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.

     

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.

     

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.

     

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.

     

Double‐blind randomized controlled clinical trial of the interleukin‐6 receptor antagonist,tocilizumab, in European patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an incomplete response to methotrexate

Objective

To establish the safety and efficacy of repeat infusions of tocilizumab (previously known as MRA), a humanized anti–interleukin‐6 (IL‐6) receptor antibody, alone and in combination with methotrexate (MTX), for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

The study group comprised 359 patients with active RA in whom the response to MTX was inadequate. During a stabilization period, these patients received their current dose of MTX for at least 4 weeks. Following stabilization, they were randomized to 1 of 7 treatment arms, as follows: tocilizumab at doses of 2 mg/kg, 4 mg/kg, or 8 mg/kg either as monotherapy or in combination with MTX, or MTX plus placebo.

Results

A 20% response (improvement) according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 response) was achieved by 61% and 63% of patients receiving 4 mg/kg and 8 mg/kg of tocilizumab as monotherapy, respectively, and by 63% and 74% of patients receiving those doses of tocilizumab plus MTX, respectively, compared with 41% of patients receiving placebo plus MTX. Statistically significant ACR50 and ACR70 responses were observed in patients receiving combination therapy with either 4 mg/kg or 8 mg/kg of tocilizumab plus MTX (P < 0.05). A dose‐related reduction in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints was observed from week 4 onward, in all patients except those receiving monotherapy with 2 mg/kg of tocilizumab. In the majority of patients who received 8 mg/kg of tocilizumab, the C‐reactive protein level/erythrocyte sedimentation rate normalized, while placebo plus MTX had little effect on these laboratory parameters. Tocilizumab was mostly well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of other biologic and immunosuppressive therapies. Alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels followed a sawtooth pattern (rising and falling between infusions). There were moderate but reversible increases in the nonfasting total cholesterol and triglyceride levels and reversible reductions in the high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and neutrophil levels. There were 2 cases of sepsis, both of which occurred in patients who were receiving combination therapy with 8 mg/kg of tocilizumab plus MTX.

Conclusion

These results indicate that targeted blockade of IL‐6 signaling is a highly efficacious and promising means of decreasing disease activity in RA.

     

Adalimumab,a fully human anti–tumor necrosis factor α monoclonal antibody,for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients taking concomitant methotrexate: The ARMADA trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab (D2E7), a fully human monoclonal tumor necrosis factor α antibody, in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with MTX.

Methods

In a 24‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study, 271 patients with active RA were randomly assigned to receive injections of adalimumab (20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg subcutaneously) or placebo every other week while continuing to take their long‐term stable dosage of MTX. The primary efficacy end point was the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at 24 weeks.

Results

An ACR20 response at week 24 was achieved by a significantly greater proportion of patients in the 20‐mg, 40‐mg, and 80‐mg adalimumab plus MTX groups (47.8%, 67.2%, and 65.8%, respectively) than in the placebo plus MTX group (14.5%) (P < 0.001). ACR50 response rates with the 20‐mg, 40‐mg, and 80‐mg adalimumab dosages (31.9%, 55.2%, and 42.5%, respectively) were significantly greater than that with placebo (8.1%) (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively). The 40‐mg and 80‐mg doses of adalimumab were associated with an ACR70 response (26.9% and 19.2%, respectively) that was statistically significantly greater than that with placebo (4.8%) (P < 0.001 and P = 0.020). Responses were rapid, with the greatest proportion of adalimumab‐treated patients achieving an ACR20 response at the first scheduled visit (week 1). Adalimumab was safe and well tolerated; comparable numbers of adalimumab‐treated patients and placebo‐treated patients reported adverse events.

Conclusion

The addition of adalimumab at a dosage of 20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg administered subcutaneously every other week to long‐term MTX therapy in patients with active RA provided significant, rapid, and sustained improvement in disease activity over 24 weeks compared with MTX plus placebo.

     

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.

     

Safety of the selective costimulation modulator abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving background biologic and nonbiologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs: A one‐year randomized,placebo‐controlled study

Objective

To assess the safety of abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had been receiving ≥1 traditional nonbiologic and/or biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) approved for the treatment of RA for at least 3 months prior to entry into the study.

Methods

This was a 1‐year, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive abatacept at a fixed dose approximating 10 mg/kg by weight range, or placebo.

Results

The abatacept and placebo groups exhibited similar frequencies of adverse events (90% and 87%, respectively), serious adverse events (13% and 12%, respectively), and discontinuations due to adverse events (5% and 4%, respectively). Five patients (0.5%) in the abatacept group and 4 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group died during the study. Serious infections were more frequent in the abatacept group than in the placebo group (2.9% versus 1.9%). Fewer than 4% of patients in either group experienced a severe or very severe infection. The incidence of neoplasms was 3.5% in both groups. When evaluated according to background therapy, serious adverse events occurred more frequently in the subgroup receiving abatacept plus a biologic agent (22.3%) than in the other subgroups (11.7–12.5%).

Conclusion

Abatacept in combination with synthetic DMARDs was well tolerated and improved physical function and physician‐ and patient‐reported disease outcomes. However, abatacept in combination with biologic background therapies was associated with an increase in the rate of serious adverse events. Therefore, abatacept is not recommended for use in combination with biologic therapy.

     

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.

     

Abatacept in the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis: Results of a six‐month,multicenter, randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,phase II trial

Objective

To assess the safety and efficacy of abatacept, a selective T cell costimulation modulator, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

In this 6‐month, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase II study, 170 PsA patients with a psoriasis target lesion (TL) ≥2 cm who had previously taken disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti‐TNF) agents, were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive placebo or abatacept at doses of 3 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, or 30/10 mg/kg (2 initial doses of 30 mg/kg, followed by 10 mg/kg) on days 1, 15, and 29 and then once every 28 days thereafter. The primary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20 response) on day 169. Other key end points were magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scores for joint erosion, osteitis, and synovitis, scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and the Short Form‐36 (SF‐36) health survey, the investigator's global assessment of psoriasis, the TL score, and the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score.

Results

Proportions of patients achieving an ACR20 response were 19%, 33%, 48%, and 42% in the placebo, the abatacept 3 mg/kg, the abatacept 10 mg/kg, and the abatacept 30/10 mg/kg groups, respectively. Compared with placebo, improvements were significantly higher for the abatacept 10 mg/kg (P = 0.006) and 30/10 mg/kg (P = 0.022) groups, but not for 3 mg/kg group (P = 0.121). All abatacept regimens resulted in improved MRI, HAQ, and SF‐36 scores, with 10 mg/kg showing the greatest improvements. Improvements in the TL and PASI scores were observed in all abatacept arms; a response according to the investigator's global assessment was seen only with 3 mg/kg of abatacept. The safety profiles were similar among the treatment arms.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that 10 mg/kg of abatacept, the approved dosage for rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, may be an effective treatment option for PsA.

     

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.

     

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine,methotrexate and sulfasalazine,or a combination of the three medications: Results of a two‐year,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To compare the efficacy of combination therapy with methotrexate (MTX) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), MTX and sulfasalazine (SSZ), and MTX, HCQ, and SSZ in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

RA patients (n = 171) who had not previously been treated with combinations of the study medications were randomized to receive 1 of the 3 treatment combinations in this 2‐year, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled protocol. HCQ was given at a dosage of 200 mg twice a day. The dosage of MTX was accelerated from 7.5 mg/week to 17.5 mg/week in all patients who were not in remission. Similarly, the dosage of SSZ was escalated from 500 mg twice a day to 1 gm twice a day in patients who were not in remission. The primary end point of the study was the percentage of patients who had a 20% response to therapy according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria at 2 years.

Results

Intent‐to‐treat analysis revealed that patients receiving the triple combination responded best, with 78% achieving an ACR 20% response at 2 years, compared with 60% of those treated with MTX and HCQ (P = 0.05) and 49% of those treated with MTX and SSZ (P = 0.002). Similar trends were seen for the ACR 50% response, with 55%, 40%, and 29% of patients in the 3 treatment groups, respectively, achieving these results at 2 years (P = 0.005 for the triple combination group versus the MTX and SSZ group). All combination treatments were well‐tolerated. Fourteen patients (evenly distributed among the 3 groups) withdrew from the protocol because of symptoms that were potentially related to the study medication.

