'Totality of Evidence' Approach in the Development of GP2017, an Approved Adalimumab Biosimilar.

INTRODUCTION: Hyrimoz®, (GP2017 [SDZ-ADL]), is a biosimilar to Humira® (REF-ADL). SDZ-ADL was approved in 2018 by both the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the indications of REF-ADL not protected by orphan exclusivity. In 2023, the US FDA and EMA also approved a citrate-free high-concentration formulation (HCF) of SDZ-ADL. TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE-THE APPROACH: Approval of SDZ-ADL was based on data gathered using the US FDA, EMA and World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended step-wise Totality of Evidence approach. This approach is a robust dataset confirming high confidence in analytical, functional, pharmacokinetic (PK) and clinical biosimilarity between the biosimilar and reference medicine determined through analytical and clinical investigation. EVIDENCE OF BIOSIMILARITY: Evidence supporting the biosimilarity of SDZ-ADL and REF-ADL was reported at each stage of investigation. Comprehensive comparative analytical and functional assessments demonstrated that SDZ-ADL was analytically indistinguishable from REF-ADL in required critical quality attributes, including receptor binding. Phase I clinical data showed PK similarity of SDZ-ADL and REF-ADL in healthy volunteers, with similar safety, tolerability and immunogenicity profiles. Phase III confirmatory efficacy and safety studies, ADACCESS (included in US/EU dossiers) and ADMYRA (separate to US/EU dossiers), both confirmed that SDZ-ADL's efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity matched REF-ADL in all patient groups with no clinically meaningful differences. More recently, this data package was the basis for a citrate-free HCF of SDZ-ADL to be developed, and its PK, safety and immunogenicity were confirmed against the initially approved formulation of SDZ-ADL. CONCLUSION: Overall, the Totality of Evidence provided for biosimilar adalimumab, SDZ-ADL, confirmed the analytical, functional and clinical similarity of SDZ-ADL to REF-ADL, supporting its regulatory approval and providing a data bridge with which to evaluate and support the approval of citrate-free HCF SDZ-ADL for clinical use.

A biosimilar is a type of medicine that is designed to match the structure and function of a 'reference' biologic medicine. Hyrimoz^® (SDZ-ADL) is a biosimilar of the adalimumab reference medicine, Humira^® ([REF-ADL]). SDZ-ADL was approved in the US and Europe in 2018. For SDZ-ADL to be approved, a collection of evidence needed to be created, called the 'Totality of Evidence.' The purpose of this collection of data is to show there is a high confidence that the new biosimilar medicine matches the reference medicine, from the structure of the medicine to the effect of the medicine on the human body. For SDZ-ADL, this investigation started with comparing the physical structure and other functional properties of SDZ-ADL versus REF-ADL and ended with clinical studies in both healthy volunteers and in patients with diseases treated with adalimumab. This Totality of Evidence gathered for biosimilar adalimumab, SDZ-ADL, confirmed the similarity of SDZ-ADL to REF-ADL and therefore supported the approval of SDZ-ADL. In 2018, a citrate-free high-concentration version (high concentration formulation [HCF]) of REF-ADL was launched that matched REF-ADL. HCF REF-ADL has since become the primary formulation of REF-ADL used in practice. In 2023, a HCF version of SDZ-ADL was also approved in the US and EU based on evidence confirming that HCF SDZ-ADL matched SDZ-ADL. As SDZ-ADL had been previously confirmed to match the reference medicine, this meant that HCF SDZ-ADL could be directly compared against SDZ-ADL to confirm biosimilarity and support its approval.

