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.

     

A home‐based two‐year strength training period in early rheumatoid arthritis led to good long‐term compliance: A five‐year followup

Objective

To evaluate the impact of a 2‐year home‐based strength‐training program on physical function in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after a subsequent 3‐year followup.

Methods

Seventy patients with early RA were randomized to perform either strength training (experimental group [EG]) or range‐of‐motion exercises (control group [CG]). Maximal strength values were recorded by dynamometers. The Modified Disease Activity Score (DAS28), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), walking speed, and stair‐climbing speed were also measured.

Results

The maximum strength of assessed muscle groups increased by 19–59% in the EG during the training period and remained at the reached level throughout the subsequent 3 years. Muscle strength improved in the CG by 1–31%, but less compared with the EG. During the 2‐year training period, DAS28 decreased by 50% and 45% and pain by 67% and 39% in the EG and CG, respectively. The differences in muscle strength, DAS28, and HAQ were significantly in favor of the EG both at the 2‐year and 5‐year followup assessments.

Conclusions

The improvements achieved during the 2‐year strength‐training period were sustained for 3 years in patients with early RA.

     

Efficacy,pharmacodynamics, and safety of VX‐702, a novel p38 MAPK inhibitor,in rheumatoid arthritis: Results of two randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled clinical studies

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of VX‐702, a p38 MAPK inhibitor, in patients with active, moderate‐to‐severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Two 12‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled studies of VX‐702 were conducted in patients with active, moderate‐to‐severe RA. In the VeRA study, 313 patients received placebo or 2 daily doses of VX‐702. In Study 304, 117 patients received placebo, daily VX‐702, or twice weekly VX‐702 in addition to concomitant methotrexate (MTX). Study end points included the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (an ACR20 response), ACR50 and ACR70 responses, changes in the serum levels of biomarkers of inflammation, and safety assessments.

Results

The numerically superior ACR20 response rates among patients receiving VX‐702 compared with those receiving placebo in both studies did not reach pairwise statistical significance at the highest doses in either study. At week 12 in the VeRA study, ACR20 response rates were 40%, 36%, and 28% among patients receiving 10 mg of VX‐702, 5 mg of VX‐702, and placebo, respectively. In Study 304, the response rates were 40%, 44%, and 22% for patients receiving 10 mg VX‐702 daily plus MTX, 10 mg VX‐702 twice weekly plus MTX, and placebo, respectively. Reductions in the levels of C‐reactive protein, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor p55, and serum amyloid A were observed as early as week 1 in both studies, but these levels rapidly returned to baseline values by week 4. The overall frequency of adverse events was similar between the VX‐702 and placebo groups. In the VeRA study, serious infections were more frequent in the VX‐702 groups compared with the placebo group (2.4% versus 0%) but not in Study 304 (2.6% versus 4.9%).

Conclusion

The modest clinical efficacy plus the transient suppression of biomarkers of inflammation observed in this study suggest that p38 MAPK inhibition may not provide meaningful, sustained suppression of the chronic inflammation seen in RA.

     

Implementation of a treat‐to‐target strategy in very early rheumatoid arthritis: Results of the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring remission induction cohort study

Objective

Clinical remission is the ultimate therapeutic goal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Although clinical trials have proven this to be a realistic goal, the concept of targeting at remission has not yet been implemented. The objective of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate a treat‐to‐target strategy aimed at achieving remission in very early RA in daily clinical practice.

Methods

Five hundred thirty‐four patients with a clinical diagnosis of very early RA were included in the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring remission induction cohort study. Treatment adjustments were based on the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), aiming at a DAS28 of <2.6 (methotrexate, followed by the addition of sulfasalazine, and exchange of sulfasalazine with biologic agents in case of persistent disease activity). The primary outcome was disease activity after 6 months and 12 months of followup, according to the DAS28, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, and the modified American College of Rheumatology (ACR) remission criteria. Secondary outcomes were time to first DAS28 remission and outcome of radiography.

Results

Six‐month and 12‐month followup data were available for 491 and 389 patients, respectively. At 6 months, 47.0% of patients achieved DAS28 remission, 57.6% had a good EULAR response, and 32.0% satisfied the ACR remission criteria. At 12 months, 58.1% of patients achieved DAS28 remission, 67.9% had a good EULAR response, and 46.4% achieved ACR remission. The median time to first remission was 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 13.0–52.0). The majority of patients did not have clinically relevant radiographic progression after 1 year.

