Analysis of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and higher radiographic progression: association of very high radiographic progression but not of intermediately high with worsening of patient-related outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-patients depending on their individual peak radiographic progression. METHODS: We selected for the individual peak radiographic progression (Δ Ratingen scores/time) in patients of the Swiss registry SCQM. The baseline disease characteristics were compared using standard descriptive statistics. The change of DAS 28 (disease activity sore) and HAQ-DI (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index) before and after peak progression was analysed with Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS: Of the 4,033 patients in the analysis, 3,049 patients had a peak radiographic progression rate between 0 and ≤10 in the Ratingen score per year, 773 between 10 and ≤20, 150 between 20 and ≤30, and 61 of >30 (defining groups A-D). Rheumatoid factor was more frequent in patient groups with a higher peak radiographic progression (71.1%, 79.2%, 85.3%, 88.5%, groups A-D). Peak radiographic progression at a rate >20/year (groups C-D) was not detected after December 2012. When the rate of radiographic progression before and after peak progression was analysed, it was significantly lower. The DAS 28 was significantly higher in all patient groups before peak progression and lower thereafter (p<0.001). Average HAQ-DI scores increased after peak radiographic progression in group D (p=0.005) whereas it was stable or even decreased among the patients of the other patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that the highest radiographic progression rates are rare and get less frequent over the last years. Higher disease activity precedes radiographic peak progression. Only the highest individual peak (change of Ratingen score >30/year) radiographic progression was followed by an increase of HAQ-DI scores.

Combination Treatment with Antibiotics and Glucocorticosteroids for Severe Ischemic Colitis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Ischemic colitis (IC) is most common in the elderly and patients with multiple comorbidities. It carries significant mortality. As yet no evidence-based therapeutic management exists. Aim of the study was to test therapeutic efficacy of a combination of prednisolone and antibiotics. METHODS: Prospective cohort study with retrospective analysis performed in a single teaching hospital in Germany. Consecutive patients with strict diagnostic criteria of severe IC, including colonoscopy, histology, and laboratory tests, were recruited. Main outcome measures were in-hospital mortality and number of operations counted within the hospital stay. Severity scores were calculated and biomarkers determined during the course of the hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 342 patients with an International Classification of Diseases of IC were identified. About 151 patients met the diagnostic criteria and a total of 44 patients fulfilled all inclusion and exclusion criteria of severe IC and constituted the group of patients eligible for analysis. Five out of 44 patients (11.4%) died (in-hospital mortality). Surgery was performed in 3 patients (6.8%), 2 patients survived. The hospital stay lasted 14.0 ± 8.5 day and was significantly correlated with comorbidity (rs = 0.314, p = 0.038). No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective study on therapeutic efficacy and safety in severe IC. The combination of intravenous antibiotics and intravenous prednisolone turned out to be safe and revealed promising efficacy.

Correction: A Novel Role for the TIR Domain in Association with Pathogen-Derived Elicitors.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050068.].

Can switching to abatacept therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis on background methotrexate reverse TNF-inhibitor-induced antinuclear autoantibody/double-stranded DNA autoantibody conversion? An analysis of the AMPLE and ATTEST trials.

