Long-term open-label study of tanezumab for moderate to severe osteoarthritic knee pain.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of repeated doses of the humanized anti-nerve growth factor antibody, tanezumab, during open-label treatment of patients with OA knee pain. DESIGN: The current study (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00399490) was a multicenter, phase II, open-label, multiple-dose extension of an earlier randomized clinical trial. All patients (N=281) received infusions of tanezumab 50µg/kg on Days 1 and 56 with subsequent doses administered at 8-week intervals (up to a total of eight infusions). The primary endpoint of this study was safety. Effectiveness evaluations included overall knee pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index subscales, and subject global assessment (SGA) of response to therapy on 0-100 point visual analog scales. RESULTS: Repeated administration of tanezumab resulted in a low incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs; 7.5%). The rate of serious AEs was also low (2.8%) with none considered treatment-related. Few AEs of abnormal peripheral sensation were reported; hypoesthesia was reported by nine patients (3.2%), paresthesia by seven patients (2.5%), and hyperesthesia, peripheral neuropathy, and sensory disturbance were each reported by one patient (0.4% for each). Most AEs of abnormal peripheral sensation were rated as mild (95%) and the majority (65%) resolved before study completion. At Week 8, overall knee pain and SGA improved from baseline by a mean (± standard error) of -12.8 (±1.78) and 8.0 (±1.66), respectively. Similar improvements occurred for WOMAC subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated injections of tanezumab in patients with moderate to severe knee OA provide continued pain relief and improved function with a low incidence of side effects. Additional studies to define the efficacy and duration of pain reduction and to provide a more complete assessment of long-term safety are warranted.

Adalimumab for long-term treatment of psoriatic arthritis: 2-year data from the Adalimumab Effectiveness in Psoriatic Arthritis Trial (ADEPT).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term effectiveness and tolerability of adalimumab in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Patients with PsA who completed a 24-week, double-blind study of adalimumab versus placebo were eligible to enroll in an open-label extension study and receive adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week for up to an additional 120 weeks. At the time of this analysis, available efficacy evaluations throughout 2 years of treatment (n = 245) included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%, 50% and 70% improvement scores, measures of joint disease and skin disease, disability and quality of life; modified total Sharp scores (mTSS) were available for 2.75 years of treatment for patients who received adalimumab in the 24-week study. RESULTS: After 24 weeks of double-blind treatment, the mean change in mTSS was -0.2 for the adalimumab group (N = 144) and 1.0 for the placebo group (N = 152; p<0.001), and outcomes for all individual ACR component variables were significantly improved in adalimumab compared with placebo-treated patients. Compared with 24-week responses, inhibition of radiographic progression and improvements in joint disease were maintained in most patients during long-term, open-label adalimumab treatment. Also, improvements in skin disease were maintained, with >20% of patients achieving the strict criterion of psoriasis area and severity index 100. The nature and frequency of adverse events during long-term adalimumab treatment were consistent with the safety profile during short-term treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and radiographic efficacy of adalimumab demonstrated during short-term treatment was sustained during long-term treatment. Adalimumab has a favourable risk-benefit profile in patients with PsA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00195689.

Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg and celecoxib 200 mg in two similarly designed osteoarthritis studies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the lower osteoarthritis (OA) dose of rofecoxib to the recommended dose of celecoxib in two identically designed studies. METHODS: Patients with knee OA were randomized (2:2:1 ratio: rofecoxib 12.5 mg once daily (qd), celecoxib 200 mg qd, or placebo, respectively). The primary endpoint was patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) averaged over 6 weeks on a five-point scale. Rofecoxib would be declared at least as effective as celecoxib if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for difference in means was no lower than -0.5. Additional endpoints included Pain and Physical Function subscales of the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) OA Index. Adverse experiences (AEs) were recorded and combined from the two studies for analysis. RESULTS: Study 1 enrolled 395 patients (rofecoxib, n = 160; celecoxib, n = 157; placebo, n = 78). Study 2 enrolled 413 patients (rofecoxib, n = 159; celecoxib, n = 169; placebo, n = 85). Rofecoxib 12.5 mg was at least as effective as celecoxib 200 mg by PGART (Study 1 difference -0.09 [95% CI: -0.32, 0.14] and Study 2 difference 0.02 [95% CI: -0.20, 0.24]), and both were significantly (p < 0.001) more effective than placebo. Comparable efficacy was also seen for WOMAC Pain and Physical Function subscales with the active treatments. There was a significantly higher (p < 0.05) incidence of serious AEs with celecoxib than rofecoxib or placebo, none of which was drug-related. There were no significant differences in the pre-specified measurements of safety including drug-related AEs or discontinuations due to AEs, and the medications demonstrated similar safety as assessed by spontaneous reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg and celecoxib 200 mg provided comparable efficacy over 6 weeks, and both were significantly more efficacious than placebo. The medications demonstrated similar safety compared to one another and placebo. The primary limitations of these studies were that they were only 6 weeks long and were powered for efficacy. Therefore, conclusions about long-term safety cannot be inferred.

