A randomized,placebo‐controlled,double‐masked clinical trial of etanercept for the treatment of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Objective

To investigate the safety and efficacy of etanercept in the treatment of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Methods

Children who met the American College of Rheumatology diagnostic criteria for JIA with active uveitis, who had anterior chamber cells of ≥1+ or requiring topical corticosteroid ≥3 times daily, and who were on a stable regimen for arthritis treatment were eligible. Study participants received etanercept (0.4 mg/kg) or placebo administered subcutaneously twice weekly for 6 months. All participants received open‐label etanercept for an additional 6 months.

Results

Five patients received placebo and 7 received etanercept. Three of the 7 patients treated with etanercept and 2 of the 5 placebo‐treated patients were considered ophthalmic successes (P = 1.0). One patient in each treatment group was considered a treatment failure. Three of the 7 etanercept‐treated and 2 of the 5 placebo‐treated patients were neither successes nor failures by our definition. There were no serious adverse events for any patient during the entire study period. Reports of minor infections were comparable in each treatment group, 71% for etanercept and 60% for placebo (P = 0.58).

Conclusion

In this small pilot study there was no apparent difference in the anterior segment inflammation between patients treated with etanercept and placebo. The stringent criteria used to measure ophthalmic success of treatment and the small patient population limit the implications of our findings.

     

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.

     

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.

     

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.

     

Comparison of etanercept and methotrexate,alone and combined,in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Two‐year clinical and radiographic results from the TEMPO study,a double‐blind,randomized trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy, including radiographic changes, and safety of etanercept and methotrexate (MTX), used in combination and alone, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom previous treatment with a disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug other than MTX had failed.

Methods

Patients with RA were treated with etanercept (25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly), oral MTX (up to 20 mg weekly), or combination therapy with etanercept plus MTX through a second year, in a double‐blinded manner. Clinical response was assessed using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and the Disease Activity Score (DAS), in a modified intent‐to‐treat analysis with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) and in a population of completers. Radiographs of the hands, wrists, and forefeet were scored for erosions and joint space narrowing at annual intervals.

Results

A total of 503 of 686 patients continued into year 2 of the study. During the 2 years, significantly fewer patients receiving combination therapy withdrew from the study (29% of the combination therapy group, 39% of the etanercept group, and 48% of the MTX group). Both the LOCF and the completer analyses yielded similar results. The ACR 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses and the remission rates (based on a DAS of <1.6) were significantly higher with combination therapy than with either monotherapy (P < 0.01). Similarly, improvement in disability (based on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) was greater with combination therapy (P < 0.01). The combination therapy group showed significantly less radiographic progression than did either group receiving monotherapy (P < 0.05); moreover, radiographic progression was significantly lower in the etanercept group compared with the MTX group (P < 0.05). For the second consecutive year, overall disease progression in the combination therapy group was negative, with the 95% confidence interval less than zero. Adverse events were similar in the 3 treatment groups.

Conclusion

Etanercept in combination with MTX reduced disease activity, slowed radiographic progression, and improved function more effectively than did either monotherapy over a 2‐year period. No increase in toxicity was associated with combination treatment with etanercept plus MTX.

     

Efficacy and safety of four doses of lumiracoxib versus diclofenac in patients with knee or hip primary osteoarthritis: A phase II,four‐week,multicenter, randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the novel cyclooxygenase 2‐selective inhibitor lumiracoxib with placebo and diclofenac in osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

Adults (n = 583) with knee or hip OA were randomized to receive for 4 weeks lumiracoxib 50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily or 400 mg once daily; placebo; or diclofenac 75 mg twice daily. Efficacy assessments included overall joint pain intensity and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscales; tolerability was evaluated by adverse event and physician reporting.

Results

All lumiracoxib doses were superior to placebo in relieving pain, improving stiffness, and improving physical function after 4 weeks. At study endpoint, pain relief was comparable among all lumiracoxib dosages and similar to diclofenac. Lumiracoxib tolerability was superior to diclofenac and comparable to placebo.

Conclusion

Lumiracoxib provides predictable and sustained relief from pain, stiffness, and impaired physical function in OA. Lumiracoxib shows clinically comparable efficacy and superior tolerability to diclofenac.

