B cell activation biomarkers as predictive factors for the response to rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: A six‐month,national, multicenter,open‐label study

Objective

To examine whether serum B cell markers can predict response to rituximab, a B cell–depleting monoclonal antibody, in patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

This rituximab re‐treatment dose study (SMART [eSsai MAbthera sur la dose de Re‐Traitement]) involved 208 patients with refractory RA. Serum markers of B cell activation (anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide [anti‐CCP] antibodies, rheumatoid factor [RF], serum IgG, IgA, and IgM levels, serum κ and λ free light chains, and serum BAFF) were assessed before the first rituximab cycle (1,000 mg on days 1 and 15). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response at 24 weeks.

Results

There were 149 responders (72%). Two baseline factors were associated with a EULAR response at 24 weeks in multivariate analysis: the presence of anti‐CCP antibodies or RF (odds ratio 3.5 [95% confidence interval 1.6–7.6]) and a serum IgG concentration above normal (odds ratio 2.11 [95% confidence interval 1.02–4.33]), with synergy between them (odds ratio 6.0 [95% confidence interval 2.2–16.2]).

Conclusion

The presence of RF or anti‐CCP antibodies and elevated IgG are 2 simple biomarkers that can be used routinely before therapy to predict response to rituximab in patients with refractory RA.

     

Intraarticular injection of anakinra in osteoarthritis of the knee: A multicenter,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study

Objective

To evaluate the clinical response, safety, and tolerability of a single intraarticular injection of anakinra in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

Methods

Patients with OA of the knee were enrolled in a multicenter, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study and randomized 2:1:2 to receive a single intraarticular injection of placebo, anakinra 50 mg, or anakinra 150 mg in their symptomatic knee. Patients were evaluated for 12 weeks postinjection. The primary end point was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score from baseline to week 4. Safety assessments included the evaluation of adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, and vital signs. Pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed in a subset of patients.

Results

Of 170 patients who enrolled, 160 (94%) completed the study. The mean improvements from baseline to week 4 in the WOMAC score were not statistically different between the placebo group and the patients who received 50 mg of anakinra (P = 0.67) or 150 mg of anakinra (P = 0.77). Anakinra was well tolerated. No withdrawals due to AEs or serious AEs, and no serious infections or deaths were reported. No clinically significant trends were noted in laboratory values or vital signs. Pharmacokinetic parameters demonstrated that the mean terminal half‐life of anakinra in serum after intraarticular injection was ∼4 hours.

Conclusion

Anakinra was well tolerated as a single 50‐mg or 150‐mg intraarticular injection in patients with OA of the knee. However, anakinra was not associated with improvements in OA symptoms compared with placebo.

     

Reduced‐dose rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: Efficacy depends on degree of B cell depletion

Objective

Studies comparing 500 mg rituximab and 1,000 mg rituximab doses in rheumatoid arthritis have yielded conflicting data on clinical outcomes, but in all of these studies a subgroup of patients has had excellent responses at the lower dose. Historically, it was considered that rituximab uniformly depleted B cells at both doses. Using highly sensitive assays, we have shown that B cell depletion is variable and predictive of clinical response. Using the same techniques, we undertook the present study to test the hypothesis that the level of B cell depletion, rather than the rituximab dose, determines clinical response.

Methods

Nineteen patients were treated with two 500‐mg infusions of rituximab, and 61 patients were treated with two 1,000‐mg infusions of rituximab. Highly sensitive flow cytometry was performed at 0, 2, 6, 14, and 26 weeks. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response rates at 6 months were compared between patients with and those without complete depletion at each dose.

Results

The median B cell count was numerically higher at all time points following therapy in the 500 mg rituximab group. Twenty‐five percent of patients in the 500 mg rituximab group had complete depletion at 2 weeks, compared with 49% of those in the 1,000 mg rituximab group. Complete depletion at 2 weeks after treatment with 500 mg rituximab was associated with lower baseline preplasma cell counts (P = 0.047). Most patients responded after either dose, but response was related to B cell depletion. Notably, in the 500 mg rituximab group all patients with complete depletion had a EULAR good response (P = 0.011).

Conclusion

This pilot study suggests that the degree of B cell depletion, rather than the dose of rituximab, determines clinical response. It may be possible to predict which patients will respond to lower‐dose rituximab, and this may allow more cost‐effective treatment.

     

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.

