Brodalumab, an anti-IL17RA monoclonal antibody, in psoriatic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy and safety of brodalumab, a human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-17 receptor A (IL17RA), in a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving patients with psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with active psoriatic arthritis to receive brodalumab (140 or 280 mg subcutaneously) or placebo on day 1 and at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. At week 12, patients who had not discontinued their participation in the study were offered open-label brodalumab (280 mg) every 2 weeks. The primary end point was 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR 20) at week 12. RESULTS: Of the 168 patients who underwent randomization (57 in the brodalumab 140-mg group, 56 in the brodalumab 280-mg group, and 55 in the placebo group), 159 completed the double-blind phase and 134 completed 40 weeks of the open-label extension. At week 12, the brodalumab 140-mg and 280-mg groups had higher rates of ACR 20 than the placebo group (37% [P=0.03] and 39% [P=0.02], respectively, vs. 18%); they also had higher rates of 50% improvement (ACR 50) (14% [P=0.05] and 14% [P=0.05] vs. 4%). Rates of 70% improvement were not significantly higher in the brodalumab groups. Similar degrees of improvement were noted among patients who had received previous biologic therapy and those who had not received such therapy. At week 24, ACR 20 response rates in the brodalumab 140-mg and 280-mg groups were 51% and 64%, respectively, as compared with 44% among patients who switched from placebo to open-label brodalumab; responses were sustained through week 52. At week 12, serious adverse events had occurred in 3% of patients in the brodalumab groups and in 2% of those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Brodalumab significantly improved response rates among patients with psoriatic arthritis. Larger studies of longer duration are necessary to assess adverse events. (Funded by Amgen; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01516957 .).

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.

Evaluation of the safety of rituximab in combination with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor and methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of rituximab in combination with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Adult patients with active RA (≥ 5 swollen and ≥ 5 tender joints) receiving a stable dose of MTX (10-25 mg/week) and stable dose of TNF inhibitor (etanercept or adalimumab) for ≥ 12 weeks were randomized 2:1 to receive one course of rituximab or placebo, given intravenously at a dose of 2 × 500 mg. The primary end point was the proportion of patients developing ≥ 1 serious infection through week 24. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were treated with either rituximab or placebo in combination with background MTX and a TNF inhibitor. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between groups, except for corticosteroid usage (36% in the rituximab arm versus 17% in the placebo arm). A serious infection (pneumonia) was observed in 1 patient (3%) in the rituximab group after 14.4 patient-years of exposure (6.95 events per 100 patient-years, 95% confidence interval 0.98-49.35), compared with none in the placebo group at week 24. Infections were reported in 18 patients (55%) and 11 patients (61%) in the rituximab and placebo groups, respectively. Grade 3 infections were reported in 3 patients (9%) receiving rituximab and in none of the patients receiving placebo. No grade 4 infections were observed, nor were there any opportunistic, fungal, or tuberculosis infections. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 2 rituximab-treated patients (pneumonia and coronary artery occlusion), whereas there were no SAEs reported in placebo-treated patients. At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response was 30% in the rituximab group compared with 17% in the placebo group, and ACR50 responses were achieved by 12% and 6% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The preliminary safety profile of rituximab in combination with a TNF inhibitor and MTX was consistent with the safety profile of rituximab in combination with MTX in other RA trials without a TNF inhibitor, with no new safety signals observed. SAEs were numerically more frequent in the rituximab group, and there was no clear evidence of an efficacy advantage in patients receiving rituximab in combination with a TNF inhibitor and MTX.

Two-Year Safety and Effectiveness of Peficitinib in Moderate-To-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Phase IIb, Open-Label Extension Study.