     

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.

     

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.

     

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.

     

LY2439821, a humanized anti–interleukin‐17 monoclonal antibody,in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A phase I randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,proof‐of‐concept study

Objective

We undertook this study to evaluate safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of LY2439821, a humanized anti–interleukin‐17 (anti–IL‐17) monoclonal antibody, in a first in‐human trial in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients taking oral disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Methods

This randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study consisted of 2 parts. In part A, 20 patients received 1 intravenous (IV) dose of LY2439821 (0.06, 0.2, 0.6, or 2.0 mg/kg, escalating) or placebo followed by 8 weeks of evaluation. End points included safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics. In part B, 77 patients received 1 IV dose of LY2439821 (0.2, 0.6, or 2.0 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks for a total of 5 doses, with a total evaluation period of 16 weeks. End points included safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, and efficacy (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28] and percentages of patients meeting American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement criteria [achieving an ACR20, ACR50, or ACR70 response]). The primary efficacy end point was the DAS28 at week 10.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar across all groups. Changes in the DAS28 were significantly greater in the 0.2 mg/kg, 2.0 mg/kg, and all‐LY2439821–combined groups (−2.3, −2.4, and −2.3, respectively) than in the placebo group (−1.7) at week 10 (P ≤ 0.05), and these differences were significant as early as week 1. Percentages of ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses as well as improvements in the ACR core set of measures were greater in LY2439821‐treated patients than in placebo‐treated patients at multiple time points. There was no apparent dose‐response relationship in treatment‐emergent adverse events.

Conclusion

LY2439821 added to oral DMARDs improved signs and symptoms of RA, with no strong adverse safety signal noted. This first evaluation of LY2439821 supports neutralization of IL‐17 as a potential novel goal for the treatment of RA.

     

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.

     

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.

     

Long‐term safety and efficacy of etanercept in children with polyarticular‐course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

Previous studies showed that etanercept treatment in patients with polyarticular‐course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) provided rapid clinical improvement that was sustained for up to 2 years. The goal of our study was to provide data on safety and efficacy after 4 years of etanercept treatment in patients with JRA.

Methods

Patients with active polyarticular‐course JRA who participated in an efficacy study continued etanercept treatment in an open‐label extension. Safety was assessed by measuring rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections. Efficacy was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Pediatric 30 criteria for improvement and standard measures of disease activity. (The ACR Pediatric 30 criteria are defined as improvement of ≥30% in at least 3 of 6 core response variables used to assess disease activity, with no more than 1 variable worsening by ≥30%.)

Results

Of the 69 patients who enrolled in the original efficacy study, 58 patients (84%) enrolled in the extension, 34 patients received etanercept treatment for ≥4 years, and 32 of these received complete efficacy assessments. The rate of SAEs was 0.13 per patient‐year, and the rate of serious infections was 0.04 per patient‐year, in a total etanercept exposure of 225 patient‐years. Eighty‐two percent of patients who received corticosteroids at any time during the extension were able to decrease their dosage to ≤5 mg/day prednisone equivalent. Of the 32 patients with complete efficacy data who received etanercept for ≥4 years, 94% achieved an ACR Pediatric 30 response and 78% achieved an ACR Pediatric 70 response at the last study visit.

Conclusion

Etanercept offers an acceptable safety profile in children with polyarticular‐course JRA and provides significant improvement in disease manifestations that are sustained for ≥4 years.

     

Six‐month results of a double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial of etanercept treatment in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis

Objective

There is increasing evidence that tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) is centrally involved in the pathogenesis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and other spondylarthritides. This study was designed to investigate the efficacy of anti‐TNFα therapy with etanercept, a 75‐kd receptor fusion protein, in active AS.

Methods

This multicenter trial had 2 phases: an initial placebo‐controlled period of 6 weeks' duration and an observational phase lasting 24 weeks. Thirty patients with active AS were included. They were randomized into 2 groups, which received either etanercept (25 mg twice weekly) (n = 14) or placebo (n = 16) for 6 weeks. Then both groups were treated with etanercept. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) treatment could be continued, but disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and steroids had to be withdrawn prior to the study. All patients received etanercept for a total of 12 weeks and were followed up for at least 24 weeks. The Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath AS Functional Index, Bath AS Metrology Index, pain level on a numeric rating scale, quality of life by the Short Form 36, and C‐reactive protein (CRP) level were assessed. The primary outcome parameter was a ≥50% improvement in the BASDAI.