     

Population‐based assessment of adverse events associated with long‐term glucocorticoid use

Objective

The frequency of many adverse events (AEs) associated with low‐dose glucocorticoid use is unclear. We sought to determine the prevalence of glucocorticoid‐associated AEs in a large US managed care population.

Methods

Using linked administrative and pharmacy claims, adults receiving ≥60 days of glucocorticoids were identified. These individuals were surveyed about glucocorticoid use and symptoms of 8 AEs commonly attributed to glucocorticoid use.

Results

Of the 6,517 eligible glucocorticoid users identified, 2,446 (38%) returned the mailed survey. Respondents were 29% men with a mean ± SD age of 53 ± 14 years; 79% were white and 13% were African American. Respondents had a mean ± SD of 7 ± 3 comorbid conditions and were prescribed a mean ± SD prednisone‐equivalent dosage of 16 ± 14 mg/day. More than 90% of individuals reported at least 1 AE associated with glucocorticoid use; 55% reported that at least 1 AE was very bothersome. Weight gain was the most common self‐reported AE (70% of the individuals), cataracts (15%) and fractures (12%) were among the most serious. After multivariable adjustment, all AEs demonstrated a strong dose‐dependent association with cumulative glucocorticoid use. Among users of low‐dose therapy (≤7.5 mg of prednisone per day), increasing duration of use was significantly associated with acne, skin bruising, weight gain, and cataracts.

Conclusion

The prevalence of 8 commonly attributed self‐reported glucocorticoid‐associated AEs was significantly associated with cumulative and average glucocorticoid dose in a dose‐dependent fashion. Physicians should be vigilant for glucocorticoid‐related AEs and should counsel patients about possible risks, even among low‐dose long‐term users.

     

Oral apremilast in the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: Results of a multicenter,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apremilast, a novel, orally available small molecule that specifically targets phosphodiesterase 4, in the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

This phase II, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study included the following: a 12‐week treatment phase, with patients receiving placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice per day, or apremilast 40 mg once per day; a 12‐week treatment‐extension phase, with patients in the placebo group re‐randomized to receive apremilast; and a 4‐week observational phase after treatment cessation. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 12. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, vital signs, laboratory parameters, and electrocardiograms.

Results

Of the 204 patients with PsA who were randomized to a treatment group, 165 completed the treatment phase. At the end of the treatment phase (week 12), 43.5% of patients receiving apremilast 20 mg twice per day (P < 0.001) and 35.8% of those receiving 40 mg once per day (P = 0.002) achieved an ACR20 response, compared with 11.8% of those receiving placebo. At the end of the treatment‐extension phase (week 24), >40% of patients in each group (patients receiving apremilast 20 mg twice per day, patients receiving apremilast 40 mg once per day, and patients in the placebo group re‐randomized to receive apremilast) achieved the ACR20 level of improvement. Most patients in the treatment phase (84.3%) and treatment‐extension phase (68.3%) reported ≥1 AE. Diarrhea, headache, nausea, fatigue, and nasopharyngitis were reported most frequently; most events were mild or moderate. No clinically relevant laboratory or electrocardiographic abnormalities were reported.

Conclusion

Treatment with apremilast at a dosage of 20 mg twice per day or 40 mg once per day demonstrated efficacy in comparison with placebo and was generally well tolerated in patients with active PsA. The balance of efficacy, tolerability, and safety supports further study of apremilast in PsA.

     

Sifalimumab,a Human Anti–Interferon‐α Monoclonal Antibody,in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Phase I Randomized,Controlled, Dose‐Escalation Study

Objective

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple intravenous (IV) doses of sifalimumab in adults with moderate‐to‐severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Methods

In this multicenter, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, sequential dose‐escalation study, patients were randomized 3:1 to receive IV sifalimumab (0.3, 1.0, 3.0, or 10.0 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks to week 26, then followed up for 24 weeks. Safety assessment included recording of treatment‐emergent adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. Pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and pharmacodynamics were evaluated, and disease activity was assessed.

