Randomized Crossover Comparison of Injection Site Pain with 40 mg/0.4 or 0.8 mL Formulations of Adalimumab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Adalimumab, an anti-tumor necrosis factor antibody, is currently available in a 40 mg/0.8 mL formulation. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate injection site-related pain, safety, and tolerability of a 40 mg/0.4 mL formulation of adalimumab that had fewer excipients, a smaller volume, and a delivery presentation with a smaller gauge needle, versus the current 40 mg/0.8 mL formulation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Two identically designed, phase 2, randomized, single-blind, two-period crossover studies were conducted in Belgium and the Czech Republic (Study 1) and Australia, Canada, and Germany (Study 2). In both studies, adults with RA [biologic-naive or current users of 40 mg/0.8 mL adalimumab with an average injection site-related pain rating ≥3 cm on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0-10 cm)] were randomized to receive 40 mg/0.8 mL or 40 mg/0.4 mL adalimumab at visit 1. After 1-2 weeks (depending on patient medication schedule), patients received the other formulation at visit 2. A pain VAS [McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ-SF)] and the Draize scale were evaluated immediately after injection and 15 min postinjection. The primary endpoint was immediate pain after injection. RESULTS: 64 and 61 patients were randomized in Studies 1 and 2, respectively. Both studies found a clinically relevant and statistically significant lower immediate pain after injection for the 40 mg/0.4 mL versus the 40 mg/0.8 mL formulation. The mean difference on the VAS for the pooled data (-2.48 cm) was also clinically relevant. Most other endpoints in both studies favored the 40 mg/0.4 mL formulation, and its tolerability and safety profile were consistent with 40 mg/0.8 mL adalimumab. CONCLUSION: A 40 mg/0.4 mL adalimumab formulation was well tolerated and associated with less injection site-related pain than the 40 mg/0.8 mL adalimumab formulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01561313 and NCT01502423. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Longterm effect of delaying combination therapy with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor in patients with aggressive early rheumatoid arthritis: 10-year efficacy and safety of adalimumab from the randomized controlled PREMIER trial with open-label extension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the longterm safety of adalimumab administered with or without methotrexate (MTX) and compare the efficacy of combination therapy initialization to adalimumab or MTX monotherapy initialization during the open-label extension (OLE) of the PREMIER trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT00195663). METHODS: Patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were randomized to receive blinded adalimumab + MTX, adalimumab alone, or MTX alone for 2 years. Following the double-blinded period, patients enrolling in the OLE were given adalimumab for up to 8 additional years, beginning as monotherapy; investigators could add MTX at their discretion. Results for clinical, functional, and radiographic progression were collected for up to 10 years of treatment. RESULTS: During the PREMIER OLE, 250/497 patients (50.3%) completed the trial without new safety signals arising. Similar proportions of patients discontinued the trial early, although lack of efficacy was reported less often for patients initially randomized to the adalimumab + MTX arm (9.3%; 21.2%, and 23.7% for adalimumab and MTX monotherapies, respectively). Clinical and functional disease control was maintained throughout the trial. Patients initially randomized to adalimumab + MTX displayed better outcomes, particularly in prevention of radiographic progression (modified total Sharp score change = 4.0, 8.8, 11.0 at Year 10 for the initial adalimumab + MTX, adalimumab, and MTX arms, respectively). CONCLUSION: Intensive therapy with adalimumab + MTX combination in patients with early RA has longterm benefits compared to patients initiating with 2-year adalimumab or MTX monotherapy that persists up to 10 years following adalimumab OLE. No new safety findings were observed following longterm adalimumab treatment.