Conclusion

The successful implementation of this treat‐to‐target strategy aiming at remission demonstrated that achieving remission in daily clinical practice is a realistic goal.

     

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.

     

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.

     

Preclinical and clinical investigation of a CCR5 antagonist,AZD5672, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate

Objective

To investigate both the preclinical effects of blocking the chemokine receptor CCR5 and the clinical effects of this approach on the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with active disease.

Methods

Preclinical evaluations of AZD5672, a small‐molecule antagonist of CCR5, were performed, including studies of ligand binding and chemotaxis. The pharmacokinetics of AZD5672 were assessed in both single‐ and multiple‐dose studies in healthy volunteers. A randomized, placebo‐controlled, phase IIb study was conducted in patients with active RA receiving methotrexate. Treatment arms were AZD5672 (20, 50, 100, or 150 mg orally, once daily), matched placebo, or open‐label etanercept (50 mg subcutaneously, once weekly). The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a 20% improvement response on the American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary end points included the ACR20 over time, as well as 50% (ACR50) and 70% (ACR70) improvement responses, changes in individual components of the ACR improvement criteria, and disease activity measured with the Disease Activity Score based on the 28‐joint count.

Results

AZD5672 was a highly potent and selective antagonist of CCR5, displaying nonproportional steady‐state pharmacokinetics while inhibiting internalization of CCR5 in an ex vivo macrophage inflammatory protein 1β stimulation assay in which AZD5672 was evaluated over the 20–150‐mg dose range. In the phase IIb study testing this dose range in patients with RA (n = 371 patients randomized to received treatment), AZD5672 was generally well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients achieving an ACR20 response at week 12 between those receiving any dose of AZD5672 and those receiving placebo; etanercept was significantly more efficacious than AZD5672 and placebo.

Conclusion

Despite a clear rationale for targeting CCR5, this clinical study showed that AZD5672, administered orally, did not have any clinical benefit, suggesting that CCR5 antagonism alone is unlikely to be a viable therapeutic strategy in RA.

     

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.

     

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of pamapimod,a p38 MAP kinase inhibitor,in a double‐blind,methotrexate‐controlled study of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

To determine the efficacy and safety of pamapimod (a selective inhibitor of the α‐isoform of p38 MAP kinase) as monotherapy in comparison with methotrexate (MTX) treatment in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups and received 12 weeks of double‐blind treatment. One group received MTX (7.5 mg/week with planned escalation to 20 mg/week), and 3 groups received pamapimod (50, 150, or 300 mg) once daily. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at 12 weeks. Secondary end points included ACR50 and ACR70 responses, change from baseline in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), categorical analyses of DAS28/European League Against Rheumatism response, and change from baseline in each parameter of the ACR core set of measures. Safety monitoring included recording of adverse events (AEs), laboratory testing, immunology assessments, administration of electrocardiograms, and assessment of vital signs.

Results

Patients assigned to receive MTX and pamapimod had similar demographics and baseline characteristics. At week 12, fewer patients taking pamapimod had an ACR20 response (23%, 18%, and 31% in the 50‐, 150‐, and 300‐mg groups, respectively) compared with patients taking MTX (45%). Secondary efficacy end points showed a similar pattern. AEs were typically characterized as mild and included infections, skin disorders, and dizziness. Pamapimod was generally well tolerated, but the 300‐mg dose appeared to be more toxic than either the 2 lower doses or MTX.

Conclusion

The present results showed that pamapimod was not as effective as MTX in the treatment of active RA.

     

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with the selective costimulation modulator abatacept: Twelve‐month results of a phase iib,double‐blind,randomized, placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To determine the clinical efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of abatacept (CTLA‐4Ig), a selective costimulation modulator, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that has remained active despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy.

Methods

This was a 12‐month, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. A total of 339 patients with active RA despite MTX therapy were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg/kg abatacept (n = 115), 2 mg/kg abatacept (n = 105), or placebo (n = 119). This report focuses on the results observed at month 12 of a phase IIb trial.

