An Analysis of the Investigational Agent QUC-398 for Knee Osteoarthritis: Development and Discontinuation

I. Introduction to QUC-398: An Investigational Agent for Knee Osteoarthritis

A. Overview of QUC-398 and Its Intended Therapeutic Application

QUC-398 was an investigational drug candidate developed for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA).[1] Knee OA is a highly prevalent and debilitating degenerative joint disease, characterized by the progressive breakdown of articular cartilage, leading to chronic pain, joint stiffness, and significantly reduced mobility.[1] This condition represents a substantial unmet medical need, as current therapies primarily offer symptomatic relief rather than altering the underlying disease course. Consequently, the development of disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs) remains a critical objective in rheumatology and musculoskeletal research.[2] QUC-398 was positioned to potentially address this therapeutic gap. As an investigational treatment, QUC-398 was undergoing clinical trials to evaluate its efficacy, safety, and tolerability, and it had not received regulatory approval for widespread clinical use.[1]

B. Developer and Potential Origin

QUC-398 was developed by Novartis, a global pharmaceutical company with extensive research and development programs.[4] The precise origins of QUC-398 are subject to some ambiguity, particularly concerning its potential relationship to an earlier compound, M6495. In October 2020, Novartis acquired M6495, an anti-ADAMTS5 nanobody, from Merck KGaA in a deal that included an upfront payment of 50 million euros.[4] At the time of this acquisition, M6495 was described as being Phase II-ready for the treatment of osteoarthritis.[4]

Despite the temporal proximity of this acquisition and Novartis's subsequent development of QUC-398 (also an anti-ADAMTS-5 agent for OA), several sources explicitly state that it remains "unclear whether M6495 is QUC398".[4] This lack of definitive public confirmation is noteworthy. If QUC-398 and M6495 are indeed the same entity or directly related (e.g., QUC-398 being a humanized or optimized version of M6495), then the Phase I clinical data reported for M6495—which demonstrated safety, tolerability, and a meaningful reduction in Aggrecan Neoepitope ARGS levels (a biomarker of aggrecan degradation by aggrecanases) in healthy volunteers and OA patients—would provide the foundational early clinical evidence supporting QUC-398's progression into Phase II studies.[6] The persistent ambiguity could stem from various factors, including proprietary considerations during early development, a more complex evolution from M6495 to QUC-398 than a simple renaming, or strategic communication choices by Novartis. This unresolved aspect of QUC-398's provenance is significant when tracing its developmental history. The drug is also referred to by the alternative names QUC 398 and QUC398.[5]

C. Table 1: QUC-398 Key Identifiers and Development Snapshot

Feature	Detail
Alternative Names	QUC 398, QUC398
Developer	Novartis
Potential Origin	M6495 (anti-ADAMTS5 nanobody), licensed from Merck KGaA
Proposed Mechanism of Action	A Disintegrin and Metalloproteinase with Thrombospondin Motifs 5 (ADAMTS-5) inhibitor
Therapeutic Indication	Knee Osteoarthritis (OA)
Highest Development Phase	Phase II
Key Development Event	Development discontinued due to insufficient efficacy in pain relief

Data sourced from:.[4]

II. Proposed Mechanism of Action: Targeting A Disintegrin and Metalloproteinase with Thrombospondin Motifs 5 (ADAMTS-5)

A. The Role of ADAMTS-5 in Osteoarthritis Pathogenesis

A Disintegrin and Metalloproteinase with Thrombospondin Motifs 5 (ADAMTS-5), also known as aggrecanase-2, is an enzyme that plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis.[4] It is a key mediator of aggrecan degradation. Aggrecan is a large proteoglycan and a critical structural component of articular cartilage, responsible for providing cartilage with its compressive strength and resilience through its ability to bind water.[1] The enzymatic cleavage of aggrecan by ADAMTS-5 leads to the loss of this essential proteoglycan from the cartilage matrix. This compromises the biomechanical integrity of the cartilage, rendering it more susceptible to damage and erosion under load, a hallmark of OA progression. ADAMTS-5 is known to be expressed in human cartilage tissue.[4] Consequently, the inhibition of ADAMTS-5 activity has been pursued as a rational, disease-modifying therapeutic strategy in OA, with the hypothesis that preventing aggrecan breakdown could preserve cartilage structure, slow disease progression, and alleviate associated symptoms such as pain.[2]