Rabeprazole for the prevention of recurrent erosive or ulcerative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Rabeprazole Study Group.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of rabeprazole 10 mg and 20 mg versus placebo for the prevention of endoscopically demonstrable relapse in patients previously diagnosed with erosive or ulcerative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) who had no oesophageal erosions or ulcerations at study entry. The study also assessed the effectiveness of rabeprazole in preventing GORD symptom recurrence and reductions in quality of life. DESIGN/METHODS: The trial used a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group design and enrolled 288 male and female outpatients of > or =18 years of age. Patients were assigned to treatment with either rabeprazole 10 mg or 20 mg once daily in the morning (QAM) or placebo and followed for 52 weeks. RESULTS: Both rabeprazole doses were significantly more effective than placebo in preventing endoscopically demonstrable GORD relapse (P<0.001 versus placebo). The cumulative relapse rate for rabeprazole 10 mg at week 52 was 23%; for rabeprazole 20 mg, 14%; and for placebo, 71%. Both rabeprazole doses were also significantly superior to placebo in preventing relapse of heartburn frequency (P<0.001 for all comparisons between rabeprazole and placebo), with no significant differences between the two doses. Rabeprazole was also significantly more effective than placebo in preventing relapse of day-and night-time heartburn severity, maintaining overall patient well-being, and reducing antacid use. Both rabeprazole doses were well tolerated; most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate. There were no clinically significant changes in clinical laboratory values, thyroid function tests, vital signs, or electrocardiograms. CONCLUSION: Once-daily treatment with rabeprazole 10 mg or 20 mg is effective and well tolerated in preventing relapse of erosive or ulcerative GORD and associated symptoms and maintaining quality of life.

Infliximab inhibits progression of radiographic damage in patients with active psoriatic arthritis through one year of treatment: Results from the induction and maintenance psoriatic arthritis clinical trial 2.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of infliximab on progression of structural damage over 1 year in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) enrolled in the Induction and Maintenance Psoriatic Arthritis Clinical Trial 2. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 200 patients with active PsA were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive infusions of infliximab (5 mg/kg) or placebo at weeks 0, 2, and 6, and every 8 weeks thereafter through week 54. At week 24, patients initially assigned to receive placebo crossed over to receive infliximab (5 mg/kg). Based on predefined criteria, patients randomized to receive placebo could enter early escape by receiving infliximab (5 mg/kg) starting at week 16, and patients randomized to receive infliximab could have the dose increased to 10 mg/kg starting at week 38. Patients were analyzed according to the treatment they were randomized to receive. Radiographs of hands and feet were obtained at baseline and at weeks 24 and 54. Two readers blinded to treatment assignment and radiograph sequence independently evaluated erosions and joint space narrowing using the Sharp/van der Heijde scoring method modified for PsA. RESULTS: At week 24, patients randomized to receive infliximab 5 mg/kg had significantly less radiographic progression compared with patients randomized to receive placebo, with mean +/- SD changes from baseline in the total Sharp/van der Heijde score of -0.70 +/- 2.53 and 0.82 +/- 2.62, respectively (P < 0.001). At week 54, mean +/- SD changes from baseline in the total Sharp/van der Heijde score were -0.94 +/- 3.40 in patients randomized to receive infliximab and 0.53 +/- 2.60 in those receiving placebo/infliximab (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Infliximab significantly inhibits radiographic progression in patients with PsA as early as 6 months after starting treatment, and the beneficial effect continues through 1 year of infliximab therapy.