Results

A significantly greater percentage of patients treated with 10 mg/kg abatacept met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at 1 year compared with patients who received placebo (62.6% versus 36.1%; P < 0.001). Greater percentages of patients treated with 10 mg/kg abatacept also achieved ACR50 responses (41.7% versus 20.2%; P < 0.001) and ACR70 responses (20.9% versus 7.6%; P = 0.003) compared with patients who received placebo. For patients treated with 10 mg/kg abatacept, there were also statistically significant and clinically important improvements in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire scores compared with patients who received placebo (49.6% versus 27.7%; P < 0.001). Abatacept at a dosage of 10 mg/kg elicited an increase in rates of remission (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints of <2.6) compared with placebo at 1 year (34.8% versus 10.1%; P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the groups, and no significant formation of neutralizing antibodies was noted.

Conclusion

Abatacept was associated with significant reductions in disease activity and improvements in physical function that were maintained over the course of 12 months in patients with RA that had remained active despite MTX treatment. Abatacept was found to be well tolerated and safe over the course of 1 year. Abatacept in combination with MTX has the potential to play an important role in future RA therapy.

     

An oral Syk kinase inhibitor in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: A three‐month randomized,placebo‐controlled,phase II study in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis that did not respond to biologic agents

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of R788 (fostamatinib disodium), an inhibitor of spleen tyrosine kinase (Syk), in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that did not respond to biologic therapies.

Methods

A total of 219 patients with active RA in whom treatment with biologic agents had failed were enrolled in a 3‐month multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of R788. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at month 3. Secondary end points included changes in inflammation and damage, as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and changes in the Disease Activity Score.

Results

The ACR20 response in the R788 100 mg twice daily group was 38%, versus 37% in the placebo group, at month 3. No significant differences were achieved in the ACR20, ACR50, or ACR70 response levels at 3 months. There were differences between the groups from baseline to month 3 in the secondary end points C‐reactive protein (CRP) level and synovitis score on MRI. There were baseline differences in steroid use, prior biologic use, and synovitis score on MRI between the R788 group and the placebo group that may have affected the outcomes. A high placebo response rate was seen in this trial, and exploratory analysis suggested that this may in part have been driven by patients who entered the trial with an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate but normal CRP level.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that there were no differences in the primary end point between the R788 and placebo groups. Differences were observed between the R788 and placebo groups in secondary end points, particularly in those patients who entered the study with an elevated CRP level.

     

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.

     

The safety and efficacy of a JAK inhibitor in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a double‐blind,placebo‐controlled phase IIa trial of three dosage levels of CP‐690,550 versus placebo

Objective

To determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of 3 different dosages of CP‐690,550, a potent, orally active JAK inhibitor, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom methotrexate, etanercept, infliximab, or adalimumab caused an inadequate or toxic response.

Methods

Patients (n = 264) were randomized equally to receive placebo, 5 mg of CP‐690,550, 15 mg of CP‐690,550, or 30 mg of CP‐690,550 twice daily for 6 weeks, and were followed up for an additional 6 weeks after treatment. The primary efficacy end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response rate at 6 weeks.

Results

By week 6, the ACR20 response rates were 70.5%, 81.2%, and 76.8% in the 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg twice daily groups, respectively, compared with 29.2% in the placebo group (P < 0.001). Improvements in disease activity in CP‐690,550–treated patients compared with placebo were seen in all treatment groups as early as week 1. ACR50 and ACR70 response rates significantly improved in all treatment groups by week 4. The most common adverse events reported were headache and nausea. The infection rate in both the 15 mg twice daily group and the 30 mg twice daily group was 30.4% (versus 26.2% in the placebo group). No opportunistic infections or deaths occurred. Increases in mean low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and increases in mean serum creatinine level (0.04–0.06 mg/dl) were seen in all CP‐690,550 treatment arms.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that CP‐690,550 is efficacious in the treatment of RA, resulting in rapid, statistically significant, and clinically meaningful reductions in the signs and symptoms of RA. Further studies of CP‐690,550 in RA are warranted.

     

Interleukin‐6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab and attainment of disease remission in rheumatoid arthritis: The role of acute‐phase reactants

Objective

To determine the effects of tocilizumab on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and remission assessment, using measures that do or do not comprise acute‐phase reactants.

Methods

Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) scores, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores, and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) were calculated using data from tocilizumab trials in patients with RA in whom disease had remained active despite treatment with disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs. The CDAI does not contain an acute‐phase reactant component. Disease activity states, including remission, were defined using established cut points; for the DAS28, an alternative cut point of <2.4 was also used.