Results

Of 161 patients, 121 received sifalimumab (26 received 0.3 mg/kg; 25, 1.0 mg/kg; 27, 3.0 mg/kg; and 43, 10 mg/kg) and 40 received placebo. Patients were predominantly female (95.7%). At baseline, patients had moderate‐to‐severe disease activity (mean SLE Disease Activity Index score 11.0), and most (75.2%) had a high type I interferon (IFN) gene signature. In the sifalimumab group versus the placebo group, the incidence of ≥1 treatment‐emergent AE was 92.6% versus 95.0%, ≥1 serious AE was 22.3% versus 27.5%, and ≥1 infection was 67.8% versus 62.5%; discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 9.1% versus 7.5%, and death occurred in 3.3% (n = 4) versus 2.5% (n = 1). Serum sifalimumab concentrations increased in a linear and dose‐proportional manner. Inhibition of the type I IFN gene signature was sustained during treatment in patients with a high baseline signature. No statistically significant differences in clinical activity (SLEDAI and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group score) between sifalimumab and placebo were observed. However, when adjusted for excess burst steroids, SLEDAI change from baseline showed a positive trend over time. A trend toward normal complement C3 or C4 level at week 26 was seen in the sifalimumab groups compared with baseline.

Conclusion

The observed safety/tolerability and clinical activity profile of sifalimumab support its continued clinical development for SLE.

     

A one‐year,phase I/IIa,open‐label pilot trial of imatinib mesylate in the treatment of systemic sclerosis–associated active interstitial lung disease

Objective

Transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) and platelet‐derived growth factor (PDGF) may play a critical role in systemic sclerosis (SSc)–related interstitial lung disease (ILD), and imatinib is a potent inhibitor of TGFβ and PDGF production. In this 1‐year, phase I/IIa open‐label pilot study of imatinib in patients with SSc‐related active ILD, our primary aim was to assess the safety of imatinib; we also explored its efficacy.

Methods

We recruited 20 SSc patients with a forced vital capacity (FVC) of <85% predicted, dyspnea on exertion, and presence of a ground‐glass appearance on high‐resolution computed tomography. Patients received oral therapy with imatinib (up to 600 mg/day) for a period of 1 year. Adverse events were recorded, pulmonary function was tested, and the modified Rodnan skin thickness score (MRSS) was assessed every 3 months. The course of changes in lung function, the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI), and the MRSS were modeled over the period of study to explore treatment efficacy.

Results

The majority of patients were female (65%), Caucasian (75%), and had diffuse cutaneous SSc (70%). At baseline, the mean ± SD FVC % predicted was 65.2 ± 14.0 and the mean ± SD MRSS was 18.7 ± 10.1. The mean ± SD dosage of imatinib was 445 ± 125 mg/day. Of the 20 SSc patients, 12 completed the study, 7 discontinued because of adverse events (AEs), and 1 patient was lost to followup. Common AEs (≥20%) included fatigue, facial/lower extremity edema, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, generalized rash, and new‐onset proteinuria. Treatment with imatinib showed a trend toward improvement in the FVC % predicted (1.74%; P not significant) and the MRSS (3.9 units; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Use of high‐dose daily therapy with imatinib (600 mg/day) in SSc patients with ILD was associated with a large number of AEs. Our experience with AEs suggests that dosages of imatinib lower than 600 mg/day may be appropriate and that further dose ranging analysis is needed in order to understand the therapeutic index of imatinib in SSc.

     

Atacicept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor antagonist therapy: Results of a phase II,randomized, placebo‐controlled,dose‐finding trial

Objective

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

Methods

The Atacicept for Reduction of Signs and Symptoms in Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (AUGUST I) was a multicenter, phase II, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled dose‐finding study involving 256 patients randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive atacicept (25 mg, 75 mg, or 150 mg) or placebo twice weekly for 4 weeks, then weekly for 21 weeks, with a 13‐week treatment‐free followup period (week 38). The primary end point was a response at week 26 according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement in disease severity, using the C‐reactive protein level.

Results

No statistically significant differences were observed in the efficacy end points at week 26 (P = 0.410 for overall treatment effect). However, atacicept significantly reduced immunoglobulin and rheumatoid factor (RF) levels, but not anti–citrullinated protein antibody levels, in a dose‐dependent manner, with levels returning toward baseline values during followup. The effects of treatment on IgG‐RF and IgA‐RF were more pronounced than the effects on total IgG and IgA. Adverse events (AEs), including serious AEs, leading to withdrawal were more common among patients treated with atacicept compared with placebo. AEs were variable in nature, and no dose‐dependent trends were observed. The frequency of infection‐related AEs was similar across treatments. No notable effect of treatment on immunization status (protective versus nonprotective titer) was observed after initiation of treatment.