A plain language summary describing how two different concentrations of GP2017, a biosimilar adalimumab medicine, are associated with similar drug levels within the body.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This plain language summary explains, in simple terms, the results of a study from 2022 discussing a biosimilar medicine called GP2017 (called SDZ-ADL in this summary, sold as Hyrimoz®). This medicine is used to treat people with inflammatory conditions. This study investigated a new, high-concentration formulation of GP2017 (SDZ-ADL-HCF) in order to show that the high concentration option acts the same way in the body as SDZ-ADL. SDZ-ADL-HCF has been submitted for regulatory approval to health authorities on the basis of this study and was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for people with the inflammatory conditions that SDZ-ADL is used to treat. This newly developed formulation provides the option for receiving injections less often with reduced volumes which can have a positive impact on the injection experience and increase patient convenience. WHAT WAS THE AIM OF THE CURRENT STUDY?: This study looked at the pharmacokinetics of SDZ-ADL and SDZ-ADL-HCF, meaning it compared how the active medicine behaved in the body at different times after the injection of each of the formulations. The study also looked at how each formulation was recognized by the body's immune system (known as immunogenicity), and the side effects associated with each formulation. This study was randomly assigned and double-blinded, meaning that neither the participants nor the researchers knew which formulation each participant received. This reduces the risk of bias in the results. WHAT WERE THE FINDINGS FROM THE CURRENT STUDY?: The study found that an injection of SDZ-ADL-HCF resulted in similar amounts of the medicine being present within the blood as an injection of SDZ-ADL. This information was needed for the approval of SDZ-ADL-HCF. Participants also experienced similar immune reactions and the number of participants with side effects was similar between both concentrations of medicine. The results confirmed that SDZ-ADL-HCF behaves in the same way in the body and is expected to have the same treatment effects as SDZ-ADL, while at the same time offering an improved formulation with a more positive injection experience and increased patient convenience.

The results of a unique dietary supplement (nutraceutical formulation) used to treat the symptoms of long-haul COVID.

Long-COVID is a syndrome characterized by debilitating symptoms that persist over 3 months after infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It affects 15 to 33% of COVID-19 recovered patients and has no dedicated treatment. First, we found that ß-caryophyllene and pregnenolone have a significant synergistic effect in the resolution of LPS-induced sepsis and inflammation in mice. Then we combined these two compounds with seven others and designed a unique dietary supplement formulation to alleviate long COVID inflammatory and neurological disorders. We performed a one-arm open-labeled study at a single site with 51 eligible patients from 18 states. Each participant recorded the severity level of 12 symptoms (including fatigue, weakness, cardiac and neurological symptoms, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal disorders, ageusia or anosmia, anxiety, joint pain, rash, cough, and insomnia) at baseline, 2- and 4-week time points. On average, all the symptoms were significantly milder after 2 weeks, with further improvement after 4 weeks. Importantly, each symptom was significantly attenuated in 72 to 84% of the participants. There were no significant adverse effects. Our data indicate that the use of this nutraceutical product is a safe and significantly efficient option to reduce multiple symptoms of long COVID.

Reduced Cell Surface Levels of C-C Chemokine Receptor 5 and Immunosuppression in Long Coronavirus Disease 2019 Syndrome.

In an exploratory trial treating "long COVID" with the CCR5-binding antibody leronlimab, we observed significantly increased blood cell surface CCR5 in treated symptomatic responders but not in nonresponders or placebo-treated participants. These findings suggest an unexpected mechanism of abnormal immune downmodulation in some persons that is normalized by leronlimab. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04678830.

Treatment with SDZ-ADL, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriasis, or Psoriatic Arthritis: Results of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures from Two Phase III Studies (ADMYRA and ADACCESS).