Results

Changes in the DAS28, the SDAI score, and the CDAI score among patients receiving tocilizumab were significantly higher than those among patients receiving placebo, and the magnitude of these changes was similar for the SDAI and the CDAI. Among patients who achieved 50% improvement in disease activity according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria, only ∼20% required a reduction in acute‐phase reactant values in order to fulfill the criteria. However, DAS28 remission rates were higher (even when using the lower cut point) than the SDAI and CDAI remission rates. Only a minority of tocilizumab‐treated patients with DAS28 remission also had disease remission according to the SDAI (26%) or CDAI (∼21%). With infliximab treatment, SDAI and CDAI remission rates were of the same magnitude as those observed with tocilizumab treatment, and DAS28 remission rates were lower. Tocilizumab‐treated patients with DAS28 remission but without CDAI remission had significantly higher swollen joint counts but lower erythrocyte sedimentation rates (ESRs) compared with patients with SDAI or CDAI remission.

Conclusion

Disease activity in RA is reduced by tocilizumab treatment, irrespective of the type of composite measure used to evaluate disease activity. Remission rates were much higher using the DAS28 compared with the SDAI and CDAI, due to the high weight of the ESR in the DAS28 and the effect of tocilizumab on the ESR. Using the stringent SDAI and CDAI criteria, however, remission rates in patients treated with tocilizumab were in the same range as those seen in patients treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

     

Once‐weekly administration of 50 mg etanercept in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a multicenter,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of 50 mg etanercept administered subcutaneously once weekly in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Four hundred twenty RA patients were randomized to receive, in a blinded manner, the study drug for up to 16 weeks: 214 patients received 50 mg etanercept once weekly, 153 received 25 mg etanercept twice weekly, and 53 received placebo for 8 weeks followed by 25 mg etanercept twice weekly for 8 weeks. Efficacy and safety were assessed at weeks 8 and 16. Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed on serum samples from patients at selected study sites. The primary efficacy end point was achievement of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% improvement criteria (ACR20 response) at week 8.

Results

An ACR20 response was achieved at week 8 by 50% of the patients receiving 50 mg etanercept once weekly, by 49% of the patients receiving 25 mg etanercept twice weekly, and by 19% of the patients in the placebo group (P ≤ 0.0001 for each etanercept group versus placebo). Similarly, achievement of the ACR50 response was attained by 18% of patients in each of the 2 etanercept groups, compared with 6% of patients in the placebo group (P < 0.03 for each comparison). Pharmacokinetics of the 2 etanercept regimens were similar at steady state. No clinically significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed between the 2 etanercept groups.

Conclusion

Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics were comparable between the 2 etanercept dosing regimens. Thus, comparable clinical outcomes are to be expected when patients are treated with etanercept administered either as 50 mg once weekly or as 25 mg twice weekly.

     

Very early treatment with infliximab in addition to methotrexate in early,poor‐prognosis rheumatoid arthritis reduces magnetic resonance imaging evidence of synovitis and damage,with sustained benefit after infliximab withdrawal: Results from a twelve‐month randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

Anti–tumor necrosis factor α agents are among the most effective therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, their optimal use is yet to be determined. This 12‐month double‐blind study attempted remission induction using standard therapy with or without infliximab in patients with early, poor‐prognosis RA. The primary end point was synovitis (measured by magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). Clinical observations continued to 24 months.

Methods

All patients had fewer than 12 months of symptoms. Assessments included full metrologic evaluation, laboratory tests, radiographs, functional evaluation using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and quality of life measurement using the RA Quality of Life (RAQoL) questionnaire. MRI was performed at 0, 4, 14, and 54 weeks; MR images were scored blindly. Patients received methotrexate (MTX) and were randomized to receive either infliximab or placebo for 12 months.