OBJECTIVES: To explore antinuclear autoantibody (ANA) and anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) autoantibody development during abatacept and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, and effects of switching from TNFi to abatacept in ANA/anti-dsDNA autoantibody-positive patients. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of biologic-naïve patients with active RA in ATTEST and AMPLE. In AMPLE, patients received subcutaneous abatacept or adalimumab (2 years). In ATTEST, patients received intravenous abatacept or infliximab (1 year), or placebo (6 months) then abatacept (6 months); at 1 year, all patients could receive abatacept (open-label long-term extension). Serum ANA/anti-dsDNA autoantibody levels were measured at baseline, Month 6 (ATTEST only), Years 1 and 2. RESULTS: At baseline, 25.7 and 0.9% (AMPLE), and 21.6 and 8.4% of patients (ATTEST) were ANA/anti-dsDNA autoantibody positive, respectively. More baseline ANA/anti-dsDNA autoantibody-negative patients became positive during TNFi than abatacept treatment. In ATTEST (TNFi group), 48.5% (48/99; ANA) and 48.3% (57/118; anti-dsDNA) of patients seroconverted to positive status by Year 1, falling to 22.4% (22/98 ANA) and 13.3% (15/113; anti-dsDNA) by Year 2 after switching to abatacept. Of ANA/anti-dsDNA autoantibody-positive patients at Year 1, 41.9% and 68.9%, were negative at Year 2. CONCLUSIONS: ANA/anti-dsDNA seroconversion was more frequent with TNFi than abatacept therapy; TNFi-associated seroconversion decreased after switching from TNFi to abatacept.

Efficacy and safety of monotherapy with sirukumab compared with adalimumab monotherapy in biologic-naïve patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (SIRROUND-H): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multinational, 52-week, phase 3 study.

OBJECTIVE: This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 study compared monotherapy with sirukumab, an anti-interleukin-6 cytokine monoclonal antibody, with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Biologic-naïve patients with active RA who were inadequate responders or were intolerant to, or inappropriate for, methotrexate were randomised to subcutaneous sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks (n=187), sirukumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (n=186) or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (n=186). Primary endpoints at week 24 were change from baseline in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response; these endpoints were tested in sequential order. This study is registered at EudraCT (number: 2013-001417-32) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number: NCT02019472). RESULTS: Significantly greater improvements from baseline in mean (SD) DAS28 (ESR) were observed at week 24 with sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks (-2.96 (1.580)) versus adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (-2.19 (1.437); P<0.001). Sirukumab 50 mg every 4 weeks also showed significantly greater improvement from baseline at week 24 in DAS28 (ESR) (-2.58 (1.524)) compared with adalimumab (P=0.013). The ACR50 response rates with the 100 mg (35.3%) and 50 mg (26.9%) doses of sirukumab were comparable to that with adalimumab (31.7%) at week 24. The safety profile of sirukumab was consistent with that observed with anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibodies. A dose-related effect on the incidence of injection-site reactions was observed with sirukumab. CONCLUSION: Sirukumab monotherapy showed greater improvements in DAS28 (ESR), but similar ACR50 response rates, versus adalimumab monotherapy.

Oral to subcutaneous methotrexate dose-conversion strategy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Both the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) guidelines recommend the use of methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when there is no contraindication. While MTX is the foundation of RA therapy (Singh et al. in Arthritis Care Res 64:625-639,2012), absorption saturation compromises its oral bioavailability (BA). Differences in the relative BA of oral versus subcutaneous (SC) MTX demonstrate the need for guidance on successful dose-conversion strategies. This study was designed to compare MTX PK profiles as a result of MTX administration via three different treatment administrations: oral, SC MTX administered via an auto-injector (MTXAI) into the abdomen (MTXAIab) and into the thigh (MTXAIth). In this paper, we establish a dose-conversion method based on the BA of MTX from oral and SC administration. SC administration provided higher exposure of MTX than the same dose given orally. Unlike the exposure limitations of oral MTX, dose-proportional exposure was seen with SC MTX.

Impact of baseline anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 antibody concentration on efficacy outcomes following treatment with subcutaneous abatacept or adalimumab: 2-year results from the AMPLE trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether baseline anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 (CCP2) antibody status and concentration correlated with clinical outcomes in patients treated with abatacept or adalimumab on background methotrexate (MTX) in the 2-year AMPLE (Abatacept versus adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE rheumatoid arthritis subjects with background MTX) study. METHODS: In this exploratory analysis, anti-CCP2 antibody concentration was measured at baseline, and antibody-positive patients were divided into equal quartiles, Q1-Q4, representing increasing antibody concentrations. Clinical outcomes analysed by baseline anti-CCP2 status and quartile included change from baseline in disease activity and disability and remission rates. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were generally comparable across quartiles and treatment groups. In both treatment groups, anti-CCP2 antibody-negative patients responded less well than antibody-positive patients. At year 2, improvements in disease activity and disability and remission rates were similar across Q1-Q3, but were numerically higher in Q4 in the abatacept group; in contrast, treatment effects were similar across all quartiles in the adalimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In AMPLE, baseline anti-CCP2 positivity was associated with a better response for abatacept and adalimumab. Patients with the highest baseline anti-CCP2 antibody concentrations had better clinical response with abatacept than patients with lower concentrations, an association that was not observed with adalimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00929864.