Results

Treatment with etanercept resulted in at least a 50% regression of disease activity in 57% of these patients at week 6, versus 6% of the placebo‐treated patients (P = 0.004). After the placebo‐treated patients switched to etanercept, 56% improved. The mean ± SD BASDAI improved from 6.5 ± 1.2 at baseline to 3.5 ± 1.9 at week 6 in the etanercept group, with no improvement in the placebo group (P = 0.003 between groups). Similarly, pain, function, mobility, and quality of life improved with etanercept but not with placebo at week 6 (P < 0.05). Mean CRP levels decreased significantly with etanercept but not with placebo (P = 0.001). There was ongoing improvement in all parameters in both groups until week 12 and week 18, respectively (i.e., throughout the period of etanercept treatment). Disease relapses occurred a mean ± SD of 6.2 ± 3.0 weeks after cessation of etanercept. No severe adverse events, including major infections, were observed during the trial.

Conclusion

This study shows that on a short‐term basis (3 months), treatment with etanercept is clearly efficacious in patients with active AS who are receiving NSAID therapy but not DMARDs or steroids. After cessation of therapy, almost all patients experienced a relapse within a few weeks. Thus, it seems probable that etanercept must be administered continuously in most AS patients to achieve permanent inhibition of the inflammatory process.

     

Etanercept therapy in children with treatment‐resistant uveitis

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the tumor necrosis factor fusion protein etanercept in children with treatment‐resistant uveitis.

Methods

Ten children with chronic active uveitis (7 girls and 3 boys, mean age 7.5 years [range 3–12 years]) were enrolled in this prospective study. In 7 children, uveitis was associated with pauciarticular juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Five children were antinuclear antibody positive. All patients had failed previous therapy with topical steroids and methotrexate and/or cyclosporine. All were treated with etanercept at a dosage of 0.4 mg/kg twice weekly for the first 3 months, and then, if eyes did not improve, with 25 mg twice weekly (mean 1.1 mg/kg) for at least 3 additional months.

Results

At the beginning of the trial, uveitis affected 18 eyes in the 10 children. Within 3 months, 10 of 16 affected eyes (63%; P = 0.017) showed a rapid decrease in anterior chamber cell density, including remission of uveitis in 4 eyes. In children with visual acuity of less than 20/25, 4 of 10 eyes (40%) improved. An exacerbation of uveitis during etanercept therapy occurred in only 1 child (1 of 14 eyes [7%]). Other ocular outcome parameters, such as intraocular pressure, synechia formation, and lens clarity, remained unchanged. Following a dosage increase to an average of 1.1 mg/kg after 3 months in 7 children, no further improvement was noted.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that etanercept injected subcutaneously twice a week has a beneficial effect on treatment‐resistant chronic uveitis in children. Further controlled studies with etanercept in systemic or topical form are necessary to confirm its efficacy and optimal mode of administration.

     

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 influence of genetic variation in the HLA–DRB1 and LTA–TNF regions on the response to treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate or etanercept

Objective

To examine the roles of specific genetic polymorphisms as predictors of response to treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Subjects included 457 patients with early RA (duration of ≤3 years) who participated in a randomized controlled trial comparing weekly methotrexate and 2 dosages of etanercept (10 mg twice weekly and 25 mg twice weekly). Our primary outcome measure was achievement of 50% improvement in disease activity according to the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR50 response) after 12 months of treatment. Subjects were genotyped for HLA–DRB1 alleles and polymorphisms in the following genes: TNF, LTA, TNFRSF1A, TNFRSF1B, FCGR2A, FCGR3A, and FCGR3B. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to define the impact of specific polymorphisms and haplotypes on response to treatment. Covariates for the multivariate analyses included sex, ethnicity, age, disease duration, and baseline values for rheumatoid factor and the tender and swollen joint counts.