Canakinumab reduces the risk of acute gouty arthritis flares during initiation of allopurinol treatment: results of a double-blind, randomised study.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of canakinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin 1ß monoclonal antibody, for prophylaxis against acute gouty arthritis flares in patients initiating urate-lowering treatment. METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy, dose-ranging study, 432 patients with gouty arthritis initiating allopurinol treatment were randomised 1:1:1:1:1:1:2 to receive: a single dose of canakinumab, 25, 50, 100, 200, or 300 mg subcutaneously; 4×4-weekly doses of canakinumab (50+50+25+25 mg subcutaneously); or daily colchicine 0.5 mg orally for 16 weeks. Patients recorded details of flares in diaries. The study aimed to determine the canakinumab dose having equivalent efficacy to colchicine 0.5 mg at 16 weeks. RESULTS: A dose-response for canakinumab was not apparent with any of the four predefined dose-response models. The estimated canakinumab dose with equivalent efficacy to colchicine was below the range of doses tested. At 16 weeks, there was a 62% to 72% reduction in the mean number of flares per patient for canakinumab doses ≥50 mg versus colchicine based on a negative binomial model (rate ratio: 0.28-0.38, p≤0.0083), and the percentage of patients experiencing ≥1 flare was significantly lower for all canakinumab doses (15% to 27%) versus colchicine (44%, p<0.05). There was a 64% to 72% reduction in the risk of experiencing ≥1 flare for canakinumab doses ≥50 mg versus colchicine at 16 weeks (hazard ratio (HR): 0.28-0.36, p≤0.05). The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single canakinumab doses ≥50 mg or four 4-weekly doses provided superior prophylaxis against flares compared with daily colchicine 0.5 mg.

Less small-bowel injury with lumiracoxib compared with naproxen plus omeprazole.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor lumiracoxib has been shown to reduce endoscopically detected ulcers and ulcer complications in the upper gastrointestinal tract compared with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. We investigated whether lumiracoxib would reduce small-bowel injury compared with naproxen plus omeprazole. METHODS: Healthy volunteers were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily, naproxen 500 mg twice daily plus omeprazole 20 mg once daily, or placebo in a 16-day double-blind, parallel-group study. Small-bowel mucosal injury and inflammation were assessed by video capsule endoscopy, the lactulose:L-rhamnose permeability assessment, and the fecal calprotectin test. RESULTS: Of 152 randomized subjects, 139 completed the study with valid video capsule endoscopies (lumiracoxib, n = 47; naproxen plus omeprazole, n = 45; placebo, n = 47). Compared with placebo, an increased number of subjects on naproxen plus omeprazole had small-bowel mucosal breaks (77.8% vs 40.4%, P < .001), with increased permeability (P = .023) and increased fecal calprotectin (increase, 96.8 vs 14.5 mg/kg for placebo; P < .001). With lumiracoxib, 27.7% of subjects had small-bowel mucosal breaks (P = .196 vs placebo; P < .001 vs naproxen), there was no increase in permeability (P = .157 vs placebo; P = .364 vs naproxen), and no increase in fecal calprotectin (-5.7 mg/kg; P = .377 vs placebo; P < .001 vs naproxen). CONCLUSIONS: As assessed by 3 different measures, acute small-bowel injury on lumiracoxib treatment is less frequent than with naproxen plus omeprazole and similar to placebo.

Preemptive versus postoperative lumiracoxib for analgesia in ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery.

We compared the efficacy and safety of preemptive vs postoperative dosing of lumiracoxib 400 mg in patients undergoing minor ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery. Eligible patients were randomized to preemptive lumiracoxib, postoperative lumiracoxib, and placebo. The main efficacy parameter was pain intensity (PI) (0-100 mm visual analog scale) in the target knee upon movement, 2 hours after surgery. Other efficacy variables included PI in the target knee at rest and upon movement at 1, 3, 4, and 24 hours, time to first rescue medication intake. In the lumiracoxib preemptive and postoperative groups, the estimated treatment difference compared to placebo for primary endpoint was -4.0 (95% CI: -9, -1; p = 0.007) and -3.5 (95% CI: -8.5, 0; p = 0.052), respectively. There was no statistical significant difference between two active treatment groups (p = 0.602). Both preemptive and postoperative lumiracoxib resulted in significantly lower PI scores at rest and after movement at all time-points and no statistically significant difference was observed between the active treatments. Time to rescue medication intake was comparable for both active treatments. The proportion of adverse events was similar among all groups. We conclude that the efficacy of lumiracoxib 400 mg is not affected by the timing of administration (preemptive or postoperative).