Head-to-head, randomised, crossover study of oral versus subcutaneous methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: drug-exposure limitations of oral methotrexate at doses ≥15†mg may be overcome with subcutaneous administration.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative bioavailability, safety and tolerability of oral methotrexate (MTX) and subcutaneous (SC) MTX administered via an auto-injector (MTXAI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In this randomised, multicenter, open-label, three-way crossover study, patients ≥18 years with adult RA undergoing treatment with MTX for ≥3 months were assigned to receive MTX 10, 15, 20 and 25 mg weekly in a random sequence of three treatments: oral, SC into the abdomen and SC into the thigh. For 24 h after administration of each treatment, blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis and injection sites were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients completed the study. Systemic exposure of oral MTX plateaued at doses ≥15 mg/week. In contrast, SC MTX demonstrated a linear increase in systemic exposure that was greater than oral MTX at each dose. No unexpected AEs were noted for either formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike oral MTX, the systemic exposure of SC MTX did not plateau over the doses studied, particularly at doses ≥15 mg/week. In this study, higher systemic MTX exposure was not associated with increases in AEs. Patients with an inadequate clinical response to oral MTX may benefit from higher drug exposure by switching to SC MTX. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01618968.

Rheumatoid arthritis secondary non-responders to TNF can attain an efficacious and safe response by switching to certolizumab pegol: a phase IV, randomised, multicentre, double-blind, 12-week study, followed by a 12-week open-label phase.

OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had discontinued an initially effective TNF inhibitor (TNF-IR). METHODS: A randomised 12-week double-blind trial with CZP (n=27) or placebo (n=10) followed by an open-label 12 week extension period with CZP. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. ACR20 response (primary end point) at week 12 was achieved in 61.5%, and none of CZP and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Weeks 12-24 showed a maximum effect for CZP at 12 weeks, and that placebo patients switched blindly to CZP attained similar results seen with CZP in weeks 0-12. Since this result was highly significant, study inclusion was terminated after entry of 33.6% of the originally planned 102 patients. Adverse events occurred in 16/27 (59.3%) CZP subjects and 4/10 (40%) placebo subjects. There were no serious adverse events, neoplasms, opportunistic, or serious infections. CONCLUSIONS: This first, prospective, blinded trial of CZP in secondary TNF-IR shows that the ACR20 response rate observed with CZP was higher than that reported in most previous studies of TNF-IR. Additionally, CZP demonstrated good safety and tolerability. This study supports the use of CZP in RA patients who are secondary non-responders to anti-TNF therapies.

Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: two-year efficacy and safety findings from AMPLE trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare over 2 years the safety, efficacy and radiographic outcomes of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab, in combination with methotrexate (MTX), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: AMPLE is a phase IIIb, 2-year, randomised, investigator-blinded study with a 1-year primary endpoint. Biologic-naive patients with active RA and an inadequate response to MTX were randomised to 125 mg abatacept weekly or 40 mg adalimumab bi-weekly, both with a stable dose of MTX. RESULTS: Of 646 patients randomised, 79.2% abatacept and 74.7% adalimumab patients completed year 2. At year 2, efficacy outcomes, including radiographic, remained comparable between groups and with year 1 results. The American College Rheumatology 20, 50 and 70 responses at year 2 were 59.7%, 44.7% and 31.1% for abatacept and 60.1%, 46.6% and 29.3% for adalimumab. There were similar rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). More serious infections occurred with adalimumab (3.8% vs 5.8%) including two cases of tuberculosis with adalimumab. There were fewer discontinuations due to AEs (3.8% vs 9.5%), SAEs (1.6% vs 4.9%) and serious infections (0/12 vs 9/19 patients) in the abatacept group. Injection site reactions (ISRs) occurred less frequently with abatacept (4.1% vs 10.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Through 2 years of blinded treatment in this first head-to-head study between biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX, subcutaneous abatacept and adalimumab were similarly efficacious based on clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes. Overall, AE frequency was similar in both groups but there were less discontinuations due to AEs, SAEs, serious infections and fewer local ISRs with abatacept.

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

OBJECTIVE: There is a need for comparative studies to provide evidence-based treatment guidance for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, this study was undertaken as the first head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept and SC adalimumab, both administered along with background methotrexate (MTX), for the treatment of RA. METHODS: Patients with active RA who were naive to treatment with biologic agents and had an inadequate response to MTX were randomly assigned to receive 125 mg SC abatacept weekly or 40 mg SC adalimumab biweekly, both given in combination with MTX, in a 2-year study. The primary end point was treatment noninferiority, assessed according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response (ACR20) at 1 year. RESULTS: Of the 646 patients who were randomized and treated, 86.2% receiving SC abatacept and 82% receiving SC adalimumab completed 12 months of treatment. At 1 year, 64.8% of patients in the SC abatacept group and 63.4% in the SC adalimumab group demonstrated an ACR20 response; the estimated difference between groups was 1.8% (95% confidence interval -5.6%, 9.2%), thus demonstrating the noninferiority of abatacept compared to adalimumab. All efficacy measures showed similar results and kinetics of response between treatments. The rate of radiographic nonprogression (defined as a total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score [SHS] less than or equal to the smallest detectable change) was 84.8% for SC abatacept-treated patients and 88.6% for SC adalimumab-treated patients, while the mean change from baseline in the total SHS was 0.58 and 0.38, respectively. In the SC abatacept and SC adalimumab groups, the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was 10.1% and 9.1%, respectively, and the rate of serious infections was 2.2% and 2.7%, respectively. In patients treated with SC abatacept, the frequency of discontinuations due to AEs was 3.5% and discontinuations due to SAEs was 1.3%, while in patients treated with SC adalimumab, the frequencies were 6.1% and 3%, respectively. Injection site reactions occurred in 3.8% of patients receiving SC abatacept compared to 9.1% of patients receiving SC adalimumab (P=0.006). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that SC abatacept and SC adalimumab have comparable efficacy in patients with RA, as shown by similar kinetics of response and comparable inhibition of radiographic progression over 1 year of treatment. The safety was generally similar, other than the occurrence of significantly more local injection site reactions in patients treated with SC adalimumab.

Subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of i.v. abatacept are well established in patients with active RA. A s.c. abatacept formulation is now available in some countries. Here, we review clinical data for s.c. abatacept. Six trials are presented (Phase II dose-finding study, ACQUIRE, ALLOW, ACCOMPANY, ATTUNE and AMPLE) and issues important to both patients and clinicians are addressed. The primary focus assesses whether the i.v. and s.c. abatacept formulations have similar efficacy, including whether the recommended fixed dose of s.c. abatacept is comparable to the weight-tiered i.v. dosing and whether efficacy is sustained with long-term treatment. Safety and immunogenicity are also discussed, including the short- and long-term safety of s.c. abatacept, and whether immunogenicity is increased following a switch from i.v. to s.c. abatacept, after withdrawal or reintroduction of s.c. abatacept or in the absence of MTX. Year 1 data from the AMPLE study, comparing s.c. abatacept with the TNF antagonist adalimumab, are discussed. Although fewer patient-years of exposure are available for s.c. compared with i.v. abatacept, observations suggest that s.c. abatacept has a similar long-term efficacy to the i.v. formulation, improving the signs, symptoms, disease activity and physical function in patients with RA. With continued treatment, these improvements are maintained over time with high retention rates, similar to i.v. abatacept. s.c. abatacept is associated with low immunogenicity and short- and long-term safety that is consistent with i.v. abatacept. In addition, s.c. abatacept demonstrates comparable efficacy, kinetics of response, safety and radiographic inhibition to adalimumab.