Results

The presence of 2 HLA–DRB1 alleles encoding the shared epitope (SE) (compared with 1 or 0 copies) was associated with response to treatment with standard‐dose etanercept (odds ratio [OR] 4.3, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.8–10.3). Among Caucasian patients, 2 extended haplotypes that included the HLA–DRB1 alleles *0404 and *0101 (both of which encode the SE) and 6 single‐nucleotide polymorphisms in the LTA–TNF region were associated with response to treatment. In a multivariate model that included treatment received and the aforementioned covariates, the ORs for the association of these haplotypes with achievement of an ACR50 response at 12 months were 2.5 (95% CI 0.8–7.3) and 4.9 (95% CI 1.5–16.1) for the *0404‐ and *0101‐containing haplotypes, respectively.

Conclusion

Genetic variation in the HLA–DRB1 and the LTA–TNF regions is significantly associated with response to treatment of early RA. These findings may have clinical application through the identification of patients who are most likely to benefit from treatment with methotrexate or etanercept.

     

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.

     

Treatment of early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis: A two‐year,double‐blind comparison of minocycline and hydroxychloroquine

Objective

To compare the efficacy of minocycline with that of a conventional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), hydroxychloroquine, in patients with early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Sixty patients with seropositive RA of <1 year's duration who had not been previously treated with DMARDs were randomized to receive minocycline, 100 mg twice per day, or hydroxychloroquine, 200 mg twice per day, in a 2‐year, double‐blind protocol. All patients also received low‐dose prednisone. The primary end points of the study were 1) the percentage of patients with an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% improvement (ACR50) response at 2 years, and 2) the dosage of prednisone at 2 years.

Results

Minocycline‐treated patients were more likely to achieve an ACR50 response at 2 years compared with hydroxychloroquine‐treated patients (60% compared with 33%, respectively; P = 0.04). Minocycline‐treated patients were also receiving less prednisone at 2 years compared with the hydroxychloroquine group (mean 0.81 mg/day compared with 3.21 mg/day, respectively; P < 0.01). In addition, patients treated with minocycline were more likely to have been completely tapered off prednisone (P = 0.03). Trends favoring the minocycline treatment group were seen when outcomes were assessed according to components of the ACR core criteria set, with the differences reaching statistical significance for patient's global assessment of disease activity (P = 0.004).

Conclusion

Minocycline is an effective DMARD in patients with early seropositive RA. Patients treated with minocycline were more likely to achieve an ACR50 response and did so while receiving less prednisone. In addition, minocycline‐treated patients were more likely to have discontinued treatment with prednisone at 2 years.

     

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

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab plus methotrexate (MTX) or leflunomide (LEF) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors.

Methods

This was a multicenter randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study that continued over 48 weeks. Patients receiving stable doses of MTX or LEF were randomized to receive 2 infusions of placebo (n = 277), ocrelizumab 200 mg (n = 278), or ocrelizumab 500 mg (n = 285) on days 1 and 15 as well as at weeks 24 and 26. Coprimary end points were the proportion of patients with response according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) 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

ACR20 responses were 22.0% in the placebo group, 42.2% in the ocrelizumab 200 mg group, and 47.9% in the ocrelizumab 500 mg group at 24 weeks and 19.5%, 48.7%, and 50.7%, respectively, at 48 weeks (P < 0.0001 versus placebo for each comparison at each time point). At 48 weeks, patients receiving both doses of ocrelizumab showed significantly improved ACR50 and ACR70 responses of ∼3‐fold versus placebo. Only those in the ocrelizumab 500 mg group showed statistically significant (P = 0.0017) inhibition of joint damage progression (mean change in the SHS) relative to placebo (61% inhibition) at 48 weeks. Overall adverse events and infections during the 48 weeks of study were comparable in all treatment groups. Serious infections were observed more frequently in patients taking ocrelizumab (5.1% and 4.3%) than in those taking placebo (2.5%).

Conclusion

Patients in both of the ocrelizumab groups met the clinical primary efficacy end points. Inhibition of change in the SHS was statistically significant at 48 weeks for those in the ocrelizumab 500 mg group. The rate of serious infections in this trial was higher for both ocrelizumab doses as compared with placebo.