Conclusion

This study did not meet the primary efficacy end point. However, clear biologic activity consistent with the proposed mechanism of action was observed. The results suggest that decreasing the expression of RF may not be sufficient to induce clinical improvement in RA. The safety of atacicept was considered acceptable in this patient population.

     

Evaluation of the efficacy of etoricoxib in ankylosing spondylitis: Results of a fifty‐two–week,randomized, controlled study

Objective

To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of etoricoxib, a cyclooxygenase 2 (COX‐2) selective inhibitor, administered continuously over 52 weeks for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

Methods

This 2‐part, multicenter, double‐blind, parallel‐group, 52‐week study evaluated 2 doses of etoricoxib (90 and 120 mg) compared with naproxen at 1,000 mg. A 6‐week, active‐comparator– and placebo‐controlled period (part I) was followed by a 46‐week active‐comparator–controlled period (part II). The primary outcome measures (on 100‐mm visual analog scales) were patient's assessment of spine pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index.

Results

Of the 387 patients randomized to receive treatment, 301 (77.8%) completed part I and 284 (75.9%) completed part II. Compared with placebo over 6 weeks, those receiving 90 mg etoricoxib, 120 mg etoricoxib, and naproxen demonstrated significantly (P < 0.001) greater improvement in all primary end points; treatment effects (expressed as the difference in least squares mean change versus placebo) were 21–29 mm for spine pain, 18–25 mm for disease activity, and 11–15 mm for function. Compared with patients receiving naproxen, significantly greater improvement in all primary end points was demonstrated in the combined group receiving either 90 mg etoricoxib or 120 mg etoricoxib over 6 weeks, in each individual etoricoxib treatment group over 6 weeks, and in the combined etoricoxib group over 1 year (all P < 0.05); results for secondary and exploratory end points were generally consistent with those from the primary analysis. Among all groups, there were no significant differences in the incidence of overall clinical, drug‐related, or serious adverse experiences (AEs) and discontinuations due to AEs. Safety observations during part II were generally consistent with those in part I.

Conclusion

Etoricoxib at doses of 90 mg and 120 mg demonstrated superior efficacy compared with placebo over 6 weeks, and compared with naproxen over 1 year. These study results demonstrate that etoricoxib is generally safe, well‐tolerated, and efficacious for the treatment of AS.

     

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.

     

Long‐term safety profile of belimumab plus standard therapy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Objective

To evaluate the safety profile of long‐term belimumab therapy combined with standard therapy for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in patients with active disease.

Methods

Patients who were randomized to receive intravenous placebo or belimumab 1, 4, or 10 mg/kg, plus standard therapy, and completed the initial 52‐week double‐blind treatment period were then allowed to enter a 24‐week open‐label extension phase. During the extension period, patients in the belimumab group either received the same dose or were switched to 10 mg/kg and patients in the placebo group were switched to belimumab 10 mg/kg. Patients who achieved a satisfactory response during the 24‐week extension period were allowed to participate in the long‐term continuation study of monthly belimumab 10 mg/kg. Adverse events (AEs) and abnormal laboratory results were analyzed per 100 patient‐years in 1‐year intervals.

Results

Of the 364 patients who completed the 52‐week double‐blind treatment period, 345 entered the 24‐week extension, and 296 continued treatment with belimumab in the long‐term continuation study. Safety data through 4 years of belimumab exposure (1,165 cumulative patient‐years) are reported. Incidence rates of AEs, severe/serious AEs, infusion reactions, infections, malignancies, grades 3/4 laboratory abnormalities, and discontinuations due to AEs were stable or declined during 4‐year belimumab exposure. The most common AEs included arthralgia, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. Serious infusion reactions were rare: only 1 occurred during the 4‐year followup period. Rates of serious infection decreased from 5.9/100 patient‐years to 3.4/100 patient‐years, and no specific type of infection predominated.

Conclusion

Belimumab added to standard therapy was generally well‐tolerated over the 4‐year treatment period in patients with SLE, which suggests that belimumab can be administered long term with an acceptable safety profile.

     

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.

     

The efficacy and safety of abatacept in patients with non–life‐threatening manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus: Results of a twelve‐month,multicenter, exploratory,phase IIb,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate abatacept therapy in patients with non–life‐threatening systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and polyarthritis, discoid lesions, or pleuritis and/or pericarditis.