Myositis ossificans of the temporalis muscle: case report and review of the literature.

Myositis ossificans, also known as traumatic myositis ossificans or myositis ossificans circumscripta, is the product of an unusual reactive process of mesenchymal stem cells within the muscle produced secondary to a traumatic insult or inflammatory process. In approximately 75% of cases, the process has a direct correlation with a single or repetitive, traumatic, penetrating, or crushing injury to the muscle. However, in up to 25% of cases, there is no recollection of a traumatic event. The most commonly accepted mechanism of traumatic etiology includes the embedment and lysis of bone fragments within the soft tissue causing subsequent exposure of bone morphogenic proteins to extraosseous cells. This environment stimulates osteoblasts to form true bone, dystrophic calcifications, or a calcified chondroid matrix. A concomitant mechanism that occurs involves the overproduction of bone morphogenic protein-4 produced by the muscle cells or the muscle fascia.

Double-blind randomized trials of single-tablet ibuprofen/high-dose famotidine vs. ibuprofen alone for reduction of gastric and duodenal ulcers.

OBJECTIVES: We performed two 24-week double-blind trials (REDUCE-1 and -2 (Registration Endoscopic Studies to Determine Ulcer Formation of HZT-501 Compared with Ibuprofen: Efficacy and Safety Studies)) to assess whether double-dose famotidine given in a single-tablet combination with ibuprofen (HZT-501) significantly reduces gastric and duodenal ulcers as compared with ibuprofen. METHODS: Patients (40-80 years) requiring daily non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for ≥6 months with no prior ulcer complications, negative H. pylori stool test, and baseline endoscopy showing no ulcers and <5 erosions were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to HZT-501 or identical-appearing ibuprofen 800 mg tablets thrice daily. Study endoscopies were done at 8, 16, and 24 weeks. After unblinding and initial analyses, 12 patients were found to be misclassified as having gastric ulcers based on the adjudication of endoscopy reports, and analyses were re-run. RESULTS: In REDUCE-1, the primary end point analysis of gastric ulcers at 24 weeks with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen was 12.7% vs. 22.9% (P=0.0044) in the post-adjudication analysis. In REDUCE-2, the primary end point analysis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers was 13.0% vs. 20.5% (P=0.0587) in the post-adjudication analysis. Prespecified pooled analyses showed significantly fewer gastric (12.5% vs. 20.7%) and duodenal ulcers (1.1% vs. 5.1%) with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen. Proportional hazards analysis of multiple potential risk factors showed the risk ratio of upper GI ulcers with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen was 0.46, 95% confidence interval was 0.34-0.61. CONCLUSIONS: Combined results of the REDUCE studies indicate that double-dose famotidine plus ibuprofen, given as a combination tablet, decreases endoscopic upper GI ulcers as compared with ibuprofen alone.