Conclusion

The triple combination of MTX, SSZ, and HCQ is well‐tolerated, and its efficacy is superior to that of the double combination of MTX and SSZ and is marginally superior to that of the double combination of MTX and HCQ.

     

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.

     

Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A double‐blind trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus as monotherapy in controlling the signs and symptoms of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

This was a 6‐month, phase III, double‐blind, multicenter study. Patients with active RA who had discontinued all disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for an appropriate washout period (at least 1 month) and who, after the washout period, had a stable joint count (at least 10 tender/painful joints and 7 swollen joints) were stratified according to DMARD intolerance or DMARD resistance, and randomized to receive a single daily oral dose of placebo, tacrolimus 2 mg, or tacrolimus 3 mg.

Results

A total of 464 patients received at least 1 dose of study drug. Baseline characteristics were similar among the 3 treatment groups. American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) success (defined as completion of 6 months of treatment and an ACR20 response at the month 6 visit) for the placebo, tacrolimus 2 mg, and tacrolimus 3 mg groups was 10.2%, 18.8% (P < 0.05 versus placebo), and 26.8% (P < 0.0005 versus placebo), respectively. At the end of treatment, the ACR20 and ACR50 response rates in the 3‐mg group were 32.0% (P < 0.005 versus placebo) and 11.8% (P < 0.05 versus placebo), respectively. DMARD‐intolerant patients had better ACR response rates than did DMARD‐resistant patients. Although serum creatinine levels increased by ≥40% from baseline at some time during the trial in 20% and 29% of patients receiving tacrolimus 2 mg/day and 3 mg/day, respectively, the serum creatinine level remained within the normal range throughout the trial in ∼90% of patients.

Conclusion

Tacrolimus, at dosages of both 2 mg/day and 3 mg/day, is efficacious and safe as monotherapy for patients with active RA, but treatment with the 3‐mg dose of tacrolimus resulted in generally better ACR response rates.

     

Comparison of the clinical efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus oral administration of methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a six‐month,multicenter, randomized,double‐blind,controlled, phase IV trial

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) versus oral administration of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

MTX‐naive patients with active RA (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints ≥4) were eligible for the study if they had not previously taken biologic agents and had not taken disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs for 2 weeks prior to randomization. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 15 mg/week of MTX either orally (2 7.5‐mg tablets plus a dummy prefilled syringe; n = 187 patients) or SC (prefilled syringe containing 10 mg/ml plus 2 dummy tablets; n = 188 patients) for 24 weeks. At week 16, patients who did not meet the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) were switched from 15 mg of oral MTX to 15 mg of SC MTX and from 15 mg of SC MTX to 20 mg of SC MTX for the remaining 8 weeks, still in a blinded manner. The primary outcome was an ACR20 response at 24 weeks.

Results

At week 24, significantly more patients treated with SC MTX than with oral MTX showed ACR20 (78% versus 70%) and ACR70 (41% versus 33%) responses. Patients with a disease duration ≥12 months had even higher ACR20 response rates (89% for SC administration and 63% for oral). In 52 of the ACR20 nonresponders (14%), treatment was switched at week 16. Changing from oral to SC MTX and from 15 mg to 20 mg of SC MTX resulted in 30% and 23% ACR20 response rates, respectively, in these patients. MTX was well tolerated. The rate of adverse events was similar in all groups.

Conclusion

This 6‐month prospective, randomized, controlled trial is the first to examine oral versus SC administration of MTX. We found that SC administration was significantly more effective than oral administration of the same MTX dosage. There was no difference in tolerability.

     

Head‐to‐head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: Findings of a phase IIIb,multinational, prospective,randomized study

Objective

There is a need for comparative studies to provide evidence‐based treatment guidance for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, this study was undertaken as the first head‐to‐head comparison of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept and SC adalimumab, both administered along with background methotrexate (MTX), for the treatment of RA.

Methods

Patients with active RA who were naive to treatment with biologic agents and had an inadequate response to MTX were randomly assigned to receive 125 mg SC abatacept weekly or 40 mg SC adalimumab biweekly, both given in combination with MTX, in a 2‐year study. The primary end point was treatment noninferiority, assessed according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response (ACR20) at 1 year.

Results

Of the 646 patients who were randomized and treated, 86.2% receiving SC abatacept and 82% receiving SC adalimumab completed 12 months of treatment. At 1 year, 64.8% of patients in the SC abatacept group and 63.4% in the SC adalimumab group demonstrated an ACR20 response; the estimated difference between groups was 1.8% (95% confidence interval −5.6%, 9.2%), thus demonstrating the noninferiority of abatacept compared to adalimumab. All efficacy measures showed similar results and kinetics of response between treatments. The rate of radiographic nonprogression (defined as a total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score [SHS] less than or equal to the smallest detectable change) was 84.8% for SC abatacept–treated patients and 88.6% for SC adalimumab–treated patients, while the mean change from baseline in the total SHS was 0.58 and 0.38, respectively. In the SC abatacept and SC adalimumab groups, the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was 10.1% and 9.1%, respectively, and the rate of serious infections was 2.2% and 2.7%, respectively. In patients treated with SC abatacept, the frequency of discontinuations due to AEs was 3.5% and discontinuations due to SAEs was 1.3%, while in patients treated with SC adalimumab, the frequencies were 6.1% and 3%, respectively. Injection site reactions occurred in 3.8% of patients receiving SC abatacept compared to 9.1% of patients receiving SC adalimumab (P = 0.006).

Conclusion

The results demonstrate that SC abatacept and SC adalimumab have comparable efficacy in patients with RA, as shown by similar kinetics of response and comparable inhibition of radiographic progression over 1 year of treatment. The safety was generally similar, other than the occurrence of significantly more local injection site reactions in patients treated with SC adalimumab.

     

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.

     

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.

     

Therapeutic benefit of blocking interleukin‐6 activity with an anti–interleukin‐6 receptor monoclonal antibody in rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,dose‐escalation trial

Objective

To investigate the safety and efficacy of MRA, a recombinant human anti–interleukin‐6 (anti–IL‐6) receptor monoclonal antibody of the IgG1 subclass that inhibits the function of IL‐6, in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, dose‐escalation trial was conducted in 45 patients with active RA, as defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) revised criteria. Patients were sequentially allocated to receive a single intravenous dose of either 0.1, 1, 5, or 10 mg/kg of MRA or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was meeting the ACR 20% response criteria at week 2 after treatment.

Results

Demographic features were similar between treatment groups. At week 2, a significant treatment difference was observed between the 5 mg/kg of MRA and placebo, with 5 patients (55.6%) in the MRA cohort and none in the placebo cohort achieving ACR 20% improvement. There was no statistically significant difference in the ACR 20% response between the other 3 MRA cohorts and placebo at week 2. The mean disease activity score at week 2 in those who received 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg of MRA was 4.8 and 4.7 (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001 by analysis of variance), respectively. These mean scores were statistically significantly lower than those in the 0.1‐ and 1‐mg/kg MRA and the placebo cohorts (6.4, 6.2, and 7.0, respectively). The erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C‐reactive protein values fell significantly in the 5‐ and 10‐mg/kg MRA cohorts and normalized 2 weeks after treatment. Seventeen patients (5, 4, 6, 2, and 0 patients in the placebo, 0.1‐, 1‐, 5‐, and 10‐mg/kg MRA cohorts, respectively) required corticosteroid or disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug treatment because of active disease before study end. They were regarded as nonresponders from the time they received these treatments. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event, occurring in 8% of patients. Seven patients (15.6%) reported a severe adverse event (3, 1, 2, and 2 patients in the placebo, 0.1‐, 1‐, and 10‐mg/kg MRA cohorts). There were no serious adverse events that were thought to be related to the study drug.

Conclusion

This is the first randomized controlled trial showing that inhibition of IL‐6 significantly improved the signs and symptoms of RA and normalized the acute‐phase reactants. Further research with multiple dosing is necessary to define the most appropriate therapeutic regimen of MRA in RA.

     

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.