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 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.

     

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.

     

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

     

A 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,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.

     

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.

     

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.

     

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

     

Adalimumab for long‐term treatment of psoriatic arthritis: Forty‐eight week data from the adalimumab effectiveness in psoriatic arthritis trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with adalimumab, a fully human anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti‐TNF) monoclonal antibody, over 48 weeks in patients with moderate to severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

Patients who completed the Adalimumab Effectiveness in Psoriatic Arthritis Trial (ADEPT), a 24‐week, double‐blind study of adalimumab versus placebo in PsA, could elect to receive open‐label adalimumab, 40 mg subcutaneously every other week after week 24. Radiographs were obtained at week 48 and were read with radiographs obtained previously. Clinical and radiographic efficacy data were analyzed overall and in patient subsets. Safety data were collected over 48 weeks.

Results

At week 48, patients from the adalimumab arm of ADEPT (n = 151) had achieved American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 response rates of 56%, 44%, and 30%, respectively. Among those evaluated with the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) (n = 69), PASI50, PASI75, PASI90, and PASI100 response rates (≥50%, ≥75%, ≥90%, and 100% reduction in PASI scores, respectively) were 67%, 58%, 46%, and 33%, respectively (ACR and PASI response rates were analyzed using nonresponder imputation). Improvements in disability, as measured by the Disability Index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (mean change in score –0.4) were sustained from week 24 to week 48. At week 24 and week 48, the mean changes from baseline in the modified total Sharp score were –0.1 and 0.1, respectively, for patients who received adalimumab for 48 weeks (n = 133), and 0.9 and 1.0, respectively, for patients who received placebo for 24 weeks followed by adalimumab for 24 weeks (n = 141). Adalimumab demonstrated clinical and radiographic efficacy regardless of whether patients were receiving methotrexate (MTX) at baseline. Adalimumab was generally safe and well tolerated through week 48.

Conclusion

Adalimumab improved joint and skin manifestations, reduced disability, and inhibited radiographic progression over 48 weeks in patients with PsA who were participants in ADEPT. MTX use at baseline was not required for clinical or radiographic efficacy. Adalimumab had a good safety profile through week 48.

     

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

     

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.

     

Tocilizumab inhibits structural joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate: Results from the double‐blind treatment phase of a randomized placebo‐controlled trial of tocilizumab safety and prevention of structural joint damage at one year

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab plus methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX alone in preventing structural joint damage and improving physical function and disease activity in patients with moderate‐to‐severe rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to MTX.

Methods

A total of 1,196 patients were enrolled in a 2‐year, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Patients received tocilizumab (8 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg) or placebo every 4 weeks plus MTX. Rescue treatment was available from week 16. Results from year 1 are presented.

Results

Mean change in the total Genant‐modified Sharp score was 0.29 and 0.34 with tocilizumab 8 mg/kg plus MTX and 4 mg/kg plus MTX, respectively, versus 1.13 with placebo plus MTX (P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Analysis of variance of the area under the curve for change from baseline in the disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire showed greater decreases with tocilizumab 8 mg/kg and 4 mg/kg (−144.1 and −128.4 units, respectively) than with placebo (−58.1 units; P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Proportions of patients with American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement and with Disease Activity Score in 28 joints remission were higher in those receiving 8 mg/kg tocilizumab than in those receiving placebo (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). The safety profile of tocilizumab was consistent with the profiles in previous studies. Infections were the most common adverse and serious adverse events.

Conclusion

The findings of this study show that tocilizumab plus MTX results in greater inhibition of joint damage and improvement in physical function than does MTX alone. Tocilizumab has a well‐characterized safety profile.

     

Efficacy and safety of leflunomide in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis: A multinational,double‐blind,randomized, placebo‐controlled clinical trial

Objective

Current treatment options for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are limited. Leflunomide, an oral pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor, is highly effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and small studies have suggested similar efficacy in PsA. We undertook this double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of leflunomide in patients with PsA and psoriasis.

Methods

One hundred ninety patients with active PsA and psoriasis (at least 3% skin involvement) were randomized to receive leflunomide (100 mg/day loading dose for 3 days followed by 20 mg/day orally) or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients classified as responders by the Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC). Additional efficacy (joint and skin involvement), safety, and quality‐of‐life assessments were performed.

Results

At 24 weeks, 56 of 95 leflunomide‐treated patients (58.9%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 48.4–68.9) and 27 of 91 placebo‐treated patients (29.7% [95% CI 20.6–40.2]) were classified as responders by the PsARC (P < 0.0001). Significant differences in favor of leflunomide were also observed in the proportions of patients achieving modified American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria, improvement in the designated psoriasis target lesion, and mean changes from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores and quality‐of‐life assessments. Diarrhea and alanine aminotransferase increases occurred at higher rates in the leflunomide group. No cases of serious liver toxicity were observed.

Conclusion

Leflunomide is an effective treatment for PsA and psoriasis, providing a safe and convenient alternative to current therapies.

     

Golimumab in psoriatic arthritis: One‐year clinical efficacy,radiographic, and safety results from a phase III,randomized, placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

Golimumab, administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, has been shown to be effective in reducing the signs and symptoms of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) through week 24 of the GO‐REVEAL study. Herein we report 1‐year clinical, radiographic, and safety findings.

Methods

Adult patients with active PsA (≥3 swollen and ≥3 tender joints) were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous placebo, golimumab 50 mg, or golimumab 100 mg every 4 weeks through week 20. At week 16, patients with <10% improvement from baseline in swollen and tender joint counts entered a blinded early escape phase, with placebo crossover to golimumab 50 mg, golimumab 50 mg increased to 100 mg, and golimumab 100 mg continued at 100 mg. Patients receiving placebo who did not enter the early escape phase crossed over to golimumab 50 mg at week 24. Findings through 1 year are reported, including the second of 2 coprimary end points (i.e., change from baseline to week 24 in PsA‐modified Sharp/van der Heijde score [SHS]).