Infliximab maintains a high degree of clinical response in patients with active psoriatic arthritis through 1 year of treatment: results from the IMPACT 2 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of infliximab through 1 year in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) enrolled in the IMPACT 2 trial. METHODS: In this double blind, placebo controlled, phase III study, 200 patients with active PsA were randomised to receive infusions of infliximab 5 mg/kg or placebo at weeks 0, 2, 6, and every 8 weeks thereafter through 1 year. Patients with persistent disease activity could enter early escape at week 16, and all remaining placebo patients crossed over to infliximab at week 24. Patients randomised to infliximab who had no response or who lost response could escalate their dose to 10 mg/kg starting at week 38. Clinical efficacy was assessed based on the proportion of patients achieving ACR 20 and PASI 75 responses. Major clinical response (that is, maintenance of ACR 70 response for 24 continuous weeks) was assessed for the first time in PsA. RESULTS: Through 1 year of treatment, 58.9% and 61.4% of patients in the randomised infliximab and placebo/infliximab groups, respectively, achieved ACR 20; corresponding figures for PASI 75 were 50.0% and 60.3%. At week 54, major clinical response was achieved by 12.1% of patients in the infliximab group. The safety profile of infliximab through week 54 was consistent with that seen through week 24. Two malignancies occurred: basal cell skin cancer (placebo) and stage I Hodgkin's lymphoma (infliximab). CONCLUSION: Infliximab maintains a high degree of clinical efficacy and continues to be well tolerated in patients with PsA through 1 year of treatment.

Infliximab improves signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis: results of the IMPACT 2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate further in a phase III, double blind trial the efficacy of infliximab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as observed in the smaller IMPACT trial. METHODS: 200 patients with active PsA unresponsive to previous treatment were randomised to infusions of infliximab 5 mg/kg or placebo at weeks 0, 2, 6, 14, and 22. Patients with inadequate response entered early escape at week 16. The primary measure of clinical response was ACR20. Other measures included Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC), Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), and dactylitis and enthesopathy assessments. RESULTS: At week 14, 58% of patients receiving infliximab and 11% of those receiving placebo achieved an ACR20 response and 77% of infliximab patients and 27% of placebo patients achieved PsARC (both p<0.001). Among the 85% of patients with at least 3% body surface area psoriasis involvement at baseline, 53/83 (64%) patients receiving infliximab had at least 75% improvement in PASI compared with 2/87 (2%) patients receiving placebo at week 14 (p<0.001). These therapeutic effects were maintained through the last evaluation (week 24). Fewer infliximab patients than placebo patients had dactylitis at week 14 (18% v 30%; p = 0.025) and week 24 (12% v 34%; p<0.001). Fewer infliximab patients (22%) than placebo patients (34%) had active enthesopathy at week 14 (p = 0.016); corresponding figures at week 24 were 20% and 37% (p = 0.002). Infliximab was generally well tolerated, with a similar incidence of adverse events in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab 5 mg/kg through 24 weeks significantly improved active PsA, including dactylitis and enthesopathy, and associated psoriasis.

Rheumatoid arthritis exhibits reduced acute phase and enhanced constitutive serum amyloid A protein in synovial fluid relative to serum. A comparison with C-reactive protein.

OBJECTIVE: There are 2 classes of serum amyloid A (SAA) protein, acute phase (A-SAA) and constitutive (C-SAA). Hepatic synthesis of A-SAA is dramatically upregulated by inflammatory cytokines, while C-SAA is constitutively produced in the absence of inflammation. A-SAA has been shown to attract monocytes, neutrophils, and T lymphocytes, but the function of C-SAA remains to be determined. SAA proteins have been found in both serum and synovial fluid (SF) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but have not been characterized with respect to isoform distribution. We determined the relative distribution of A-SAA and C-SAA in serum and SF of patients with RA and compared their abundance to the classic acute phase response protein, C-reactive protein (CRP). METHODS: A-SAA (isoforms SAA1, SAA2) and CRP were measured by commercially available ELISA kits. ELISA were developed for C-SAA (SAA4) and apolipoprotein AI (apo AI) in paired serum and SF from 56 patients with RA. RESULTS: Concentrations (mean +/- SD) of A-SAA (SAA1,2) in serum and SF are 124 +/- 247, 20 +/- 32 micrograms/ml; CRP 75 +/- 70, 33 +/- 37 micrograms/ml; C-SAA (SAA4) 106 +/-49, 91 +/- 39 micrograms/ml; and apo AI 1.19 +/- 0.32, 0.37 +/- 0.12 mg/ml, respectively. CRP correlated positively with A-SAA in serum or SF and negatively with apo AI in serum. There was no correlation with apo AI in SF. In contrast, there was no correlation between C-SAA and CRP, A-SAA, or apo AI in serum or in SF. Median concentrations of A-SAA in serum and SF (44, 10 micrograms/ml) and CRP (46, 20 micrograms/ml), respectively, markedly differed from the mean values, whereas median concentrations of C-SAA (104, 85 micrograms/ml) and apo AI (1.17, 0.37 mg/ml), respectively, did not. CONCLUSION: C-SAA concentrations vary in serum and SF independently of A-SAA and CRP levels. The lower concentration of A-SAA relative to C-SAA and CRP in SF suggests that A-SAA could be selectively catabolized in SF or alternatively not well transported into the synovial space.