Results

Twenty patients were recruited (mean age 52 years, mean symptom duration 6 months, mean C‐reactive protein level 42 mg/liter, and 65% rheumatoid factor positive). At 1 year, all MRI scores were significantly better, with no new erosions in the infliximab plus MTX group; a greater percentage of infliximab plus MTX–treated patients fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% and 70% improvement criteria (78% versus 40% in the placebo plus MTX group and 67% versus 30%, respectively) and had a greater functional benefit (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). Importantly, at 1 year after stopping induction therapy, response was sustained in 70% of the patients in the infliximab plus MTX group, with a median Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) of 2.05 (remission range). At 2 years, there were no significant between‐group differences in the DAS28, ACR response, or radiographic scores, but differences in the HAQ and RAQoL scores were maintained (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Remission induction with infliximab plus MTX provided a significant reduction in MRI evidence of synovitis and erosions at 1 year. At 2 years, functional and quality of life benefits were sustained, despite withdrawal of infliximab therapy. These data may have significant implications for the optimal use of expensive biologic therapies.

     

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with humanized anti–interleukin‐6 receptor antibody: A multicenter,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

Interleukin‐6 (IL‐6) is a pleiotropic cytokine that regulates the immune response, inflammation, and hematopoiesis. Overproduction of IL‐6 plays pathologic roles in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and the blockade of IL‐6 may be therapeutically effective for the disease. This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a humanized anti–IL‐6 receptor antibody, MRA, in patients with RA.

Methods

In a multicenter, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial, 164 patients with refractory RA were randomized to receive either MRA (4 mg/kg body weight or 8 mg/kg body weight) or placebo. MRA was administered intravenously every 4 weeks for a total of 3 months. The clinical responses were measured using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria.

Results

Treatment with MRA reduced disease activity in a dose‐dependent manner. At 3 months, 78% of patients in the 8‐mg group, 57% in the 4‐mg group, and 11% in the placebo group achieved at least a 20% improvement in disease activity according to the ACR criteria (an ACR20 response) (P < 0.001 for 8‐mg group versus placebo). Forty percent of patients in the 8‐mg group and 1.9% in the placebo group achieved an ACR50 response (P < 0.001). The overall incidences of adverse events were 56%, 59%, and 51% in the placebo, 4‐mg, and 8‐mg groups, respectively, and the adverse events were not dose dependent. A blood cholesterol increase was observed in 44.0% of the patients. Liver function disorders and decreases in white blood cell counts were also observed, but these were mild and transient. There was no increase in antinuclear antibodies or anti‐DNA antibodies. Anti‐MRA antibodies were detected in 2 patients.

Conclusion

Treatment with MRA was generally well tolerated and significantly reduced the disease activity of RA.

     

A comparison of response criteria to evaluate therapeutic response in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis treated with methotrexate and/or anti–tumor necrosis factor α agents

Objective

There are no validated criteria to evaluate clinical response in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). The purpose of this study was to compare 4 sets of criteria (2 from the American College of Rheumatology [ACR] and 2 from the European League Against Rheumatism [EULAR]) for clinical response evaluation in JIA patients treated with methotrexate and/or anti–tumor necrosis factor α drugs.

Methods

Seventy‐five patients with JIA were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months of therapy with second‐line drugs. Mean age at study onset was 12.8 years (range 2–32.9 years). Diagnoses were systemic JIA (n = 16), rheumatoid factor–positive JIA (n = 5), rheumatoid factor–negative JIA (n = 9), persistent oligoarticular JIA (n = 10), extended oligoarticular JIA (n = 33), and psoriatic arthritis (n = 2). Clinical response was evaluated with the ACR Pediatric 30 criteria and the ACR 20% response criteria (ACR20), and with the EULAR Disease Activity Score (DAS) and 28‐joint DAS (DAS28). Patients with EULAR criteria responses of “good” or “moderate” were classified as responders. Responders and nonresponders according to the different criteria were then compared.

Results

For patients younger than 16 years, Cohen's kappa varied between 0.51 and 0.72, with a good‐to‐excellent reproducibility index for all comparisons, except for the DAS28/ACR20 comparison. The best agreement was obtained by comparing the DAS and the ACR Pediatric 30. For patients older than 16 years, the reproducibility index was good or excellent in only 2 cases, i.e., comparing the DAS and the ACR Pediatric 30 and comparing the DAS and the DAS28 (as expected).

Conclusion

Our study shows a good agreement overall for the different criteria tested. The highest concordance was observed between the DAS and the ACR Pediatric 30, the lowest between the DAS28 and the ACR20. Our data suggest that the ACR Pediatric 30 criteria can be used also in adult patients affected by JIA, and that the original DAS can be an alternative to the ACR Pediatric 30 in both children and young adults with JIA.

     

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.

     

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.