Results

A total of 405 patients were randomized: 113 to placebo and 146 each to the golimumab 50 mg and 100 mg groups. Mean changes in PsA‐modified SHS from baseline to week 24 for the combined golimumab 50 mg and 100 mg group (−0.09) and the golimumab 50 mg group (−0.16) were significantly different versus placebo (0.27) (P = 0.015 and P = 0.011, respectively). Radiographic benefit was maintained through week 52 with golimumab. Clinical efficacy, including improvement in joint and skin responses and physical function, was maintained through 1 year. The frequency/types of adverse events were similar to those reported through week 24.

Conclusion

Treatment of PsA with golimumab inhibited structural damage progression and demonstrated continued clinical efficacy and safety through 1 year.

     

Open‐label study of infliximab treatment for psoriatic arthritis: Clinical and magnetic resonance imaging measurements of reduction of inflammation

Objective

To evaluate infliximab efficacy and safety in disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug–unresponsive psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

In a 54‐week, open‐label, compassionate‐use study, 10 patients received intravenous infliximab (5 mg/kg; weeks 0, 2, 6; individualized dosing after week 10). Patients continued their current therapy (stable dose) until week 10. Assessments were performed at weeks 2, 6, 10, and 54. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) objectively measured joint inflammation at weeks 0 and 10.

Results

Patients achieved a 20% improvement according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria (ACR20) in all patients by week 2; 8 patients improved 70% (ACR70) at week 10; 6 patients maintained ACR70 after week 54. Week 10 MRI revealed an 82.5% mean reduction in inflammation from baseline, and psoriasis area and severity index scores were reduced by 71.3% ± 16.7%. There were no significant adverse events, severe infections, or infusion reactions.

Conclusion

Infliximab was effective, safe, and well tolerated in PsA. Arthritis and psoriasis improved in all patients during the 54‐week evaluation. Further investigation of the use of infliximab for PsA and psoriasis is warranted.

     

Golimumab,a new human tumor necrosis factor α antibody,administered every four weeks as a subcutaneous injection in psoriatic arthritis: Twenty‐four–week efficacy and safety results of a randomized,placebo‐controlled study

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

Adult patients with PsA who had at least 3 swollen and 3 tender joints and active psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 113), golimumab 50 mg (n = 146), or golimumab 100 mg (n = 146) every 4 weeks through week 20. Efficacy assessments through week 24 included the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20), the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) in patients in whom at least 3% of the body surface area was affected by psoriasis at baseline, the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF‐36), the disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), the physician's global assessment of psoriatic nail disease, and enthesitis (using the PsA‐modified Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score [MASES] index).

Results

At week 14, 48% of all patients receiving golimumab, 51% of patients receiving golimumab 50 mg, and 45% of patients receiving golimumab 100 mg achieved an ACR20 response (the primary end point), compared with 9% of patients receiving placebo (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Among the 74% of patients in whom at least 3% of the body surface area was affected by psoriasis at baseline, 40% of those in the golimumab 50 mg group and 58% of those in the golimumab 100 mg group had at least 75% improvement in the PASI at week 14 (major secondary end point), compared with 3% of placebo‐treated patients (P < 0.001 for both doses). Significant improvement was observed for other major secondary end points (the HAQ and the SF‐36), the NAPSI, the physician's global assessment of psoriatric nail disease, and the PsA‐modified MASES index in each golimumab group compared with placebo. This efficacy was maintained through week 24. Golimumab was generally well tolerated.

Conclusion

Treatment with golimumab at doses of 50 mg and 100 mg significantly improved active PsA and associated skin and nail psoriasis through week 24.

     

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.

     

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

     

Adjunctive methotrexate for treatment of giant cell arteritis: An individual patient data meta‐analysis

Objective

To reevaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive low‐dose methotrexate (MTX) in giant cell arteritis (GCA).

Methods

An individual patient data meta‐analysis of 3 randomized placebo‐controlled trials in patients with newly diagnosed GCA was performed. Treatment consisted of initial high‐dose corticosteroids and randomly assigned oral MTX therapy (7.5–15 mg/week) or placebo. Time‐to‐event outcomes were compared between groups using Cox proportional hazards models stratified by trial, and continuous outcomes were compared by calculating weighted mean differences.

Results

The combined data set comprised 161 patients, of whom 84 received MTX and 77 received placebo. The mean duration of followup was 54.7 weeks (SD 39.2 weeks). Hazard ratios (HRs) for a first and second relapse of GCA were 0.65 (P = 0.04) and 0.49 (P = 0.02), respectively, in patients receiving MTX as compared with patients receiving placebo. Accordingly, a predicted 3.6 individuals (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.2–56.8) and 4.7 individuals (95% CI 3.3–21.9) need to be treated with MTX to prevent the occurrence of one first or one second relapse, respectively, up to 48 weeks. Use of MTX resulted in a reduction in the corticosteroid cumulative dose by 842 mg within 48 weeks (P < 0.001). Moreover, MTX treatment was associated with a higher probability of achieving sustained discontinuation of corticosteroids for ≥24 weeks (HR 2.84, P = 0.001). Dropout rates and occurrence of adverse events did not differ between treatment groups.

Conclusion

In GCA, adjunctive treatment with MTX lowers the risk of relapse and reduces exposure to corticosteroids. These findings indicate that MTX could be considered as a therapeutic option in addition to standard‐of‐care treatment with corticosteroids for patients with GCA.