BACKGROUND: SDZ-ADL (GP2017; Sandoz GmbH, Austria) is an EMA-/FDA-approved adalimumab biosimilar. The effect of SDZ-ADL on quality of life (QoL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was assessed as part of two phase III studies, one in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (PsO; ADACCESS) and the other in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; ADMYRA). Additionally, ADACCESS included patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: ADACCESS included 465 patients with PsO, whereas ADMYRA included 353 patients with RA. Both studies evaluated and confirmed equivalent efficacy, similar safety, and immunogenicity of SDZ-ADL with reference adalimumab (ref-ADL). A third of patients underwent multiple (four) treatment switches between study treatments starting at Week 17 (ADACCESS); all patients switched from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL at Week 24 (ADMYRA). Assessed PROs included Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and EuroQol five-dimension health status questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) in ADACCESS, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue Scale (FACIT-Fatigue) score in ADMYRA, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) in both studies. RESULTS: In both studies, baseline scores for all PRO assessments were comparable between the two treatment groups. In ADACCESS, mean DLQI decreased from baseline in both groups, and the mean (standard deviation [SD]) percent reductions from baseline in DLQI were comparable between groups at Week 17 (SDZ-ADL, - 64.5 [80.3]; ref-ADL, - 70.6 [41.7]), which were sustained after the switch at Week 51 ('continued SDZ-ADL,' - 79.7 [36.2]; 'continued ref-ADL,' - 80.8 [44.6]; 'switched to SDZ-ADL,' - 70.7 [32.2]; 'switched to ref-ADL,' - 69.3 [49.6]). In ADACCESS, the proportion of patients with an EQ-5D-5L score of 1 (no problems) increased from baseline for all five dimensions in all treatment groups and was comparable between treatment groups at Week 51. In ADACCESS, in patients with PsA at baseline, mean (SD) HAQ-DI scores decreased from baseline in both treatment groups, and scores were comparable between groups at Week 17 (SDZ-ADL, 0.5 [0.6]; ref-ADL, 0.5 [0.6]) and after switching at Week 51 ('continued SDZ-ADL,' 0.4 [0.5]; 'continued ref-ADL,' 0.4 [0.6]; 'switched to SDZ-ADL,' 0.5 [0.8]; 'switched to ref-ADL,' 0.7 [0.6]). In ADMYRA, proportion of patients achieving HAQ-DI in the normal range (≤ 0.5) was comparable between treatment groups at Week 24 (SDZ-ADL, 37.8%; ref-ADL, 36.3%) and after switching at Week 48 ('SDZ-ADL,' 41.6%; 'ref-ADL/switched to SDZ-ADL,' 40.0%). In ADMYRA, mean FACIT-Fatigue scores increased from baseline in both treatment groups. At Week 24, mean (SD) percent change from baseline in the FACIT-Fatigue scores was 75.4 (135.5) in SDZ-ADL and 73.0 (96.3) in ref-ADL groups; the scores were sustained after switching at Week 48. CONCLUSION: Treatment with SDZ-ADL and ref-ADL resulted in comparable improvements in PROs as well as QoL scores across the three diseases, PsO, PsA, and RA. Switching between SDZ-ADL and ref-ADL had no negative impact on PROs across the reported period. CLINICAL TRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02744755, NCT02016105.

Switching to Biosimilar SDZ-ADL in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: 48-Week Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity Results From the Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind ADMYRA Study.

BACKGROUND: Sandoz adalimumab SDZ-ADL (GP-2017) is an approved adalimumab biosimilar with similar efficacy and comparable safety and immunogenicity to reference adalimumab (ref-ADL) as confirmed by analytical, pharmacokinetic and confirmatory studies. ADMYRA, a phase III double-blind study, was conducted with an aim to generate efficacy, safety and immunogenicity comparability data in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) having inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX). The study also evaluated an aspect of 'switching' reference product to the biosimilar in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity up to Week 48. METHODS: Eligible patients (N = 353) were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous (sc) SDZ-ADL 40 mg (n = 177) or ref-ADL (n = 176) every other week from Week 0 to Week 24. At Week 24, all patients with at least a moderate response by Disease Activity Score-28 including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) in the SDZ-ADL group continued SDZ-ADL (n = 159), and in the ref-ADL group were switched to SDZ-ADL (n = 166), treated for up to 46 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in DAS28-CRP from baseline at Week 12. Other efficacy endpoints included proportion of patients with European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, EULAR remission, Boolean remission, safety and immunogenicity. RESULTS: The DAS28-CRP score changes from baseline at Week 12 were similar between SDZ-ADL (- 2.16) and ref-ADL (- 2.18) with a mean difference (95% CI) of 0.02 (- 0.24 to 0.27), which was within the pre-specified equivalence margin of ± 0.6. After switching treatment from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL, the mean DAS28-CRP change was similar between the SDZ-ADL and 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' group (- 3.09 vs - 3.05). The proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response was 69.2%/29.0% in the SDZ-ADL group and 68.0%/29.6% in the 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' group. The proportion of patients in EULAR remission was 51.4% and 54.4% and in Boolean remission was 16.8% and 21.6% for SDZ-ADL and 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' groups, respectively. The secondary endpoints were similar across the treatment groups. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and injection-site reactions were low and similar between SDZ-ADL and 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' groups (AEs 70.6% vs 68.8%, injection-site reactions 4.0% vs 6.3%), and most of these patients experienced AEs of mild or moderate severity. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 24.2% and 25.6% of patients treated with SDZ-ADL and 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL', respectively, from baseline to Week 48, of which 72.5% in SDZ-ADL and 79.1% in 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' groups were neutralizing. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, SDZ-ADL demonstrated a similar efficacy and a comparable safety and immunogenicity profile to ref-ADL. Efficacy was sustained after switching from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL with no impact on safety (NCT02744755).