B. QUC-398 as an Investigational ADAMTS-5 Inhibitor

QUC-398 was developed and investigated as an inhibitor of ADAMTS-5.[4] The intended therapeutic effect of QUC-398, by targeting ADAMTS-5, was to protect against cartilage damage and, consequently, reduce joint pain in individuals with knee OA.[2] Patient-facing literature for the CQUC398 study explicitly stated that "the investigational treatment QUC398 is expected to stop one of the most important of these proteins [responsible for cartilage damage and pain] and thereby decreasing cartilage damage and pain".[2]

It is pertinent to note that some drug information databases list the mechanism of action (MoA) for QUC-398 as "Unknown".[5] This apparent discrepancy likely reflects the difference between the investigational hypothesis driving the drug's development (ADAMTS-5 inhibition) and the formally characterized and publicly disclosed comprehensive pharmacological profile, which often occurs at later stages of development or upon publication of detailed study results. However, the preponderance of evidence from news reports detailing its development and termination, along with the description of M6495 (its potential precursor), strongly indicates that ADAMTS-5 inhibition was the primary intended mechanism for QUC-398.

The clinical failure of QUC-398, despite a strong biological rationale for targeting ADAMTS-5, highlights a significant challenge in translating mechanistic understanding into clinical efficacy. This outcome, particularly when viewed alongside the failure of other ADAMTS-5 inhibitors such as GLPG1972 [4], suggests a potential disconnect. While the role of ADAMTS-5 in cartilage degradation is scientifically well-established, its inhibition alone may not be sufficient to significantly alter the clinical course of established human OA, especially concerning pain, which is a complex, multifactorial symptom. The contribution of ADAMTS-5 to the overall disease process in humans might be more nuanced than preclinical models suggest, or other catabolic pathways may play more dominant or compensatory roles. Furthermore, the timing of intervention (early versus late-stage OA) and specific patient phenotypes could influence the responsiveness to such targeted therapy. The complexity of pain generation in OA, involving inflammatory mediators, subchondral bone changes, and neuropathic components, may also mean that addressing a single cartilage-degrading enzyme is insufficient to achieve clinically meaningful pain relief.

While QUC-398 was reported to have a "good safety profile" [4], suggesting a lack of overt toxicity, the specificity of enzyme inhibitors like QUC-398 is a critical factor. The ADAMTS family comprises multiple metalloproteinases with diverse physiological roles. Although specific data on QUC-398's selectivity for ADAMTS-5 versus other ADAMTS isoforms or unrelated metalloproteinases are not available in the provided materials, any significant off-target inhibition could lead to unforeseen biological effects or confound the interpretation of clinical results. However, given the reported safety, major issues related to off-target effects seem less likely to have been the primary cause of its failure.

III. Clinical Development Program of QUC-398

A. Overview of Phase II Clinical Trials

QUC-398 advanced into Phase II clinical development for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.[4] This phase of development is crucial for obtaining initial proof-of-concept regarding a drug's efficacy and for further evaluating its safety in a larger patient population than in Phase I studies. The most prominently documented clinical trial for QUC-398 is identified by the ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05462990, which corresponds to the sponsor protocol code CQUC398A12201.[8] This study was also registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register under the EudraCT number 2021-002795-39.[5] This trial was designed as a proof-of-concept, randomized, two-arm, placebo-controlled, participant, investigator, and sponsor-blinded (triple-blind) study.[1] Such a rigorous design is standard for Phase IIa studies aiming to establish preliminary efficacy and safety, with triple-blinding implemented to minimize potential bias in conduct and assessment.

B. Study Designs, Patient Populations, and Key Endpoints

The CQUC398A12201 trial (NCT05462990 / EudraCT 2021-002795-39) was central to the Phase II evaluation of QUC-398.

Objectives: The primary objective of this trial was to assess the efficacy of QUC-398 compared to placebo in relieving osteoarthritis pain in the target knee.[1] Secondary objectives were comprehensive, aiming to evaluate the efficacy of QUC-398 versus placebo in the preservation of cartilage (specifically in the medial compartment of the target knee), its effect on pain relief over an extended period, its impact on other clinical symptoms and knee function, and its overall safety and tolerability profile.[1]

Patient Population: The trial enrolled adult participants, typically aged between 40 and 80 years, with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.[8] Key inclusion criteria were designed to select a relatively homogeneous population with established disease suitable for assessing both symptomatic and potential structural effects. These criteria included: a body weight greater than or equal to 50 kg and a body mass index (BMI) between 18 and 35 kg/m²; a Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade of 2 to 4 in the tibiofemoral compartment of the target knee (confirmed by radiography); radiographic evidence of medial joint space narrowing (mJSN grade 1-2); moderate to severe knee pain, defined as a score of greater than or equal to 5 and less than or equal to 9 on a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for the majority of days in the preceding three months; and a Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain subscale score of less than or equal to 60.[8] The planned enrollment for the trial was approximately 98 to 123 participants across multiple international sites, including Denmark, France, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.[5] The actual enrollment in the trial that was ultimately terminated was reported to be 101 patients.[4]

Key Endpoints: The primary endpoint for assessing efficacy was the change from baseline in the KOOS Pain sub-scale at Week 12.[1] Secondary endpoints included the change from baseline in cartilage volume of the knee index region at Week 52, as determined from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans. Other secondary endpoints encompassed changes in various KOOS subscales (Other Symptoms, Function in Daily Living, Function in Sport and Recreation, and Knee-related Quality of Life), pain intensity assessed by NRS, and the Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of their condition. Comprehensive safety and tolerability assessments, including electrocardiograms (ECGs), vital signs, and laboratory tests, were also integral secondary endpoints.[1] The inclusion of both patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and an objective structural marker (MRI-based cartilage volume) reflected the dual aspiration of achieving symptomatic relief and demonstrating disease-modifying potential.

Duration: The planned treatment and observation period for participants was 52 weeks.[1] Some sources indicate a total study duration of approximately 16 months or 66 weeks, which likely includes screening and post-treatment follow-up periods.[2] During the active treatment phase, participants were scheduled to receive a total of 13 injections.[2]

The robust design of the CQUC398A12201 trial—being randomized, placebo-controlled, triple-blind, multi-center, and utilizing well-defined endpoints including both PROs and imaging—suggests that its findings, even if leading to a negative conclusion regarding efficacy, would likely be considered reliable. This level of rigor is essential for making informed decisions in drug development.

C. Investigated Routes of Administration and Dosage Regimens

A critical and somewhat perplexing aspect of QUC-398's clinical development concerns its route of administration.

Subcutaneous (s.c.) Administration for NCT05462990 / CQUC398A12201: The trial registry entries for NCT05462990 and its corresponding EudraCT number (2021-002795-39) consistently describe QUC-398 as being administered via subcutaneous injection.[1] The dosage regimen specified was 300 mg per dose. This total dose was achieved by administering two separate 1 mL injections of a 150 mg/mL solution of QUC-398.[1] The frequency of these subcutaneous injections was every four weeks (q4w).[1]

Intra-articular (IA) Administration for the Terminated Phase II Trial: In stark contrast to the trial registry information for NCT05462990, multiple news reports concerning the termination of QUC-398 development explicitly state that the discontinued Phase II study was evaluating QUC-398 administered as an intra-articular injection.[4] One report even links the terminated NCT05462990 study directly to this intra-articular administration.[7]

This discrepancy regarding the route of administration is significant. Subcutaneous administration involves systemic drug delivery, whereas intra-articular injection delivers the drug directly into the synovial joint space, aiming for high local concentrations at the target tissue. The pharmacological behavior, efficacy, and safety profiles can differ substantially between these two routes. Several possibilities could explain this conflict:

1. The NCT05462990 trial might have included multiple arms with different formulations or routes of administration (i.e., both s.c. and IA arms), and the failure of an IA arm (perhaps not fully detailed in publicly accessible registry summaries, which focus on the s.c. arms) led to the termination of the entire study. However, the detailed trial descriptions in registries like EudraCT [9] and ClinicalTrials.gov summaries [8] only delineate two arms: subcutaneous QUC398 and subcutaneous placebo.
2. The news reports might be referring to a different Phase II trial of QUC-398 that was evaluating an IA formulation (perhaps with a different, less prominently cited trial identifier not captured in the provided materials), and the failure of this IA study triggered the discontinuation of the entire QUC-398 program, including the s.c. trial NCT05462990.
3. There could be an error in the news reporting, either misattributing the IA route to NCT05462990 specifically or generalizing from an IA formulation failure to the broader QUC-398 program that also encompassed the s.c. trial.

Given the consistency across several reputable news sources emphasizing intra-articular administration for the terminated trial [4], it is plausible that an IA formulation of QUC-398 was indeed tested and its failure was the pivotal event. If this is the case, the s.c. trial NCT05462990 may have been halted as a direct consequence of the negative outcome observed with the IA formulation, deeming the overall mechanism or molecule unviable for Novartis. This unresolved discrepancy must be acknowledged as a limitation of the publicly available data and a point of conflicting information.

D. Table 2: Summary of Key Clinical Trials for QUC-398 in Knee Osteoarthritis

Feature	Details for CQUC398A12201 (NCT05462990 / EudraCT 2021-002795-39)
Trial Identifier	NCT05462990; EudraCT 2021-002795-39
Phase	Phase II (specifically Phase IIa proof-of-concept)
Study Title/Brief Description	A randomized, two-arm, placebo-controlled, participant, investigator and sponsor-blinded, proof-of-concept study investigating the efficacy, safety and tolerability of QUC398 in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.
Design	Randomized, placebo-controlled, triple-blind, parallel-group, multi-center
No. of Participants	Planned: ~98-123; Actual (in terminated trial): 101
Key Interventions (as per registry)	Experimental: QUC398 300 mg (2 x 150 mg/mL s.c. injections) q4w. Comparator: Placebo (2 x s.c. injections) q4w.
Route of Administration (in terminated trial, per news reports)	Intra-articular injection
Primary Endpoint(s)	Change from baseline in KOOS Pain sub-scale at Week 12
Status	Terminated (due to sponsor decision / insufficient efficacy)
Reason for Termination	Insufficient effect on pain relief based on interim analysis

Data sourced from:.[1]

IV. Efficacy and Safety Findings from Clinical Trials

A. Summary of Efficacy Results: Impact on Pain and Cartilage

The clinical development of QUC-398 was ultimately curtailed due to a lack of convincing efficacy.

Primary Efficacy Failure: The pivotal Phase II trial evaluating QUC-398 was terminated prematurely following an interim analysis. This analysis revealed an "insufficient effect on pain relief".[4] The primary outcome measure for the NCT05462990 study, which was designed to assess pain, was the change from baseline in the KOOS pain sub-scale at week 12.[1] It is presumed that the interim data did not demonstrate a clinically meaningful or statistically significant improvement on this endpoint (or show a promising trajectory towards achieving it) with QUC-398 compared to placebo, thus triggering the decision to halt development.

Cartilage Preservation: One of the key secondary objectives of the QUC-398 clinical program was to assess its potential to preserve articular cartilage, typically measured by quantitative MRI.[1] Specific data regarding QUC-398's effect on cartilage volume or thickness from the terminated trial are not provided in the available documentation. However, the comprehensive discontinuation of the program for knee OA suggests that any observed structural effects, if present, were not sufficiently compelling to warrant continued development, especially in the absence of a clear symptomatic benefit. In osteoarthritis drug development, while structural modification is a highly desired DMOAD outcome, a lack of improvement in patient-reported symptoms like pain often leads to termination, as pain relief is a primary driver for patient quality of life and regulatory approval for symptomatic indications.

B. Safety and Tolerability Profile of QUC-398

Despite the failure to demonstrate adequate efficacy, QUC-398 was reported to possess a "good safety profile." According to a Novartis spokesperson, the interim analysis of the terminated Phase II trial indicated that the candidate was well-tolerated.[4]

The clinical trials for QUC-398 incorporated comprehensive safety monitoring protocols. These included regular assessments of vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), standard laboratory tests (hematology, blood chemistry, and urinalysis), and the systematic recording and evaluation of all adverse events, including treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).[9] Beyond the general statement affirming a "good safety profile," specific details regarding the incidence or nature of common TEAEs or any particular SAEs associated with QUC-398 are not available in the provided materials.

The observation of a "good safety profile" juxtaposed with "insufficient efficacy" is a critical finding. It suggests that QUC-398 likely engaged its intended target, ADAMTS-5, without causing unacceptable systemic toxicity or local adverse reactions at the doses tested. However, this target engagement did not translate into the desired clinical benefit in terms of pain reduction. This dissociation between acceptable safety and inadequate efficacy points more towards a potential issue with the therapeutic validity of ADAMTS-5 inhibition as a monotherapy for established OA pain, or with this specific molecule's ability to elicit a response, rather than a failure due to drug-specific toxicity.

Furthermore, the decision to terminate the QUC-398 development program was based on an interim analysis.[4] This underscores the utility of pre-specified interim evaluations in clinical trials, particularly for Phase II proof-of-concept studies. Such analyses allow for early stopping for futility if the accumulating data suggest a low probability of achieving the study's primary objectives. This practice is vital for efficient resource allocation in pharmaceutical R&D and for minimizing the exposure of additional patients to an investigational agent that is unlikely to provide benefit.

C. Table 3: Overview of Reported Efficacy and Safety Outcomes for QUC-398

Outcome Category	Specific Measure/Assessment	Reported Result
Pain Relief (Primary Efficacy)	Change from baseline in KOOS Pain sub-scale at Week 12 (presumed from primary endpoint of NCT05462990)	"Insufficient effect on pain relief" based on interim analysis, leading to trial and program termination.
Cartilage Preservation (Secondary Efficacy)	Change from baseline in cartilage volume of the knee index region at Week 52 (MRI-based)	No specific data reported from the terminated trial; program discontinuation suggests results were not sufficiently promising.
Overall Safety and Tolerability	Assessment by Novartis spokesperson based on interim analysis; Comprehensive safety monitoring (AEs, vitals, ECGs, labs) in trials.	"Good safety profile" reported for QUC-398 in the terminated Phase II trial.

Data sourced from:.[1]

V. Discontinuation of QUC-398 Development

A. Timeline and Stated Reasons for Termination

Novartis made the decision to discontinue the further development of QUC398 for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.[4] This decision was a direct consequence of findings from an interim analysis of a Phase II clinical trial. As previously noted, this trial was reportedly evaluating an intra-articular injection formulation of QUC398.[4] The primary reason cited for the termination was that the interim analysis revealed an "insufficient effect on pain relief".[4]

According to a Novartis spokesperson and an updated entry on ClinicalTrials.gov, the study was discontinued in December.[7] News articles widely reported this development around April 2025.[4] The Phase II trial NCT05462990 had commenced in November 2022.[7] The primary completion date for one of the registered Phase II trials (CQUC398A12201 / NCT05462990) was anticipated for April 8, 2025 [5], indicating that the termination occurred significantly ahead of the planned study completion. The discrepancy between the December discontinuation and the April 2025 public reporting likely reflects the interval between the internal corporate decision based on the interim data and the subsequent official communication and dissemination of this information.

B. Implications of the Interim Analysis Findings

The findings from the interim analysis had profound implications for the QUC-398 program. The primary conclusion was that QUC-398 was unlikely to achieve its primary efficacy endpoint related to pain reduction in patients with knee OA. Despite the concurrent observation of a "good safety profile" [4], the absence of a clear efficacy signal rendered further investment in and development of QUC-398 for this indication non-viable from Novartis's perspective.

Following this decision, QUC-398 is reportedly not included in Novartis's publicly available online pipeline of investigational drugs. Furthermore, at the time of the announcement, there was no information provided by the company regarding any potential plans to assess QUC-398 for other medical indications.[4] This effectively signaled a definitive cessation of the QUC-398 program, at least concerning knee osteoarthritis, and cast significant doubt on any future development of this particular asset by Novartis.

The termination of QUC-398 based on a Phase II interim analysis, despite its favorable safety findings, is illustrative of the "fail fast, fail cheap" philosophy that has gained traction in pharmaceutical research and development. This strategy emphasizes making critical go/no-go decisions at earlier stages of development to avoid the substantial costs and resource commitments associated with large-scale Phase III trials for drug candidates with a low probability of success. Early termination for futility, while disappointing, allows companies to redirect resources towards more promising assets in their portfolio.

If the pivotal trial leading to termination was indeed evaluating an intra-articular formulation, as suggested by multiple news reports [4], its failure likely had a decisive impact on the entire QUC-398 program. Intra-articular delivery is a direct route to the target joint, often considered to have a higher likelihood of achieving therapeutic concentrations locally. If even this direct local delivery of an ADAMTS-5 inhibitor failed to yield sufficient pain relief, the company may have concluded that the prospects for a systemically delivered (subcutaneous) formulation of the same or a similar molecule, relying on systemic absorption to reach the joint, would be even less favorable. Thus, a negative outcome in an IA study could plausibly lead to a loss of confidence in the overall therapeutic hypothesis for QUC-398 in OA, prompting the discontinuation of all related development efforts for this indication, including any ongoing or planned studies with subcutaneous formulations like that detailed in NCT05462990.

VI. The Broader Landscape: ADAMTS-5 Inhibition in Osteoarthritis

A. Comparison with Other Investigational ADAMTS-5 Inhibitors

The discontinuation of QUC-398 is not an isolated incident within the field of ADAMTS-5 inhibitor development for osteoarthritis. It adds to a growing list of setbacks for this class of therapeutic agents. Notably, another ADAMTS-5 inhibitor, GLPG1972 (also known as S201086), which was being co-developed by Galapagos and Servier, also failed to demonstrate efficacy in a Phase II clinical trial (the ROCCELLA study). In 2020, the companies announced that the trial did not meet its objectives, with topline results showing "no signal of activity" for GLPG1972 compared to placebo in terms of changes in cartilage thickness (assessed by MRI) or clinical outcomes after 52 weeks of treatment.[4] This earlier failure of a different molecular entity targeting the same enzyme, ADAMTS-5, underscores the inherent challenges in translating the preclinical promise of this therapeutic approach into tangible clinical benefits for OA patients.

B. Challenges and Future Perspectives for ADAMTS-5 as a Therapeutic Target in OA

Currently, there are no approved anti-ADAMTS-5 treatments available on the market for osteoarthritis.[4] The repeated failures of investigational ADAMTS-5 inhibitors in Phase II clinical trials, including QUC-398 and GLPG1972, raise significant questions about the overall viability of ADAMTS-5 inhibition as a standalone therapeutic strategy for established knee osteoarthritis, particularly for achieving meaningful pain relief.

Several factors could contribute to these disappointing outcomes:

1. Complexity of ADAMTS-5's Role: The biological role of ADAMTS-5 in human OA may be more complex or redundant than initially understood from preclinical models. Other enzymes or pathways might compensate for its inhibition or play more dominant roles in cartilage degradation and symptom generation in established disease.
2. Stage of Disease and Intervention Window: Targeting cartilage degradation by inhibiting ADAMTS-5 might be an effective strategy only at very early stages of OA, potentially before significant structural damage and symptomatic disease have developed. In patients with established, symptomatic OA (typically enrolled in Phase II/III trials), the disease process may be too advanced for ADAMTS-5 inhibition alone to effect a substantial change in trajectory or symptoms.
3. Multifactorial Nature of OA Pain: Pain in osteoarthritis is a complex phenomenon driven by multiple factors, including not only cartilage degradation but also synovitis (inflammation of the synovial membrane), subchondral bone changes, and sensitization of peripheral and central pain pathways. An intervention solely focused on inhibiting one cartilage-degrading enzyme may not adequately address these diverse pain mechanisms.
4. Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Challenges: Achieving adequate, sustained, and localized target engagement (i.e., sufficient inhibition of ADAMTS-5 within the joint cartilage) over the long term with systemically or even intra-articularly administered drugs can be challenging.

The discontinuation of QUC-398 development "marks another setback in the quest for effective treatments targeting ADAMTS-5 for osteoarthritis".[13] This pattern of failures for ADAMTS-5 inhibitors suggests a potential class-wide difficulty in demonstrating clinical efficacy for OA, at least with the approaches and molecules tested thus far. This trend significantly tempers enthusiasm for ADAMTS-5 as a primary DMOAD target and may encourage a shift in research and development focus towards alternative mechanisms or combination therapies for OA.

The difficulties encountered by QUC-398 and other ADAMTS-5 inhibitors are reflective of the broader, persistent challenge in developing effective DMOADs for osteoarthritis.[2] Osteoarthritis is a heterogeneous and complex disease involving pathological changes in multiple joint tissues, including cartilage, subchondral bone, and the synovium, driven by a variety of mechanical, inflammatory, and metabolic factors.[3] Single-target therapeutic approaches have, to date, largely failed to deliver transformative DMOADs. The experience with QUC-398 reinforces the notion that achieving true disease modification in OA is an exceptionally difficult endeavor, likely requiring more sophisticated strategies such as combination therapies, more precise patient stratification to identify subgroups most likely to respond to specific mechanisms, or interventions that target multiple pathological pathways concurrently.

VII. Concluding Summary

A. Recapitulation of QUC-398's Development Trajectory

QUC-398, an investigational agent developed by Novartis, was pursued as a potential treatment for knee osteoarthritis. Its proposed mechanism of action was the inhibition of ADAMTS-5, an enzyme critically involved in cartilage degradation. There is speculation, though not definitively confirmed, that QUC-398 may have originated from or been related to M6495, an anti-ADAMTS5 nanobody acquired by Novartis from Merck KGaA. QUC-398 advanced to Phase II clinical trials, with the CQUC398A12201 study (NCT05462990 / EudraCT 2021-002795-39) being a key component of this program, designed to evaluate a subcutaneously administered formulation. However, Novartis ultimately discontinued the development of QUC-398 for knee osteoarthritis. This decision was made in December, as reported in April 2025, following an interim analysis of a Phase II trial—reportedly evaluating an intra-articular injection of QUC-398—which revealed an insufficient effect on pain relief.

B. Key Learnings from the QUC-398 Program

The development and subsequent discontinuation of QUC-398 offer several important learnings for the field of osteoarthritis drug development:

1. Efficacy Failure Despite Safety: The primary reason for the program's termination was a lack of sufficient efficacy in alleviating knee OA pain, despite QUC-398 demonstrating a good safety profile in the clinical trials. This highlights that safety alone is not enough for a drug to advance if it fails to meet its efficacy objectives.
2. Challenges for ADAMTS-5 Inhibition: The failure of QUC-398, when considered alongside similar outcomes for other investigational ADAMTS-5 inhibitors like GLPG1972, casts further doubt on the viability of ADAMTS-5 inhibition as a standalone therapeutic strategy for providing significant clinical benefit in established, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. It suggests that the role of ADAMTS-5 in human OA, or its amenability to therapeutic modulation for symptomatic relief, may be more complex than anticipated from preclinical data.
3. The DMOAD Quest Continues: The QUC-398 experience underscores the ongoing and significant challenges in developing effective disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs). Osteoarthritis remains a condition with a high unmet medical need for therapies that can slow, halt, or reverse disease progression.
4. Value of Rigorous Trial Design and Interim Analyses: The QUC-398 program utilized rigorously designed Phase II trials. The decision to terminate based on a pre-specified interim analysis demonstrates the importance of such mechanisms in making timely, data-driven decisions to halt further investment in unpromising candidates, thereby optimizing resource allocation in pharmaceutical R&D.
5. Unresolved Data Discrepancies: Certain aspects of QUC-398's history remain incompletely elucidated from public domain information, including the definitive link, if any, between M6495 and QUC-398, and the precise details and interplay between the subcutaneous trial (NCT05462990) and the reportedly intra-articular trial whose interim analysis triggered the program's termination. The conflicting information regarding the route of administration in the pivotal terminated trial remains a point of ambiguity.

In conclusion, while QUC-398 did not fulfill its therapeutic promise for knee osteoarthritis, its development journey contributes valuable, albeit negative, data to the broader efforts to understand and treat this complex and prevalent joint disease. The lessons learned from its failure will inform future research and development strategies for OA therapeutics.

Works cited

1. Quc398 – Application in Therapy and Current Clinical Research, accessed May 20, 2025, https://clinicaltrials.eu/inn/quc398/
2. CQUC398 Study — Osteoarthritis Clinical Research Group, accessed May 20, 2025, https://www.osteoarthritisresearch.com.au/cquc398-study
3. Editor's Pick: New Developments in Clinical Trials for Osteoarthritis: Are We Closer to Improving Pain Management and Disease Modification? - EMJ, accessed May 20, 2025, https://www.emjreviews.com/flagship-journal/article/editors-pick-new-developments-in-clinical-trials-for-osteoarthritis-are-we-closer-to-improving-pain-management-and-disease-modification-j190324/
4. Novartis terminates phase 2 osteoarthritis trial testing ADAMTS-5 inhibitor - Fierce Biotech, accessed May 20, 2025, https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/novartis-terminates-phase-2-osteoarthritis-trial-testing-adamts-5-inhibitor
5. QUC-398 Drug Profile - Ozmosi, accessed May 20, 2025, https://pryzm.ozmosi.com/product/26636
6. Out-Licensing Agreement for Phase II-ready Anti ... - Merck Group, accessed May 20, 2025, https://www.merckgroup.com/en/news/out-licensing-anti-adamts5-06-10-2020.html
7. Novartis pulls plug on Phase II knee osteoarthritis treatment - FirstWord Pharma, accessed May 20, 2025, https://firstwordpharma.com/story/5950339
8. A Proof-of-concept Study to Examine QUC398 in Participants With ..., accessed May 20, 2025, https://trials.arthritis.org/trials/NCT05462990
9. EU Clinical Trials Register, accessed May 20, 2025, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2021-002795-39/DK
10. Registration - ANZCTR, accessed May 20, 2025, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=20908&isClinicalTrial=True
11. Study on the Effects of QUC398 for Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis - Clinical trials, accessed May 20, 2025, https://clinicaltrials.eu/trial/study-on-the-effects-of-quc398-for-patients-with-knee-osteoarthritis/
12. EU Clinical Trials Register, accessed May 20, 2025, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2021-002795-39/ES
13. Novartis ends phase 2 osteoarthritis trial of ADAMTS-5 inhibitor - Patsnap Synapse, accessed May 20, 2025, https://synapse.patsnap.com/article/novartis-ends-phase-2-osteoarthritis-trial-of-adamts-5-inhibitor