Differential Changes in ACPA Fine Specificity and Gene Expression in a Randomized Trial of Abatacept and Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The biologics abatacept and adalimumab have different mechanisms of action (MoAs). We analyzed data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated in AMPLE (NCT00929864) to explore the pharmacodynamic effects of abatacept or adalimumab on anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and gene expression. METHODS: AMPLE was a phase IIIb, 2-year, randomized, head-to-head trial of abatacept versus adalimumab. Post hoc analyses of baseline anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 (anti-CCP2, an ACPA surrogate) positive (+) status and ACPA fine-specificity profiles over time, as well as transcriptional profiling (peripheral whole blood), were performed. RESULTS: Of 646 patients treated (abatacept, n = 318; adalimumab, n = 328), ACPA and gene expression data were available from 508 and 566 patients, respectively. In anti-CCP2+ patients (n = 388), baseline fine specificities for most ACPAs were highly correlated; over 2 years, levels decreased with abatacept but not adalimumab. By year 2, expression of genes associated with T cell co-stimulation and antibody production was lower for abatacept versus adalimumab; expression of genes associated with proinflammatory signaling was lower for adalimumab versus abatacept. Treatment modulated the expression of T- and B-cell gene signatures, with differences in CD8+ T cells, activated T cells, plasma cells, B cells, natural killer cells (all lower with abatacept versus adalimumab), and polymorphonuclear leukocytes (higher with abatacept versus adalimumab). CONCLUSIONS: In AMPLE, despite similar clinical outcomes, data showed that pharmacodynamic/genetic changes after 2 years of abatacept or adalimumab were consistent with drug MoAs. Further assessment of the relationship between such changes and clinical outcomes, including prediction of response, is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00929864.

Certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate provides broad relief from the burden of rheumatoid arthritis: analysis of patient-reported outcomes from the RAPID 2 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of certolizumab pegol (CZP) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to interpret these results using number needed to treat (NNT), and associations between PRO responses and longer term outcomes. METHODS: A total of 619 patients with active RA were randomised to CZP 200 or 400 mg, or placebo plus methotrexate (MTX). PROs assessed included pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), physical function, fatigue and health-related quality of life. Treatment impact on PROs, NNT to achieve simultaneous improvements in multiple PROs and correlations between PROs were calculated. Times to onset of improvements greater than or equal to minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in pain as a determinant of clinical outcomes at week 24 were compared between week 6 and 12 responders, and in patients with improvements in pain ≥ MCID at week 12 (week 12 responders/non-responders). RESULTS: CZP 200 and 400 mg plus MTX were associated with rapid, clinically meaningful improvements in all PROs. The NNT for subjects to report changes ≥MCID in up to five PROs was two to three, and five for all six PROs (pain, PtGA, physical function, fatigue and short-form 36-item Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores). More patients with improvements ≥MCID in pain at week 6 than those at week 12 had lower disease activity at week 24. Week 12 pain responders had better clinical outcomes at week 24 than non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrate that CZP provides broad relief from the burden of RA. Trial registration number NCT00160602.

Clinical response and tolerability to abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with infliximab or abatacept: open-label extension of the ATTEST Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in biological-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate treated in the long-term extension (LTE) of the ATTEST trial. METHODS: Patients randomly assigned to abatacept, placebo or infliximab completing the 1-year double-blind period were eligible to receive abatacept ∼10 mg/kg in the open-label LTE. Efficacy to year 2 is presented for patients randomly assigned to abatacept or infliximab who switched to open-label abatacept. Safety data are presented for all patients entering LTE regardless of double-blind treatment. RESULTS: Of 431 patients randomly assigned, 79.8% remained on abatacept at year 2. At years 1 and 2, 19.7% and 26.1% of abatacept and 13.3% and 28.6% of infliximab-to-abatacept patients achieved disease activity score 28-defined remission (<2.6). Safety with abatacept during the cumulative study period was consistent with the double-blind experience, with no increase in adverse event incidence following the switch to abatacept. CONCLUSION: In methotrexate-inadequate responders, abatacept efficacy was maintained over 2 years. For infliximab-to-abatacept patients, efficacy improvements were seen in year 2 after patients switched to abatacept. Switching directly from infliximab to abatacept was well tolerated. These data demonstrate that abatacept provides sustained responses and consistent safety, suggesting that switching from infliximab to abatacept is a viable treatment option.

Abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.

