-mediated spondyloarthropathy with unmet clinical needs. We conducted a superiority, phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of XKH004, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-17A/F in active AS. Of 489 screened patients with inadequate response to conventional therapy, 166 were excluded based on predefined criteria. The remaining 323 eligible patients were randomized 1:1 via a centralized interactive web-response system to receive subcutaneous XKH004 160 mg every 4 weeks or placebo until week 16. All patients completed a 52-week follow-up period, comprising 44 weeks of open-label XKH004 treatment followed by an 8-week safety follow-up. Participants and investigators were blinded to treatment allocation. Efficacy analyses utilized the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test. The primary endpoint was Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 (ASAS40) response at week 16; secondary endpoints included ASAS20/50, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life, and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score. At week 16, ASAS40 response was achieved by 45.4% with XKH004 ( n = 161) vs 19.4% with placebo ( n = 162; absolute difference, 95% confidence interval, 15.47–35.02; P < 0.001), with efficacy in the XKH004 group sustaining and further improving to 66.2% by week 52. Serious adverse events occurred in 1.2% and 2.5% of patients in the XKH004 and placebo groups, respectively. Overall, XKH004 was well tolerated and induced rapid, sustained improvements, supporting its potential as a novel therapeutic option for active AS. The trial was registered in the China Drug Experiment database (CTR20232310) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07498634) and supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Key Research and Development Project, Shanghai Municipal Key Clinical Specialty, and Shanghai Science and Technology Development Funds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: