Safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: Results of a forty‐eight–week randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,parallel‐group phase III trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with ocrelizumab plus methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to MTX.

Methods

STAGE was a phase III randomized, double‐blind, parallel‐group international study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab compared with placebo in patients with active RA continuing MTX treatment. Patients receiving stable doses of MTX were randomized to receive 2 infusions of placebo (n = 320), ocrelizumab 200 mg (n = 343), or ocrelizumab 500 mg (n = 343) on days 1 and 15 as well as weeks 24 and 26. Coprimary end points were the proportion of patients with an American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response at weeks 24 and 48. Secondary end points included the change from baseline in the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS) and the ACR50/70 responses.

Results

The ACR20 response rates were 35.7% in the placebo group, 56.9% in the ocrelizumab 200 mg group, and 54.5% in the ocrelizumab 500 mg group at 24 weeks, and 27.6%, 58.3%, and 62.1%, respectively, at 48 weeks (P < 0.0001 versus placebo for each dose at both time points). At week 48, both of the ocrelizumab doses improved the ACR50 and ACR70 response rates 3‐fold as compared with placebo and showed a statistically significant (P < 0.0001) reduction in joint damage progression relative to placebo (mean change in SHS reduced by 85% and 100% for the 200‐mg and 500‐mg doses, respectively). Rates of serious infection were comparable in the placebo (3.48 per 100 patient‐years) and ocrelizumab 200 mg (3.54 per 100 patient‐years) groups but were elevated in the ocrelizumab 500 mg group (8.66 per 100 patient‐years).

Conclusion

With both ocrelizumab doses, the primary end point was met, and the signs and symptoms of RA were significantly improved at weeks 24 and 48. Ocrelizumab also significantly inhibited the progression of joint damage. A higher rate of serious infections was observed with 500 mg of ocrelizumab as compared with ocrelizumab 200 mg or placebo.

     

Effect of folic or folinic acid supplementation on the toxicity and efficacy of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: A forty‐eight–week,multicenter, randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study

Objective

To study the effect of folates on discontinuation of methotrexate (MTX) as single‐drug antirheumatic treatment due to toxicity, to determine which type of adverse events are reduced, to study the effects on the efficacy of MTX, and to compare folic with folinic acid supplementation in a 48‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial.

Methods

Patients with active RA (n = 434) were randomly assigned to receive MTX plus either placebo, folic acid (1 mg/day), or folinic acid (2.5 mg/week). The initial MTX dosage was 7.5 mg/week; dosage increases were allowed up to a maximum of 25 mg/week for insufficient responses. Folate dosages were doubled once the dosage of MTX reached 15 mg/week. The primary end point was MTX withdrawal because of adverse events. Secondary end points were the MTX dosage and parameters of efficacy and toxicity of MTX.

Results

Toxicity‐related discontinuation of MTX occurred in 38% of the placebo group, 17% of the folic acid group, and 12% of the folinic acid group. These between‐group differences were explained by a decreased incidence of elevated liver enzyme levels in the folate supplementation groups. No between‐group differences were found in the frequency of other adverse events or in the duration of adverse events. Parameters of disease activity improved equally in all groups. Mean dosages of MTX at the end of the study were lower in the placebo group (14.5 mg/week) than in the folic and folinic acid groups (18.0 and 16.4 mg/week, respectively).

Conclusion

Both folate supplementation regimens reduced the incidence of elevated liver enzyme levels during MTX therapy, and as a consequence, MTX was discontinued less frequently in these patients. Folates seem to have no effect on the incidence, severity, and duration of other adverse events, including gastrointestinal and mucosal side effects. Slightly higher dosages of MTX were prescribed to obtain similar improvement in disease activity in the folate supplementation groups.

     

The effects of intravenous doxycycline therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To determine the feasibility, safety, and potential clinical efficacy of intravenous (IV) doxycycline therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as well as its possible effects on serum and urinary markers of collagen breakdown.

Methods

The exploratory trial was designed as a 16‐week, single‐center, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Eligible subjects with active seropositive or erosive RA were randomly allocated into 3 treatment groups: doxycycline 200 mg IV, azithromycin 250 mg orally, or placebo. The blinded IV study drug was administered once daily for the first 3 weeks by home self‐infusion and then weekly for the next 8 weeks, concurrent with the blinded oral study drug at the prescribed doses. The primary end points were the change between baseline and week 4 in the tender joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and urinary excretion of pyridinoline.

Results

The trial was stopped prematurely after enrollment of 31 patients. Three subjects were withdrawn because of worsening arthritis, and 1 patient was withdrawn when newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Infusion‐related events occurred in 13 (42%) of 31 patients, but none were serious. There were 4 serious adverse events unrelated to the study drug, including a new diagnosis of breast cancer in 3 cases and hospitalization for abdominal pain in 1 case. No significant differences were observed across treatment groups in any of the 3 primary clinical end points.

Conclusion

Although IV doxycycline therapy was generally well‐tolerated by patients in this trial, it did not show any evidence of reducing disease activity or collagen crosslink production.

     

A 48‐week,randomized, double‐blind,double‐observer,placebo‐controlled multicenter trial of combination methotrexate and intramuscular gold therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: Results of the METGO study

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding intramuscular (IM) gold to the treatment regimen of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have a suboptimal response to methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

A randomized, double‐blind, double‐observer, placebo‐controlled multicenter trial of 48 weeks was conducted. Sixty‐five RA patients who had a suboptimal response to ≥12 weeks of MTX therapy were randomly assigned to receive weekly IM gold or placebo in addition to MTX. Gold was administered according to a standard protocol developed for the study. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients who met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at week 48. Secondary outcomes included the percentages of patients achieving ACR50 and ACR70 responses, the individual criteria that make up the primary outcome, quality of life, direct and indirect health care costs, intraarticular steroid use, and adverse events, among other measures. Statistical analyses were based on an intent‐to‐treat strategy.

Results

Sixty‐one percent of patients receiving gold achieved an ACR20 response compared with 30% of patients receiving placebo (χ² = 6.04, P = 0.014; logistic regression odds ratio 3.64 [95% confidence interval 1.3, 10.4], P = 0.016). Twenty‐six percent of patients receiving gold achieved an ACR50 response compared with 4% of patients receiving placebo (P = 0.017), and 21% of patients receiving gold achieved an ACR70 response compared with 0% of patients receiving placebo (P = 0.011). From both clinical and cost‐effectiveness perspectives, gold was the preferred and dominant strategy. Study treatment was discontinued in 23 patients (14 in the placebo group compared with 9 in the gold group; P = 0.022) due to loss to followup, adverse events, or lack of efficacy.

Conclusion

In RA patients with a suboptimal response to MTX, adding weekly IM gold causes significant clinical improvement. Adverse events were minor, and IM gold–related adverse events led to discontinuation in only 11% of the gold group over 48 weeks.

     

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of terguride in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome: Results of a twelve‐week,multicenter, randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,parallel‐group study

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of terguride, a partial dopamine agonist, in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS).

Methods

In a 12‐week, multicenter, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study, 99 patients were randomized at a ratio of 2 to 1 to receive terguride or placebo. Over 21 days, the dosage was titrated to a maximum daily dose of 3 mg of terguride or placebo, and this fixed dosage was continued over 9 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the intensity of pain (100‐mm visual analog scale). Secondary efficacy variables included the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) score, the tender point score (TPS), and the Hamilton Depression Scale (HDS) score. During the study, patients were evaluated for the presence of cervical spine stenosis by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Results

No significant differences in the change in pain intensity, FIQ score, TPS, or HDS score between baseline and 12 weeks were observed in the terguride group as compared with the placebo group. Cervical spine stenosis was detected in 22% of the patients. Only patients with cervical spine stenosis responded to terguride treatment. FIQ scores improved significantly (per‐protocol analysis), and pain intensity, the TPS score, and the HDS score showed a trend toward improvement in the terguride group as compared with the placebo group. Terguride treatment was safe. Only those adverse events already known to be side effects of terguride were observed. Premature termination of the study in patients receiving terguride (26%) occurred predominantly during up‐titration and in the absence of comedication for treatment of nausea.

Conclusion

Terguride treatment did not improve pain, the FIQ score, the TPS, or the HDS score in the total study population. However, a subgroup of patients with cervical spine stenosis seemed to benefit from terguride treatment.

     

Efficacy of methotrexate treatment in patients with probable rheumatoid arthritis: A double‐blind,randomized, placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To determine whether patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA; inflammatory, nontraumatic arthritis that cannot be diagnosed using current classification criteria) benefit from treatment with methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

The PRObable rheumatoid arthritis: Methotrexate versus Placebo Treatment (PROMPT) study was a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized, multicenter trial involving 110 patients with UA who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1958 criteria for probable RA. Treatment started with MTX (15 mg/week) or placebo tablets, and every 3 months the dosage was increased if the Disease Activity Score was >2.4. After 12 months, the study medication was tapered and discontinued. Patients were followed up for 30 months. When a patient fulfilled the ACR criteria for RA (primary end point), the study medication was changed to MTX. Joint damage was scored on radiographs of the hands and feet.

Results

In 22 of the 55 patients (40%) in the MTX group, UA progressed to RA compared with 29 of 55 patients (53%) in the placebo group. However, in the MTX group, patients fulfilled the ACR criteria for RA at a later time point than in the placebo group (P = 0.04), and fewer patients showed radiographic progression over 18 months (P = 0.046).

Conclusion

This study provides evidence for the efficacy of MTX treatment in postponing the diagnosis of RA, as defined by the ACR 1987 criteria, and retarding radiographic joint damage in UA patients.

     

Rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy: Results of a multicenter,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,phase III trial evaluating primary efficacy and safety at twenty‐four weeks

Objective

To determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti‐TNF) therapies and to explore the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rituximab in this population.

Methods

We evaluated primary efficacy and safety at 24 weeks in patients enrolled in the Randomized Evaluation of Long‐Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA (REFLEX) Trial, a 2‐year, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase III study of rituximab therapy. Patients with active RA and an inadequate response to 1 or more anti‐TNF agents were randomized to receive intravenous rituximab (1 course, consisting of 2 infusions of 1,000 mg each) or placebo, both with background MTX. The primary efficacy end point was a response on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks. Secondary end points were responses on the ACR50 and ACR70 improvement criteria, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria at 24 weeks. Additional end points included scores on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT‐F), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index (DI), and Short Form 36 (SF‐36) instruments, as well as Genant‐modified Sharp radiographic scores at 24 weeks.

Results

Patients assigned to placebo (n = 209) and rituximab (n = 311) had active, longstanding RA. At week 24, significantly more (P < 0.0001) rituximab‐treated patients than placebo‐treated patients demonstrated ACR20 (51% versus 18%), ACR50 (27% versus 5%), and ACR70 (12% versus 1%) responses and moderate‐to‐good EULAR responses (65% versus 22%). All ACR response parameters were significantly improved in rituximab‐treated patients, who also had clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, disability, and health‐related quality of life (demonstrated by FACIT‐F, HAQ DI, and SF‐36 scores, respectively) and showed a trend toward less progression in radiographic end points. Rituximab depleted peripheral CD20+ B cells, but the mean immunoglobulin levels (IgG, IgM, and IgA) remained within normal ranges. Most adverse events occurred with the first rituximab infusion and were of mild‐to‐moderate severity. The rate of serious infections was 5.2 per 100 patient‐years in the rituximab group and 3.7 per 100 patient‐years in the placebo group.

Conclusion

At 24 weeks, a single course of rituximab with concomitant MTX therapy provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in disease activity in patients with active, longstanding RA who had an inadequate response to 1 or more anti‐TNF therapies.

     

The relationship of serum infliximab concentrations to clinical improvement in rheumatoid arthritis: Results from ATTRACT,a multicenter,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To investigate the relationship between serum concentrations of infliximab, a monoclonal anti–tumor necrosis factor α antibody, and clinical improvement from infliximab therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Multiple blood samples were obtained from each of 428 subjects with active RA who were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial (ATTRACT [Anti–Tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy]) evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of infliximab therapy. Serum levels of infliximab were measured by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay. Dose‐response trends were analyzed using generalized logistic regression techniques. Pharmacokinetic modeling was used to predict the serum concentrations of infliximab after simulated infusions using doses and dosing intervals not evaluated in the trial.

Results

At week 54, 26% of the subjects receiving 3 mg/kg infliximab every 8 weeks had undetectable trough serum levels of infliximab, a significantly greater proportion than in the other 3 treatment groups (P < 0.001). Increased magnitude of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response (measured by the ACR‐N, a continuous measure of clinical improvement derived from the ACR 20% response criteria) and greater reduction from baseline in serum C‐reactive protein level were both associated with higher trough serum concentrations of infliximab (P < 0.001), as was less progression of radiographic joint damage (P = 0.004), providing support for a dose‐response relationship. Pharmacokinetic models predicted that decreasing the dosing interval from 8 weeks to 6 weeks would yield higher trough serum levels of infliximab than increasing the dose by 100 mg.

Conclusion

These results suggest that some patients with RA may benefit from infliximab given at higher doses than 3 mg/kg or more frequently than every 8 weeks.

     

Golimumab,a new human anti–tumor necrosis factor α antibody,administered intravenously in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: Forty‐eight–week efficacy and safety results of a phase III randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous administration of golimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Adult patients with RA in whom disease activity was persistent despite treatment with methotrexate (MTX) at a dosage of 15–25 mg/week for ≥4 weeks were randomized to receive intravenous infusions of placebo plus MTX or intravenous infusions of golimumab at a dose of 2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg, with or without MTX, every 12 weeks through week 48. Patients with <20% improvement in the swollen and tender joint counts could enter early escape and receive additional active treatment (week 16) or could have their dose regimen adjusted (week 24). The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a 50% response according to the American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria (ACR50) at week 14.

Results

The primary study end point was not met (at week 14, an ACR50 response was observed in 21% of the patients treated with golimumab plus MTX compared with 13% of the patients treated with placebo plus MTX [P = 0.051]). By week 24, significantly more patients treated with golimumab plus MTX had achieved an ACR50 response. Differences in the proportion of patients achieving an ACR50 response between the group receiving golimumab monotherapy and the group receiving placebo plus MTX were not significant at either week 14 (16% versus 13%) or week 24 (10% versus 9%). At week 48, the proportions of patients achieving ACR20 and ACR50 responses were highest among those who had received golimumab 4 mg/kg plus MTX (70% and 48%, respectively). Concomitant treatment with MTX was associated with a lower incidence of antibodies to golimumab. The most commonly reported adverse events through week 48 were infections (48% of patients treated with golimumab with or without MTX and 41% of patients receiving placebo plus MTX).

Conclusion

The primary end point was not met. However, intravenously administered golimumab plus MTX appears to have benefit in the longer‐term reduction of RA signs/symptoms in MTX‐resistant patients, with no unexpected safety concerns.

     

The efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment: Results of a phase IIB randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,dose‐ranging trial

Objective

To examine the efficacy and safety of different rituximab doses plus methotrexate (MTX), with or without glucocorticoids, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) resistant to disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including biologic agents.

Methods

A total of 465 patients were randomized into 9 treatment groups: 3 rituximab groups (placebo [n = 149], 500 mg [n = 124], or 1,000 mg [n = 192] on days 1 and 15) each also taking either placebo glucocorticoids, intravenous methylprednisolone premedication, or intravenous methylprednisolone premedication plus oral prednisone for 2 weeks. All patients received MTX (10–25 mg/week); no other DMARDs were permitted.

Results

Significantly more patients who received 2 500‐mg or 2 1,000‐mg infusions of rituximab met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at week 24 (55% and 54%, respectively) compared with placebo (28%; P < 0.0001). ACR50 responses were achieved by 33%, 34%, and 13% of patients, respectively (P < 0.001), and ACR70 responses were achieved by 13%, 20%, and 5% of patients (P < 0.05). Changes in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (−1.79, −2.05, −0.67; P < 0.0001) and moderate to good responses on the European League Against Rheumatism criteria (P < 0.0001) reflected the ACR criteria responses. Glucocorticoids did not contribute significantly to the primary efficacy end point, ACR20 response at 24 weeks. Intravenous glucocorticoid premedication reduced the frequency and intensity of first infusion–associated events; oral glucocorticoids conferred no additional safety benefit. Rituximab was well tolerated; the type and severity of infections was similar to those for placebo.

Conclusion

Both rituximab doses were effective and well tolerated when added to MTX therapy in patients with active RA. The primary end point (ACR20 response) was independent of glucocorticoids, although intravenous glucocorticoid premedication improved tolerability during the first rituximab infusion.

     

Pregabalin for the treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome: Results of a randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain and lowered pain threshold. Other prominent symptoms include disordered sleep and fatigue. FMS affects an estimated 2% of the population, predominantly women. This trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin, a novel α₂‐δ ligand, for treatment of symptoms associated with FMS.

Methods

This multicenter, double‐blind, 8‐week, randomized clinical trial compared the effects of placebo with those of 150, 300, and 450 mg/day pregabalin on pain, sleep, fatigue, and health‐related quality of life in 529 patients with FMS. The primary outcome variable was the comparison of end point mean pain scores, derived from daily diary ratings of pain intensity, between each of the pregabalin treatment groups and the placebo group.

Results

Pregabalin at 450 mg/day significantly reduced the average severity of pain in the primary analysis compared with placebo (−0.93 on a 0–10 scale) (P ≤ 0.001), and significantly more patients in this group had ≥50% improvement in pain at the end point (29%, versus 13% in the placebo group; P = 0.003). Pregabalin at 300 and 450 mg/day was associated with significant improvements in sleep quality, fatigue, and global measures of change. Pregabalin at 450 mg/day improved several domains of health‐related quality of life. Dizziness and somnolence were the most frequent adverse events. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were similar across all 4 treatment groups.

Conclusion

Pregabalin at 450 mg/day was efficacious for the treatment of FMS, reducing symptoms of pain, disturbed sleep, and fatigue compared with placebo. Pregabalin was well tolerated and improved global measures and health‐related quality of life.

     

Adalimumab for the treatment of patients with moderately to severely active psoriatic arthritis: Results of a double‐blind,randomized, placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

Adalimumab, a fully human, anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody, was evaluated for its safety and efficacy compared with placebo in the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

Patients with moderately to severely active PsA and a history of inadequate response to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were randomized to receive 40 mg adalimumab or placebo subcutaneously every other week for 24 weeks. Study visits were at baseline, weeks 2 and 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter. The primary efficacy end points were the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) response at week 12 and the change in the modified total Sharp score of structural damage at week 24. Secondary end points were measures of joint disease, disability, and quality of life in all patients, as well as the severity of skin disease in those patients with psoriasis involving at least 3% of body surface area.

Results

At week 12, 58% of the adalimumab‐treated patients (87 of 151) achieved an ACR20 response, compared with 14% of the placebo‐treated patients (23 of 162) (P < 0.001). At week 24, similar ACR20 response rates were maintained and the mean change in the modified total Sharp score was −0.2 in patients receiving adalimumab and 1.0 in those receiving placebo (P < 0.001). Among the 69 adalimumab‐treated patients evaluated with the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), 59% achieved a 75% PASI improvement response at 24 weeks, compared with 1% of the 69 placebo‐treated patients evaluated (P < 0.001). Disability and quality of life measures were also significantly improved with adalimumab treatment compared with placebo. Adalimumab was generally safe and well‐tolerated.

Conclusion

Adalimumab significantly improved joint and skin manifestations, inhibited structural changes on radiographs, lessened disability due to joint damage, and improved quality of life in patients with moderately to severely active PsA.

     

Atacicept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: Results of a phase II,randomized, placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To assess the efficacy, safety, and biologic activity of atacicept in tumor necrosis factor antagonist–naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom the response to methotrexate treatment was inadequate.

Methods

In this phase II study, patients with active RA (n = 311) were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo, atacicept 150 mg weekly with or without a 4‐week loading period (twice‐weekly dosing), or open‐label adalimumab 40 mg every other week, for 25 weeks. The primary end point was 20% improvement in disease severity according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria, assessed using the C‐reactive protein level (ACR20‐CRP), at week 26. Secondary end points included additional assessments of efficacy, biologic activity, and safety.

Results

The proportion of patients meeting the primary end point (ACR20‐CRP response) did not differ significantly in the atacicept groups and the placebo group (46% in the placebo group, 45% in the atacicept loading group, and 58% in the atacicept nonloading group). In contrast, an ACR20‐CRP response was observed in 71% of patients in the adalimumab group (P < 0.001 versus placebo). ACR50‐CRP response rates were significantly higher in all active‐treatment groups compared with placebo, but ACR70‐CRP response rates were superior only in the adalimumab group. Atacicept treatment reduced the levels of serum IgG, IgA, and IgM rheumatoid factor and the levels of circulating mature B cells and plasma cells. The effects of treatment were similar with and without loading. Immunoglobulin levels returned toward baseline values during the treatment‐free followup period (week 38). The most frequent adverse events associated with atacicept represented common illnesses. No serious infections occurred among patients treated with atacicept.

Conclusion

The primary end point (ACR20‐CRP response) was not met despite significant biologic effects of atacicept that were consistent with its proposed mechanism of action. Modest effects of atacicept were seen for some secondary efficacy end points. Treatment with atacicept raised no new safety concerns.

     

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with anakinra,a recombinant human interleukin‐1 receptor antagonist,in combination with methotrexate: Results of a twenty‐four–week,multicenter, randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anakinra in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Patients with moderate‐to‐severe active RA who were receiving MTX for 6 consecutive months, with stable doses for ≥3 months (those with disease duration of >6 months but <12 years) were randomized into 6 groups: placebo or 0.04, 0.1, 0.4, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg of anakinra administered in a single, daily, subcutaneous injection. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of subjects who met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (attained an ACR20 response) at week 12.

Results

A total of 419 patients were randomized in the study. Patient demographics and disease status were similar in the 6 treatment groups. The ACR20 responses at week 12 in the 5 active treatment plus MTX groups demonstrated a statistically significant (P = 0.001) dose‐response relationship compared with the ACR20 response in the placebo plus MTX group. The ACR20 response rate in the anakinra 1.0‐mg/kg (46%; P = 0.001) and 2.0‐mg/kg (38%; P = 0.007) dose groups was significantly greater than that in the placebo group (19%). The ACR20 responses at 24 weeks were consistent with those at 12 weeks. Similar improvements in anakinra‐treated subjects were noted in individual ACR components, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, onset of ACR20 response, sustainability of ACR20 response, and magnitude of ACR response. Anakinra was safe and well tolerated. Injection site reaction was the most frequently noted adverse event, and this led to premature study withdrawal in 7% (1.0‐mg/kg group) to 10% (2.0‐mg/kg group) of patients receiving higher doses.

Conclusion

In patients with persistently active RA, the combination of anakinra and MTX was safe and well tolerated and provided significantly greater clinical benefit than MTX alone.