Significant advances in our understanding of RA and its management have been made in the past decade, resulting in earlier intervention with biologic DMARDs, particularly in patients with evidence of aggressive, erosive disease. Here, one such biologic therapy, the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept, is discussed, exploring clinical evidence published to date on its use in patients with very early arthritis/early RA who are MTX naïve, and in patients with established RA and an inadequate response to MTX or TNF antagonists. Data from relevant clinical trials are overviewed, discussing the clinical efficacy of abatacept in early disease, the clinical outcomes over long-term treatment in different patient populations and the effects of abatacept on structural damage. Findings from integrated safety analyses of abatacept clinical trial data, representing 10,366 patient-years of exposure are described, and clinically important safety events, including serious infections, malignancies and autoimmune events, are highlighted. It is concluded that abatacept represents an effective treatment option with an established safety profile across different patient populations, including patients with both early and erosive RA and those with established disease. Furthermore, efficacy data from studies in patients with early disease suggest that the risk-benefit profile of abatacept may be more favourable when introduced earlier in the treatment paradigm.

A novel role for the TIR domain in association with pathogen-derived elicitors.

Plant innate immunity is mediated by Resistance (R) proteins, which bear a striking resemblance to animal molecules of similar function. Tobacco N is a TIR-NB-LRR R gene that confers resistance to Tobacco mosaic virus, specifically the p50 helicase domain. An intriguing question is how plant R proteins recognize the presence of pathogen-derived Avirulence (Avr) elicitor proteins. We have used biochemical cell fraction and immunoprecipitation in addition to confocal fluorescence microscopy of living tissue to examine the association between N and p50. Surprisingly, both N and p50 are cytoplasmic and nuclear proteins, and N's nuclear localization is required for its function. We also demonstrate an in planta association between N and p50. Further, we show that N's TIR domain is critical for this association, and indeed, it alone can associate with p50. Our results differ from current models for plant innate immunity that propose detection is mediated solely through the LRR domains of these molecules. The data we present support an intricate process of pathogen elicitor recognition by R proteins involving multiple subcellular compartments and the formation of multiple protein complexes.

Mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of adults with advanced rheumatoid arthritis: three 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo- or ciclosporin-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil is an immunosuppressive agent approved for the prophylaxis of renal, cardiac and hepatic transplant rejection. With its proven immunosuppressive effects and favourable toxicity profile, mycophenolate mofetil was postulated as a potential candidate for treating rheumatoid arthritis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of adults with advanced refractory rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: The effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil (1 g twice daily) in the treatment of advanced refractory rheumatoid arthritis was assessed in three 24-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trials (two placebo-controlled [n = 229 and n = 214] and one with ciclosporin 2.5-4 mg/kg/day as a comparator [n = 842]). Patients had American Rheumatism Association functional class II or III disease, a mean disease duration of 9.8-13 years, and had failed treatment with a median of three to four disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Overall, 959/1262 (76%) of patients in the main analysis group were female and 1189/1262 (94%) were Caucasian. RESULTS: In the placebo-controlled trials, the American College of Rheumatology 20% responder index rate did not differ significantly between mycophenolate mofetil and placebo (19.7% [29/147] vs 13.0% [9/69] and 15.8% [22/139] vs 10.1% [7/69]; p > 0.05 for both studies). Consequently, the active-comparator trial was stopped prematurely before completion and efficacy analyses were not performed. Treatment-emergent adverse events were experienced by 51.6% (371/719), 73.1% (304/416) and 36.1% (53/147) of patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil, ciclosporin and placebo, respectively. Hypertension, increased serum creatinine, muscle cramps, hirsutism and hypertrichosis were more than twice as common with ciclosporin as with mycophenolate mofetil. In all three trials, the incidence of serious adverse events with mycophenolate mofetil was 12.1% (compared with 11.3% and 7.5% for ciclosporin and placebo, respectively). CONCLUSION: Mycophenolate mofetil did not achieve a significant difference from placebo in terms of disease improvement in patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis. A descriptive analysis of adverse events suggests mycophenolate mofetil was generally as well tolerated as ciclosporin in this patient population.