Safety and efficacy of neurostimulation with a miniaturised vagus nerve stimulation device in patients with multidrug-refractory rheumatoid arthritis: a two-stage multicentre, randomised pilot study.

Background The inflammatory reflex plays a role in regulating innate and adaptive immunity by modulating cellular and molecular inflammatory pathways. The vagus nerve is a major constituent of the inflammatory reflex and studies have shown that the reflex can be activated by electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve. In this first in-human pilot study, we assessed the safety and efficacy of a novel miniaturised vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device for the treatment of multidrug-refractory rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Participants with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis and prior insufficient response to two or more biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs or Janus kinase inhibitors with at least two different modes of action were enrolled in a two-stage study done at five clinical research sites in the USA. Stage 1 was open label; participants were implanted with a miniaturised VNS device, which was activated for 1 min once a day. In stage 2, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive active stimulation (1 min once a day or 1 min four times a day) or sham stimulation (device implanted but not activated), with the sites and participants masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Clinical efficacy was assessed as a key secondary outcome. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03437473. FINDINGS: 14 patients were enrolled between March 13 and Aug 8, 2018. Three patients received stimulation in stage 1 and, following safety review board approval, the remaining 11 patients were implanted during stage 2 and randomly assigned to receive 1 min of stimulation once daily (n=3), 1 min of stimulation four times daily (n=4), or no stimulation (n=4) for 12 weeks. There were no device-related or treatment-related serious adverse events. Surgery-related adverse events were Horner's syndrome and vocal cord paralysis (in one patient each), which resolved without clinically significant sequelae. No deaths were recorded. INTERPRETATION: VNS with a miniaturised neurostimulator was safe and well tolerated and reduced signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with multidrug-refractory disease. These results support further evaluation in a larger randomised sham-controlled study. FUNDING: SetPoint Medical.

Patient Perspectives on Intravenous Biologics for Rheumatologic Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Two surveys were conducted with patients with rheumatologic diseases to evaluate perceptions of different routes of administration (intravenous [IV] or subcutaneous [SC]) for biologic therapy. METHODS: In Survey I, patient preferences toward biologic treatment were evaluated at a rheumatology practice in Buffalo, New York. In Survey II, Canadian patients enrolled in the BioAdvance patient support program and scheduled to receive IV biologic therapy were asked about their opinions of IV treatment. RESULTS: In Survey I, 243 rheumatology patients participated. Median patient age was 60 years, 76% were female, and 44% were naive to treatment with biologic agents. Among biologic-naive patients, the majority (56%) were open to either SC or IV treatment; biologic-naive women were more likely than men to express a preference for the route of administration. In Survey II, 1,598 patients from the BioAdvance program (including 306 rheumatology patients) completed the full survey. Among the rheumatology patients, the median age was 49 years, 58% were female, and 61% had not previously taken biologics before enrolling in the BioAdvance program. The median rating of IV favorability (on a 10-point scale, with higher numbers indicating increased favorability) recalled by rheumatology patients was 5 prior to their first program infusion, which increased to 9 after multiple treatment infusions. CONCLUSION: These survey results indicate that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are generally open to IV treatment and express high satisfaction with IV therapy. Additional patient and provider education may improve shared decision-making regarding biologic therapy administration options.

Patient-reported outcome assessment of inflammatory arthritis patient experience with intravenously administered biologic therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient perspectives regarding utilization of intravenous (IV) therapy for inflammatory arthritis (IA). METHODS: This was a single-center, noninterventional, patient questionnaire-based study of adult IA patients currently receiving IV biologics. At a single visit, patients completed the questionnaire comprising 30 questions centered on their experience receiving an intravenously administered therapy to treat their IA. The questionnaire included questions on patient demographics, disease characteristics, and previous biologic treatment for IA (subcutaneous [SC] and IV). Patients rated their level of agreement with statements regarding satisfaction with current IV biologic therapy and potential advantages and disadvantages of IV biologic therapy using a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). RESULTS: One hundred patients were enrolled and completed the survey; 66% were female and the mean age was 58 years. Before IV treatment, 97% of patients received information regarding therapy options. Ninety patients ranked their satisfaction with current IV therapy as 4 or 5. The proportion of patients with an "extremely favorable" perception of IV therapy increased from 33% to 71% following initiation of their current medication. Thirty-one patients had previously received SC therapies to treat their IA. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrated an overall favorable perception of IV therapy among this patient population. Patients previously treated with SC therapy also had a positive shift in the perception of IV therapy after initiating IV therapy. Patients' perception and preference for treatment options should be highly considered by the treating physician during or as part of a shared decision-making process.

Proceedings from the 7th Annual International Society for Musculoskeletal Imaging in Rheumatology (ISEMIR) conference.

The International Society for Musculoskeletal Imaging in Rheumatology (ISEMIR) was founded in 2005 with the goal of discussing matters related to imaging in rheumatology, particularly, validation, education, and use in clinical practice and research. Because the field of musculoskeletal (MSK) imaging is rapidly evolving, continuous education in the field is imperative. ISEMIR's international faculty and world-renowned experts presented the newest information as it relates to the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) at the 7th annual ISEMIR meeting which took place on April 12-14, 2014 in Santa Monica, California. Presentations from the meeting can be viewed at www.isemir.org.

Golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis after treatment with tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors: findings with up to five years of treatment in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 GO-AFTER study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess long-term golimumab therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who discontinued previous tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF)-inhibitor(s). METHODS: Patients enrolled into this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of active RA (≥4 tender, ≥4 swollen joints) received placebo (Group 1) or golimumab 50 mg (Group 2) or 100 mg (Group 3) injections every 4 weeks. Patients in Groups 1 and 2 with inadequate response at week 16 escaped to golimumab 50 and 100 mg, respectively. At week 24, Group 1 patients crossed-over to golimumab 50 mg, Group 2 continued golimumab 50/100 mg per escape status, and Group 3 maintained dosing. During the long-term-extension (LTE), golimumab 50 mg could be increased to 100 mg, and 100 mg could be decreased to 50 mg. Data through 5 years are reported for all patients (safety) and patients using methotrexate (efficacy, intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis with last-observation-carried-forward for missing data and non-responder imputation for unsatisfactory efficacy discontinuations). RESULTS: In total, 459 of 461 randomized patients received the study agent, 304 of whom were methotrexate-treated and included in efficacy analyses. Through week 256, the proportions of methotrexate-treated patients achieving American-College-of-Rheumatology (ACR) responses were 37.6% to 47.0% for ACR20, 21.4% to 35.0% for ACR50, and 7.8% to 17.0% for ACR70 response across randomized groups. Golimumab safety through week 268 was generally consistent with that at week 24 and week 160 and other anti-TNF agents. CONCLUSIONS: In some patients with active RA discontinuing previous TNF-antagonist therapy, golimumab safety and efficacy, assessed conservatively with ITT analyses, was confirmed through 5 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00299546 . Registered 03 March 2006.