INTRODUCTION: Peficitinib is a novel orally bioavailable, once-daily Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved in Japan for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This 2-year extension study of two global phase IIb trials investigated the long-term safety and effectiveness of peficitinib. METHODS: All eligible patients with moderate-to-severe RA including patients in the placebo group who participated in one of two global phase IIb trials ('with methotrexate' or 'without methotrexate') were included in this 2-year open-label extension study and were converted to peficitinib 100 mg once daily. The primary objective was to evaluate an additional 2 years of safety by assessing treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and clinical laboratory evaluations for 105 weeks. Evaluation of an additional 2 years of effectiveness using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses was the exploratory objective. RESULTS: Overall, 611 patients were enrolled in the extension study: 319 (52.2%) patients completed the study and 292 (48%) discontinued treatment, including for withdrawal of patient consent (n = 96), failure to achieve low disease activity (n = 62), and AE not including death (n = 41). AEs were reported in 463 (76%) patients. The most common AEs (per 100 patient-years) were upper respiratory tract infections (9.9) and urinary tract infections (7.2). Serious AEs were reported in 80 (13%) patients, with incidences per 100 patient-years of serious infections 2.7, herpes zoster 1.5 (including one herpes zoster ophthalmic), and malignancies 0.6 (most frequently basal cell carcinoma). At week 105, 269 (44%) patients demonstrated an ACR20 response relative to their respective phase IIb trial baselines. CONCLUSION: Among 319 patients who completed this 2-year extension of two global phase IIb studies, peficitinib 100 mg once daily demonstrated a stable safety profile and sustained effectiveness in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01711814. Registered 19 October 2012. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc.

Oral hormone therapy with 17beta-estradiol and 17beta-estradiol in combination with norethindrone acetate in the prevention of bone loss in early postmenopausal women: dose-dependent effects.

OBJECTIVE: A 2-year multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study examined the efficacy and safety of different doses of 17beta-estradiol (E(2)) alone and continuous-combined oral formulations of E(2) and norethindrone acetate (NETA) versus placebo in the prevention of bone loss in newly menopausal women. DESIGN: Patients were randomized to one of seven groups: placebo, E(2) 0.25 mg, E2 0.5 mg, E(2) 1 mg, E(2) 1 mg/NETA 0.25 mg, E(2) 1 mg/NETA 0.5 mg, or E(2) 2 mg/NETA 1 mg. Treatment was a once-daily tablet taken for 26 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, at screening and at 13, 19, and 26 months. BMD changes at the femoral neck and trochanter were also assessed. Biochemical markers of bone metabolism were measured at baseline, and at 3, 6, 13, 19, and 26 months. Histological diagnoses of endometrial samples were tabulated for each treatment group. RESULTS: A total of 327 women were randomized and 189 women completed the 2-year trial. BMD at the lumbar spine decreased 2.3% in the placebo group. The lowest dose of unopposed E(2) prevented bone loss at the spine and hip. Significant increases in spine BMD compared with placebo occurred in all groups of treatment with E(2) and were more pronounced in the combination groups. Compared with placebo, women receiving active treatment experienced greater reductions in bone resorption markers. The effects were evident by 6 months and generally remained stable thereafter. Adverse events, primarily associated with the endometrium, were the most common reasons for discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: There is a dose-dependent effect of E(2) on BMD. The addition of NETA seems to enhance the response in BMD observed with E(2). Low doses of E(2) (1 mg and lower) can be considered for the prevention of osteoporosis, while titrating the hormone dose to individual patient's needs.

Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg versus nabumetone 1,000 mg in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of starting doses of rofecoxib and nabumetone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN: A 6-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: One hundred thirteen outpatient sites in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,042 male and female patients aged 40 and older with OA of the knee (>6 months). INTERVENTIONS: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg once a day (n=424), nabumetone 1,000 mg once a day (n=410), or placebo (n=208) for 6 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) over 6 weeks, which was also specifically evaluated over the first 6 days. The main safety measure was adverse events during the 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with a good or excellent response to therapy as assessed using PGART at Week 6 was significantly higher with rofecoxib (55.4%) than nabumetone (47.5%; P=.018) or placebo (26.7%; P<.001 vs rofecoxib or nabumetone). Median time to first report of a good or excellent PGART response was significantly shorter in patients treated with rofecoxib (2 days) than with nabumetone (4 days, P=.002) and placebo (>5 days, P<.001) (nabumetone vs placebo; P=.007). The safety profiles of rofecoxib and nabumetone were generally similar, including gastrointestinal, hypertensive, and renal adverse events. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg daily demonstrated better efficacy over 6 weeks of treatment and quicker onset of OA efficacy over the first 6 days than nabumetone 1,000 mg daily. Both therapies were generally well tolerated.

Rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: Results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating primary efficacy and safety at twenty-four weeks.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies and to explore the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rituximab in this population. METHODS: We evaluated primary efficacy and safety at 24 weeks in patients enrolled in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA (REFLEX) Trial, a 2-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of rituximab therapy. Patients with active RA and an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF agents were randomized to receive intravenous rituximab (1 course, consisting of 2 infusions of 1,000 mg each) or placebo, both with background MTX. The primary efficacy end point was a response on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks. Secondary end points were responses on the ACR50 and ACR70 improvement criteria, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria at 24 weeks. Additional end points included scores on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index (DI), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) instruments, as well as Genant-modified Sharp radiographic scores at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Patients assigned to placebo (n = 209) and rituximab (n = 311) had active, longstanding RA. At week 24, significantly more (P < 0.0001) rituximab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients demonstrated ACR20 (51% versus 18%), ACR50 (27% versus 5%), and ACR70 (12% versus 1%) responses and moderate-to-good EULAR responses (65% versus 22%). All ACR response parameters were significantly improved in rituximab-treated patients, who also had clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, disability, and health-related quality of life (demonstrated by FACIT-F, HAQ DI, and SF-36 scores, respectively) and showed a trend toward less progression in radiographic end points. Rituximab depleted peripheral CD20+ B cells, but the mean immunoglobulin levels (IgG, IgM, and IgA) remained within normal ranges. Most adverse events occurred with the first rituximab infusion and were of mild-to-moderate severity. The rate of serious infections was 5.2 per 100 patient-years in the rituximab group and 3.7 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: At 24 weeks, a single course of rituximab with concomitant MTX therapy provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in disease activity in patients with active, longstanding RA who had an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF therapies.

Effects of prasterone on disease activity and symptoms in women with active systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prasterone administration results in improvement or stabilization of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disease activity and its symptoms. METHODS: Women with active SLE were treated with prasterone 200 mg/day plus standard SLE treatments or with placebo plus standard SLE treatments for up to 12 months in this randomized, double-blind investigation conducted at 27 centers. Standard SLE treatments included prednisone (/=6 weeks prior to enrollment and remain unchanged during protocol treatment. Responders were patients who experienced no clinical deterioration and had improvement or stabilization over the duration of the study in 2 disease activity measures (the SLE Disease Activity Index [SLEDAI] and the Systemic Lupus Activity Measure) and 2 quality of life measures (patient's global assessment and the Krupp Fatigue Severity Scale). RESULTS: A total of 381 women with SLE were enrolled. Among patients with clinically active disease at baseline (SLEDAI score >2), 86 of 147 in the prasterone group (58.5%) demonstrated improvement or stabilization without clinical deterioration, as compared with 65 of 146 in the placebo group (44.5%) (P = 0.017). Acne and hirsutism were reported in 33% and 16%, respectively, of the prasterone group and in 14% and 2%, respectively, of the placebo group (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). However, most cases of acne and hirsutism were mild and did not require withdrawal from therapy. Myalgias and oral stomatitis were reported less frequently in the prasterone group (22% and 15%, respectively) than in the placebo group (36% and 23%, respectively) (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). Serum levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and C3 complement significantly decreased, while levels of testosterone and, to a lesser extent, estradiol increased in the prasterone group. CONCLUSION: In adult women with active SLE, administration of prasterone at a dosage of 200 mg/day improved or stabilized signs and symptoms of disease and was generally well tolerated.