Methods

In a 12‐month, multicenter, exploratory, phase IIb randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial, SLE patients with polyarthritis, discoid lesions, or pleuritis and/or pericarditis were randomized at a ratio of 2:1 to receive abatacept (∼10 mg/kg of body weight) or placebo. Prednisone (30 mg/day or equivalent) was given for 1 month, and then the dosage was tapered. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with new flare (adjudicated) according to a score of A/B on the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index after the start of the steroid taper.

Results

A total of 118 patients were randomized to receive abatacept and 57 to receive placebo. The baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The proportion of new BILAG A/B flares over 12 months was 79.7% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 72.4, 86.9) in the abatacept group and 82.5% (95% CI 72.6, 92.3) in the placebo group (treatment difference −3.5 [95% CI −15.3, 8.3]). Other prespecified flare end points were not met. In post hoc analyses, the proportions of abatacept‐treated and placebo‐treated patients with a BILAG A flare were 40.7% (95% CI 31.8, 49.5) versus 54.4% (95% CI 41.5, 67.3), and the proportions with physician‐assessed flare were 63.6% (95% CI 54.9, 72.2) and 82.5% (95% CI 72.6, 92.3), respectively; treatment differences were greatest in the polyarthritis group. Prespecified exploratory patient‐reported outcomes (Short Form 36 health survey, sleep problems, fatigue) demonstrated a treatment effect with abatacept. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was comparable in the abatacept and placebo groups (90.9% versus 91.5%), but serious AEs (SAEs) were higher in the abatacept group (19.8 versus 6.8%). Most SAEs were single, disease‐related events occurring during the first 6 months of the study (including the steroid taper period).

Conclusion

Although the primary/secondary end points were not met in this study, improvements in certain exploratory measures suggest some abatacept efficacy in patients with non–life‐threatening manifestations of SLE. The increased rate of SAEs requires further assessment.

     

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.

     

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.

     

Febuxostat,a novel nonpurine selective inhibitor of xanthine oxidase: A twenty‐eight–day,multicenter, phase II,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,dose‐response clinical trial examining safety and efficacy in patients with gout

Objective

Gout affects ∼1–2% of the American population. Current options for treating hyperuricemia in chronic gout are limited. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of febuxostat, a nonpurine selective inhibitor of xanthine oxidase, in establishing normal serum urate (sUA) concentrations in gout patients with hyperuricemia (≥8.0 mg/dl).

Methods

We conducted a phase II, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial in 153 patients (ages 23–80 years). Subjects received febuxostat (40 mg, 80 mg, 120 mg) or placebo once daily for 28 days and colchicine prophylaxis for 14 days prior to and 14 days after randomization. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects with sUA levels <6.0 mg/dl on day 28.

Results

Greater proportions of febuxostat‐treated patients than placebo‐treated patients achieved an sUA level <6.0 mg/dl at each visit (P < 0.001 for each comparison). The targeted sUA level was attained on day 28 in 0% of those taking placebo and in 56% of those taking 40 mg, 76% taking 80 mg, and 94% taking 120 mg of febuxostat. The mean sUA reduction from baseline to day 28 was 2% in the placebo group and 37% in the 40‐mg, 44% in the 80‐mg, and 59% in the 120‐mg febuxostat groups. Gout flares occurred with similar frequency in the placebo (37%) and 40‐mg febuxostat (35%) groups and with increased frequency in the higher dosage febuxostat groups (43% taking 80 mg; 55% taking 120 mg). During colchicine prophylaxis, gout flares occurred less frequently (8–13%). Incidences of treatment‐related adverse events were similar in the febuxostat and placebo groups.

Conclusion

Treatment with febuxostat resulted in a significant reduction of sUA levels at all dosages. Febuxostat therapy was safe and well tolerated.

     

Safety and efficacy of an oral histone deacetylase inhibitor in systemic‐onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Objective

The current treatment options for systemic‐onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are methotrexate, steroids, and biologic agents. This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety of the orally active histone deacetylase inhibitor givinostat (ITF2357) and its ability to affect the disease.

Methods

Givinostat was administered orally, for up to 12 weeks at a dosage of 1.5 mg/kg/day, to 17 patients with systemic‐onset JIA who had had active disease for ≥1 month. Disease activity was clinically assessed using the American College of Rheumatology Pediatric 30 (ACR Pedi 30), ACR Pedi 50, or ACR Pedi 70 criteria for improvement and a systemic feature score. The primary goal was safety and the primary efficacy end point was the number of patients completing 12 weeks of treatment who were responders.