Safety of infusing rituximab at a more rapid rate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the RATE-RA study.

BACKGROUND: As recommended in the current prescribing information, rituximab infusions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) take 4.25 hours for the first infusion and 3.25 hours for subsequent infusions, which is a burden on patients and the health care system. We therefore evaluated the safety of infusing rituximab at a faster rate for an infusion period of 2 hours in patients with RA. METHODS: Patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF who were rituximab-naive or -experienced received 2 courses of rituximab: Infusion 1 (Day 1) was administered over the standard 4.25 hours, and Infusions 2 (Day 15), 3 (Day 168) and 4 (Day 182) were administered over a faster 2-hour period. The primary endpoint was incidence of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) associated with Infusion 2. RESULTS: Of the 351 patients enrolled, 87% and 13% were rituximab-naive and -experienced, respectively. The incidence (95% CI) of IRRs associated with Infusion 1 was 16.2% (12.5%, 20.5%) and consistent with weighted historical incidence of 20.7% (19.4%, 22.1%). The incidence (95% CI) of IRRs associated with Infusions 2, 3, and 4 compared with respective weighted historical incidences at the standard infusion rate was 6.5% (4.1%, 9.7%) vs 8.1% (7.2%, 9.1%); 5.9% (3.5%, 9.3%) vs 11.5% (10.3%, 12.8%); and 0.7 (0.1%, 2.6%) vs 5.0% (4.2%, 6.0%), respectively. All IRRs were grade 1 or 2, except for 3 grade 3 IRRs associated with Infusion 1 and 2 grade 3 IRRs associated with Infusion 2. Four patients experienced a total of 5 grade 3 IRRs; 3 of these patients continued on to received subsequent infusions at the faster rate. There were no serious IRRs. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that rituximab can be administered at the faster infusion rate at the second and subsequent infusions without increasing the rate or severity of IRRs.

Monitoring cartilage loss in the hands and wrists in rheumatoid arthritis with magnetic resonance imaging in a multi-center clinical trial: IMPRESS (NCT00425932).

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) because of its superiority over x-ray radiography (XR) in detecting and monitoring change in bone erosion, osteitis and synovitis. However, in contrast to XR, the MRI scoring method that was used in most clinical trials did not include cartilage loss. This limitation has been an obstacle to accepting MRI as a potential alternative to XR in clinical trials. Cross-sectional studies have shown MRI to be sensitive for cartilage loss in the hands and wrist; although, longitudinal sensitivity to change has not yet been confirmed. In this study we examined the ability of MRI to monitor change in cartilage loss in patients with RA in a multi-site clinical trial setting. METHODS: Thirty-one active RA patients from a clinical trial (IMPRESS) who were randomized equally into treatment with either rituximab + methotrexate or placebo + methotrexate had MRI of the dominant hand/wrist at baseline, 12 weeks and 24 weeks at 3 clinical sites in the US. Twenty-seven of these patients also had XR of both hands/wrists and both feet at baseline and 24 weeks. One radiologist scored all XR images using the van der Heijde-modified Sharp method blinded to visit order. The same radiologist scored MR images for cartilage loss using a previously validated 9-point scale, and bone erosion using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) RA MRI Score (RAMRIS) blinded to visit order and XR scores. Data from the two treatment arms were pooled for this analysis. RESULTS: Mean MRI cartilage score increased at 12 and 24 weeks, and reached statistical significance at 24 weeks. XR total Sharp score, XR erosion score and XR joint-space narrowing (JSN) score all increased at 24 weeks, but only XR total Sharp score increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first publication of a study demonstrating MRI's ability to monitor cartilage loss in a multi-site clinical trial. Combined with MRI's established performance in monitoring bone erosions in RA, these findings suggest that MRI may offer a superior alternative to XR in multi-site clinical trials of RA.

Proceedings from the 5th Annual International Society for Musculoskeletal Imaging in Rheumatology Annual Conference.

Since its inception, ISEMIR has held an annual education meeting highlighting the changes in the utilization of imaging tools for the management of rheumatic diseases. ISEMIR's international faculty and world-renowned experts have discussed these topics at a very high scientific level. The evolution of the content demonstrates the rapidly changing environment in the field of rheumatology. Advances in treatment have led to the increased use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US). This publication is based upon the proceedings from the 2012 ISEMIR educational meeting that took place on April 26th in Chicago, Illinois. Presentations from the live proceedings can be viewed at www.isemir.org.

Evaluating joint-space narrowing and cartilage loss in rheumatoid arthritis by using MRI.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to be superior to radiography (XR) for assessing synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), particularly in clinical trials. However, relatively little has been reported on the ability of MRI to evaluate articular cartilage loss, or joint-space narrowing (JSN), in the hands and wrists. In a previous study, we adapted the nine-point Genant-modified Sharp XR-JSN score for use with MRI (MRI-JSN). In this study, we compare MRI-JSN with XR-JSN by using images from two multicenter clinical trials. METHODS: Baseline XR and 1.5-Tesla MR images of one hand and wrist from each of 47 subjects with RA enrolled in one of two multicenter clinical trials were evaluated by using the XR-JSN and MRI-JSN methods by a single radiologist experienced in the two methods. Radiographs and MR images were read independently on different occasions. RESULTS: In total, 575 of 611 joints were compared (one metacarpophalangeal joint of the thumb and 35 proximal interphalangeal joints were outside the MRI field of view and could not be assessed). The 22 (47%) subjects showed JSN with both XR and MRI, and 25 (53%) subjects showed no JSN with either method. No subject showed JSN with only one or the other method. MRI showed high agreement with XR (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.83). Sensitivity of MRI for JSN, by using XR as the gold standard, was 0.94; specificity was 0.91; accuracy was 0.91; positive predictive value was 0.64; and negative predictive value was 0.99. CONCLUSIONS: This validation exercise suggests that MRI JSN scoring may offer a viable alternative to XR JSN scoring in multicenter clinical trials of RA. However, the relative longitudinal sensitivity of MRI to change and the ability to discriminate therapeutic effect on JSN were not evaluated in this study.

Golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who have previous experience with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: results of a long-term extension of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled GO-AFTER study through week 160.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess long-term golimumab therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who discontinued previous tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) inhibitor(s) for any reason. METHODS: Results through week 24 of this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of active RA (≥4 tender, ≥4 swollen joints) were previously reported. Patients received placebo (Group 1), 50 mg golimumab (Group 2) or 100 mg golimumab (Group 3) subcutaneous injections every 4 weeks. Patients from Groups 1 and 2 with <20% improvement in tender/swollen joints at week 16 early escaped to golimumab 50 mg and 100 mg, respectively. At week 24, Group 1 patients crossed over to golimumab 50 mg, Group 2 continued golimumab 50/100 mg per escape status and Group 3 maintained dosing. Data through week 160 are reported. RESULTS: 459 of the 461 randomised patients were treated; 236/459 (51%) continued treatment through week 160. From week 24 to week 100, ACR20 (≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria) response and ≥0.25 unit HAQ (Health Assessment Questionnaire) improvement were sustained in 70-73% and 75-81% of responding patients, respectively. Overall at week 160, 63%, 67% and 57% of patients achieved ACR20 response and 59%, 65% and 64% had HAQ improvement ≥0.25 unit in Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Adjusted for follow-up duration, adverse event incidences (95% CI) per 100 patient-years among patients treated with golimumab 50 mg and 100 mg were 4.70 (2.63 to 7.75) and 8.07 (6.02 to 10.58) for serious infection, 0.95 (0.20 to 2.77) and 2.04 (1.09 to 3.49) for malignancy and 0.00 (0.00 to 0.94) and 0.62 (0.17 to 1.59) for death, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with active RA who discontinued previous TNF-antagonist treatment, golimumab 50 and 100 mg injections every 4 weeks yielded sustained improvements in signs/symptoms and physical function in ∼57-67% of patients who continued treatment. Golimumab safety was consistent with other anti-TNF agents, although definitive conclusions regarding long-term safety require further monitoring.