Results

Givinostat was safe and well tolerated, with adverse events (AEs) being mild or moderate, of short duration, and self‐limited. The 17 patients from the intent‐to‐treat population reported a total of 44 AEs, and the 9 patients in the per‐protocol population reported a total of 25. Six AEs in 3 patients (nausea, vomiting, and fatigue) were related to the study drug, but each resolved spontaneously and no patient was withdrawn from the study due to drug‐related AEs. In the per‐protocol population at week 4, the improvement as measured by the ACR Pedi 30, ACR Pedi 50, and ACR Pedi 70, respectively, was 77.8%, 55.6%, and 22.2%, and this increased further to 77.8%, 77.8%, and 66.7% at week 12. The most consistent finding was the reduction in the number of joints with active disease or with limited range of motion.

Conclusion

After 12 weeks, givinostat exhibited significant therapeutic benefit in patients with systemic‐onset JIA, particularly with regard to the arthritic component of the disease, and showed an excellent safety profile.

     

Atacicept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a multicenter,phase ib,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,dose‐escalating,single‐ and repeated‐dose study

Objective

Atacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that binds and neutralizes B lymphocyte stimulator and a proliferation‐inducing ligand. The purpose of this study was to investigate the tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of atacicept treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to collect exploratory data on clinical outcomes.

Methods

In this multicenter, phase Ib, randomized, placebo‐controlled, dose‐escalating trial, 73 patients were enrolled into 6 escalating‐dose cohorts. Patients received atacicept or placebo as single doses (70, 210, or 630 mg) or as repeated doses given at 2‐week intervals (3 doses of 70 mg, 3 doses of 210 mg, or 7 doses of 420 mg), followed by 10 weeks of trial assessments, with a followup assessment at 3 months after the final dose.

Results

Atacicept was well tolerated, with few differences between treatment groups and no obvious safety concerns. The pharmacokinetics profile was nonlinear, but was consistent and predictable across all doses and regimens. Treatment‐related decreases in immunoglobulin (particularly IgM) and rheumatoid factor levels were evident, and a clear decrease in anti–citrullinated protein antibodies was observed in the cohort that received 7 doses of 420 mg. The B cell response was biphasic, with an initial transient increase (dominated by memory B cells) followed by a dose‐related decrease (dominated by mature B cells). Clinical assessments showed trends toward improvement with the 3‐month treatment. Little effect on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C‐reactive protein levels was seen.

Conclusion

Atacicept was well tolerated both systemically and locally. The results demonstrated that the biologic activity of atacicept was consistent with its mechanism of action.

     

Ultrasound Can Improve the Accuracy of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Classification Criteria for Rheumatoid Arthritis to Predict the Requirement for Methotrexate Treatment

Objective

The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refer to a possible use of ultrasound “for confirmation of the clinical findings.” We undertook this study to determine the optimized definition of ultrasound‐detected synovitis for the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria and to assess the impact of its use on the accuracy of RA classification.

Methods

One hundred nine patients with musculoskeletal symptoms for ≤3 years were enrolled in the study. Patients underwent clinical, laboratory, radiographic, and comprehensive ultrasonographic assessments at baseline and received routine management from expert rheumatologists who were blinded to the ultrasound findings.

Results

Sensitivity and specificity of the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria using different definitions of synovitis to identify patients who developed a disease requiring methotrexate (MTX) treatment within 1 year were 58.5% and 79.4%, respectively, for clinical synovitis (tenderness or swelling), 78.0% and 79.4%, respectively, for ultrasound‐detected synovitis with a gray‐scale (GS) imaging score ≥1 (GS ≥1 ultrasound synovitis), and 56.1% and 93.7%, respectively, for GS ≥2 ultrasound synovitis or a synovial power Doppler (PD) signal score ≥1 (GS ≥2/PD ≥1 ultrasound synovitis). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the criteria scores revealed the largest area under the curve with GS ≥2/PD ≥1 ultrasound synovitis.

Conclusion

Ultrasound assessment improves the accuracy of the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria for identifying patients with a disease requiring MTX treatment. Our data provide preliminary but vital information for the methodology to confirm the presence of synovitis using ultrasound in the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria.