Predicting Responders to Reslizumab after 16 Weeks of Treatment Using an Algorithm Derived from Clinical Studies of Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma.

RATIONALE: Reslizumab is a humanized anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody used as add-on maintenance treatment for patients with uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. OBJECTIVES: To predict response and nonresponse to intravenous reslizumab at 52 weeks with an algorithm we developed based on clinical indicators from pivotal clinical trials. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years and older who met Global Initiative for Asthma 4 or 5 criteria and received intravenous reslizumab (n = 321) in two trials ( www.clinicaltrials.gov identifiers, NCT01287039 and NCT01285323) were selected as the data source. A mathematical model was constructed that was based on change from baseline to 16 weeks in Asthma Control Questionnaire and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores and FEV1, and number of clinical asthma exacerbations during the year before enrollment and in the first 16 weeks of treatment, and these measures were evaluated for their ability to predict the outcome at 52 weeks: responder, nonresponder, or indeterminate. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The algorithm predicted that 276 patients would be classified as responders; in 248 (89.9%), the prediction was correct. In comparison, 26 patients were predicted to be nonresponders; 50.0% of these predictions were correct. Nineteen patients were classified as indeterminate. The algorithm had 95.4-95.5% sensitivity and 40.6-54.1% specificity. Jackknife and cross-study validation confirmed the robustness of the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm enabled prediction at 16 weeks of treatment of the response to intravenous reslizumab treatment at 52 weeks, but it was not suitable for predicting nonresponse. A positive score at 16 weeks should encourage continued treatment, and a negative score should prompt close monitoring to determine whether discontinuation is warranted.

Evaluation of inhaler technique and achievement and maintenance of mastery of budesonide/formoterol Spiromax® compared with budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler® in adult patients with asthma: the Easy Low Instruction Over Time (ELIOT) study.

BACKGROUND: Incorrect inhaler technique is a common cause of poor asthma control. This two-phase pragmatic study evaluated inhaler technique mastery and maintenance of mastery with DuoResp® (budesonide-formoterol [BF]) Spiromax® compared with Symbicort® (BF) Turbuhaler® in patients with asthma who were receiving inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists. METHODS: In the initial cross-sectional phase, patients were randomized to a 6-step training protocol with empty Spiromax and Turbuhaler devices. Patients initially demonstrating ≥1 error with their current device, and then achieving mastery with both Spiromax and Turbuhaler (absence of healthcare professional [HCP]-observed errors), were eligible for the longitudinal phase. In the longitudinal phase, patients were randomized to BF Spiromax or BF Turbuhaler. Co-primary endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving device mastery after three training steps and maintaining device mastery (defined as the absence of HCP-observed errors after 12 weeks of use). Secondary endpoints included device preference, handling error frequency, asthma control, and safety. Exploratory endpoints included assessment of device mastery by an independent external expert reviewing video recordings of a subset of patients. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-three patients participated in the cross-sectional phase, and 395 patients in the longitudinal phase. In the cross-sectional phase, more patients achieved device mastery after three training steps with Spiromax (94%) versus Turbuhaler (87%) (odds ratio [OR] 3.77 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.05-6.95], p < 0.001). Longitudinal phase data indicated that the odds of maintaining inhaler mastery at 12 weeks were not statistically significantly different (OR 1.26 [95% CI 0.80-1.98], p = 0.316). Asthma control improved in both groups with no significant difference between groups (OR 0.11 [95% CI -0.09-0.30]). An exploratory analysis indicated that the odds of maintaining independent expert-verified device mastery were significantly higher for patients using Spiromax versus Turbuhaler (OR 2.11 [95% CI 1.25-3.54]). CONCLUSIONS: In the cross-sectional phase, a significantly greater proportion of patients using Spiromax versus Turbuhaler achieved device mastery; in the longitudinal phase, the proportion of patients maintaining device mastery with Spiromax versus Turbuhaler was similar. An exploratory independent expert-verified analysis found Spiromax was associated with higher levels of device mastery after 12 weeks. Asthma control was improved by treatment with both BF Spiromax and BF Turbuhaler. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2013-004630-14 (registration date 23 January 2014); NCT02570425 .

Omalizumab for the treatment of chronic idiopathic or spontaneous urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (also called chronic spontaneous urticaria) do not have a response to therapy with H-antihistamines, even at high doses. In phase 2 trials, omalizumab, an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody [corrected] that targets IgE and affects mast-cell and basophil function, has shown efficacy in such patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic idiopathic urticaria who remained symptomatic despite H-antihistamine therapy (licensed doses). We randomly assigned 323 patients to receive three subcutaneous injections, spaced 4 weeks apart, of omalizumab at doses of 75 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg or placebo, followed by a 16-week observation period. The primary efficacy outcome was the change from baseline in a weekly itch-severity score (ranging from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating more severe itching). RESULTS: The baseline weekly itch-severity score was approximately 14 in all four study groups. At week 12, the mean (±SD) change from baseline in the weekly itch-severity score was -5.1±5.6 in the placebo group, -5.9±6.5 in the 75-mg group (P=0.46), -8.1±6.4 in the 150-mg group (P=0.001), and -9.8±6.0 in the 300-mg group (P<0.001). Most prespecified secondary outcomes at week 12 showed similar dose-dependent effects. The frequency of adverse events was similar across groups. The frequency of serious adverse events was low, although the rate was higher in the 300-mg group (6%) than in the placebo group (3%) or in either the 75-mg or 150-mg group (1% for each). CONCLUSIONS: Omalizumab diminished clinical symptoms and signs of chronic idiopathic urticaria in patients who had remained symptomatic despite the use of approved doses of H-antihistamines. (Funded by Genentech and Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01292473.).

Revision of omalizumab dosing table for dosing every 4 instead of 2 weeks for specific ranges of bodyweight and baseline IgE.

The dosing level and frequency of omalizumab are guided by a dosing table based on total serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) and bodyweight. Using a validated, mathematical simulation model (based on concentration data from 8 studies), we evaluated the impact of a revised omalizumab dosing table (every 4 weeks dosing regimen) on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of free and total IgE. Safety analysis, in patients with high levels of exposure to omalizumab, was done using data from the clinical and post-marketing databases. The model accurately predicted observed omalizumab, free and total IgE concentrations. After reaching steady-state, the average increase in exposure was 10%, even for patients with the highest concentrations at the upper 97.5th percentile. Free IgE suppression slightly increased in the initial phase, and slightly reduced at the trough of the dosing cycle, but average suppression remained similar for both regimens. The safety profile of omalizumab was similar for patients receiving higher or lower doses. Thus, doubling the dose of omalizumab, in a subset of patients receiving 225-300 mg of omalizumab (every 2 weeks dosing regimen) can efficiently suppress free IgE without compromising safety or efficacy.

Omalizumab in patients with symptomatic chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria despite standard combination therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria/chronic spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU) often continue to experience symptoms despite receiving standard-of-care therapy with H1-antihistamines along with 1 or more add-on therapies. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 24 weeks of treatment with omalizumab in patients with persistent CIU/CSU despite treatment with H1-antihistamines at up to 4 times the approved dose plus H2-antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, or both. METHODS: In this phase III study patients were randomized to receive 6 subcutaneous injections at 4-week intervals of either 300 mg of omalizumab or placebo, followed by a 16-week observation period. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the overall safety of omalizumab compared with placebo. Efficacy (itch severity, hive, and urticaria activity scores) was evaluated at weeks 12 and 24. RESULTS: The overall incidence and severity of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between omalizumab and placebo recipients; the safety profile was consistent with omalizumab in patients with allergic asthma. At week 12, the mean change from baseline in weekly itch severity score was -8.6 (95% CI, -9.3 to -7.8) in the omalizumab group compared with -4.0 (95% CI, -5.3 to -2.7) in the placebo group (P < .001). Significant improvements were seen for additional efficacy end points at week 12; these benefits were sustained to week 24. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab was well tolerated and reduced the signs and symptoms of CIU/CSU in patients who remained symptomatic despite the use of H1-antihistamines (up to 4 times the approved dose) plus H2-antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, or both.

Omalizumab and the risk of malignancy: results from a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since initial registration, the omalizumab clinical trial database has expanded considerably, with a doubling of patients exposed in the clinical trial environment. Previous pooled data (2003) from phase I to III studies of omalizumab showed a numeric imbalance in malignancies arising in omalizumab recipients (0.5%) compared with control subjects (0.2%). The previous analysis was based on limited available data, warranting further investigation. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the incidence of malignancy using comprehensive pooled data from clinical trials of omalizumab-treated patients. METHODS: This pooled analysis included data from 67 phase I to IV clinical trials. The prespecified primary analysis assessed the incidence of primary malignancy in 32 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled (RDBPC) trials. RESULTS: There were 11,459 unique patients in all clinical trials (7,789 received omalizumab). The primary analysis identified malignancies in 25 patients (RDBPC trials): 14 in 4,254 omalizumab-treated patients and 11 in 3,178 placebo-treated patients. Incidence rates per 1,000 patient-years of observation time for omalizumab- and placebo-treated patients were 4.14 (95% CI, 2.26-6.94) and 4.45 (95% CI, 2.22-7.94), respectively; the corresponding rate ratio was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.39-2.27). Primary malignancies were of varying histologic type and occurred in a number of different organ systems; no cluster of histologies was identified. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis no association was observed between omalizumab treatment and risk of malignancy in RDBPC trials; the rate ratio was below unity. The data suggest that a causal relationship between omalizumab therapy and malignancy is unlikely.

Stratification of eosinophilic asthma patients treated with reslizumab and GINA Step 4 or 5 therapy.

Reslizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, significantly reduces exacerbation frequency and improves lung function, asthma control and quality of life in adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, as demonstrated in Phase III studies. This secondary analysis assessed reslizumab's efficacy in patients receiving baseline treatment per Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Step 4 and Step 5 guidelines. Pooled data from duplicate, Phase III, reslizumab versus placebo studies in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (blood eosinophils ≥400 cells·µL-1) were stratified by baseline therapy. Efficacy assessments were exacerbation rates and changes from baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and patient-reported outcomes. Of 953 patients, 69% (n=657) and 11% (n=106) were receiving Step 4 and Step 5 therapy, respectively. Compared with placebo, reslizumab reduced exacerbation rates by 53% (95% CI 0.36-0.62) and 72% (95% CI 0.15-0.52), in Step 4 and Step 5 groups respectively. By study end, reslizumab increased FEV1 in Step 4 and Step 5 groups by 103 mL (95% CI 52-154 mL) and 237 mL (95% CI 68-407 mL), respectively. Reslizumab also improved patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo in both groups. Reslizumab reduces exacerbation rates and improves lung function and patient-reported outcomes in patients with eosinophilic asthma receiving therapy per Steps 4 and 5 of the GINA guidelines.

Clinical efficacy of omalizumab in chronic spontaneous urticaria is associated with a reduction of FcεRI-positive cells in the skin.

Background. Treatment with omalizumab, a humanized recombinant monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, results in clinical efficacy in patients with Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria (CSU). The mechanism of action of omalizumab in CSU has not been elucidated in detail. Objectives. To determine the effects of omalizumab on levels of high affinity IgE receptor-positive (FcεRI+) and IgE-positive (IgE+) dermal cells and blood basophils. Treatment efficacy and safety were also assessed. Study design. In a double-blind study, CSU patients aged 18­75 years were randomized to receive 300 mg omalizumab (n=20) or placebo (n=10) subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. Changes in disease activity were assessed by use of the weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7). Circulating IgE levels, basophil numbers and levels of expression of FcεRI+ and IgE+ cells in the skin and in blood basophils were determined. Results. Patients receiving omalizumab showed a significantly greater decrease in UAS7 compared with patients receiving placebo. At Week 12 the mean difference in UAS7 between treatment groups was -14.82 (p=0.0027), consistent with previous studies. Total IgE levels in serum were increased after omalizumab treatment and remained elevated up to Week 12. Free IgE levels decreased after omalizumab treatment. Mean levels of FcεRI+ skin cells in patients treated with omalizumab 300 mg were decreased at Week 12 compared with baseline in the dermis of both non-lesional and lesional skin, reaching levels comparable with those seen in healthy volunteers (HVs). There were no statistically significant changes in mean FcɛRI+ cell levels in the placebo group. Similar results were seen for changes in IgE+ cells, although the changes were not statistically significant. The level of peripheral blood basophils increased immediately after treatment start and returned to Baseline values after the follow-up period. The levels of FcεRI and IgE expression on peripheral blood basophils were rapidly reduced by omalizumab treatment up to Week 12. Conclusions. Treatment with omalizumab resulted in rapid clinical benefits in patients with CSU. Treatment with omalizumab was associated with reduction in FcɛRI+ and IgE+ basophils and intradermal cells.

Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria who remain symptomatic on H1 antihistamines: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

ASTERIA I was a 40-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous omalizumab as add-on therapy for 24 weeks in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria/spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU) who remained symptomatic despite H1 antihistamine treatment at licensed doses. Patients aged 12-75 years with CIU/CSU who remained symptomatic despite treatment with approved doses of H1 antihistamines were randomized (1:1:1:1) in a double-blind manner to subcutaneous omalizumab 75 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 24 weeks followed by 16 weeks of follow-up. The primary end point was change from baseline in weekly itch severity score (ISS) at week 12. Among randomized patients (N=319: placebo n=80, omalizumab 75 mg n=78, 150 mg n=80, 300 mg n=81), 262 (82.1%) completed the study. Compared with placebo (n=80), mean weekly ISS was reduced from baseline to week 12 by an additional 2.96 points (95% confidence interval (CI): -4.71 to -1.21; P=0.0010), 2.95 points (95% CI: -4.72 to -1.18; P=0.0012), and 5.80 points (95% CI: -7.49 to -4.10; P<0.0001) in the omalizumab 75-mg (n=77), 150-mg (n=80), and 300-mg groups (n=81), respectively. The omalizumab 300-mg group met all nine secondary end points, including a significant decrease in the duration of time to reach minimally important difference response (⩾5-point decrease) in weekly ISS (P<0.0001) and higher percentages of patients with well-controlled symptoms (urticaria activity score over 7 days (UAS7) ⩽6: 51.9% vs. 11.3%; P<0.0001) and complete response (UAS7=0: 35.8% vs. 8.8%; P<0.0001) versus placebo. During the 24-week treatment period, 2 (2.9%), 3 (3.4%), 0, and 4 (5.0%) patients in the omalizumab 75-mg, 150-mg, 300-mg, and placebo groups, respectively, experienced a serious adverse event. Omalizumab 300 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks reduced weekly ISS and other symptom scores versus placebo in CIU/CSU patients who remained symptomatic despite treatment with approved doses of H1 antihistamines.

Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients Receiving Omalizumab for Allergic Asthma in a Real-World Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Inadequately controlled asthma is associated with increased healthcare resource utilization. The eXpeRience registry was initiated to evaluate real-world outcomes in patients receiving omalizumab for uncontrolled persistent allergic asthma. The current analysis of data from the eXpeRience registry focuses on healthcare resource utilization and on absences from work or school. METHODS: The eXpeRience was a 2-year, multinational, non-interventional, observational registry conducted to investigate real-world outcomes among patients receiving omalizumab in accordance with country-specific prescribing criteria for the treatment of uncontrolled persistent allergic asthma. Asthma-related healthcare resource utilization (hospitalizations, emergency room visits or unscheduled-asthma-related doctor visits or interventions) and absences from work or school were assessed pre-treatment (12-month data were collected retrospectively at baseline) and at months 12 and 24 after the initiation of omalizumab treatment. Serious adverse event (SAE) data were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 943 patients (mean age 45 years; female 65%) were enrolled in the registry. Overall, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) number of asthma-related medical healthcare uses per patient decreased from 6.2 (6.97) during the pre-treatment period to 1.0 (1.96) and 0.5 (1.28) at months 12 and 24, respectively. The mean (SD) number of work or school days missed due to asthma was also lower at months 12 (3.5 [17.28] and 1.6 [4.28], respectively) and 24 (1.0 [4.66] and 1.9 [5.46], respectively) compared with the pre-treatment period (26.4 [49.61] and 20.7 [27.49], respectively). The nature and frequency of SAEs in the eXpeRience registry were comparable to that seen in interventional clinical trials with omalizumab. CONCLUSION: The results of the eXpeRience registry indicate that omalizumab is associated with reductions in healthcare utilization, and in the number of days of absence from work or school, in patients with uncontrolled persistent allergic asthma in the real-world setting. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.

Omalizumab in asthma: an update on recent developments.

IgE is central to the pathophysiology of allergic asthma. Omalizumab, a humanized anti-IgE mAb, specifically binds free IgE and interrupts the allergic cascade by preventing binding of IgE with its high-affinity FcεRI receptors on mast cells, antigen-presenting cells, and other inflammatory cells. The clinical efficacy of omalizumab has been well documented in a number of clinical trials that involve adults, adolescents, and children with moderate-to-severe and severe allergic asthma. In these studies, omalizumab reduced exacerbations, asthma symptoms, inhaled corticosteroid and rescue medication use, and improved quality of life relative to placebo or best standard of care. Similar benefits have been reported in observational studies in "real-world" populations of patients. Results from recent pooled data from randomized clinical trials and from a large prospective cohort study provide reassurance about the long-term safety of omalizumab. Omalizumab dosing is individualized according to body weight and serum-IgE level, and recent adjustments to the dosing algorithm in Europe have enabled more patients to be eligible for treatment. Ongoing and future research is investigating the optimal duration of therapy, accurate predictors of response to treatment, and efficacy in nonatopic asthma as well as other IgE-mediated conditions.

A 48-week, randomized, double-blind, double-observer, placebo-controlled multicenter trial of combination methotrexate and intramuscular gold therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: results of the METGO study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding intramuscular (IM) gold to the treatment regimen of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have a suboptimal response to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, double-observer, placebo-controlled multicenter trial of 48 weeks was conducted. Sixty-five RA patients who had a suboptimal response to >/=12 weeks of MTX therapy were randomly assigned to receive weekly IM gold or placebo in addition to MTX. Gold was administered according to a standard protocol developed for the study. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients who met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at week 48. Secondary outcomes included the percentages of patients achieving ACR50 and ACR70 responses, the individual criteria that make up the primary outcome, quality of life, direct and indirect health care costs, intraarticular steroid use, and adverse events, among other measures. Statistical analyses were based on an intent-to-treat strategy. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of patients receiving gold achieved an ACR20 response compared with 30% of patients receiving placebo (chi(2) = 6.04, P = 0.014; logistic regression odds ratio 3.64 [95% confidence interval 1.3, 10.4], P = 0.016). Twenty-six percent of patients receiving gold achieved an ACR50 response compared with 4% of patients receiving placebo (P = 0.017), and 21% of patients receiving gold achieved an ACR70 response compared with 0% of patients receiving placebo (P = 0.011). From both clinical and cost-effectiveness perspectives, gold was the preferred and dominant strategy. Study treatment was discontinued in 23 patients (14 in the placebo group compared with 9 in the gold group; P = 0.022) due to loss to followup, adverse events, or lack of efficacy. CONCLUSION: In RA patients with a suboptimal response to MTX, adding weekly IM gold causes significant clinical improvement. Adverse events were minor, and IM gold-related adverse events led to discontinuation in only 11% of the gold group over 48 weeks.

Glucosamine sulfate and cartilage type II collagen degradation in patients with knee osteoarthritis: randomized discontinuation trial results employing biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether glucosamine sulfate has an effect on cartilage type II collagen degradation in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A randomized, double blind, placebo controlled glucosamine discontinuation trial was conducted in 137 subjects with knee OA, who had had at least moderate relief of knee pain after starting glucosamine. Subjects were randomized to glucosamine at prestudy dose or placebo at an equivalent dose. Treatment was continued to Week 24 or disease flare, whichever occurred first. Serum and urine samples were collected at Weeks 0, 4, 12, and 24 or flare visit. Samples were analyzed in triplicate for 2 type II collagen degradation biomarkers: C2C epitope (COL2-3/4C(long)) and C1,2C epitope (COL2-3/4C(short)). The primary outcome was the mean change in serum and urine C1,2C/C2C ratio in the glucosamine and placebo groups from baseline to final (flare or Week 24) visit. Linear regression analyses were conducted to adjust for potential confounders. Due to non-normal distributions, the data were log-transformed (lnC1,2C/C2C). Secondary outcomes included comparison of mean change scores at final visit compared to baseline for serum and urine C1,2C and C2C in the 2 treatment groups and in Flare versus No-Flare groups. RESULTS: Baseline and final visit samples were available in 130 subjects for serum analysis and 126 subjects for urinalysis. No significant difference was seen between placebo and glucosamine groups in the serum C1,2C/C2C ratio, with a mean (SD) change from baseline to final visit of 0.8 (27.8) and -0.1 (1.8), respectively (mean difference 0.9; 95% CI -6.0, 7.7, p = 0.80). Similarly, no differences between treatment groups were seen for mean change in urine C1,2C/C2C (p = 0.82), or for mean change in C2C or C1,2C. In linear regression analysis, after adjustment for sex, radiographic severity, baseline lnC1,2C/C2C ratio, WOMAC function, and flare status, treatment was not a significant predictor of final serum or urine lnC1,2C/C2C ratio. When those who experienced flare were contrasted with those without flare, there was a nonsignificant trend toward a difference in mean baseline to final visit change score for serum C1,2C/C2C ratio (p = 0.12). In addition, in the multivariable linear regression analysis, flare status showed a borderline association with final visit serum lnC1,2C/C2C ratio (p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant effect of glucosamine sulfate on type II collagen fragment levels in serum or urine was observed for knee OA over 6 months. Further research is necessary to elucidate which biopathologic systems, if any, are affected by glucosamine treatment. While collagen degradation products may be of value in predicting progression, at least as defined by clinical flare, a larger dataset would be needed to prove this.

Familial seropositive rheumatoid arthritis in North American Native families: effects of shared epitope and cytokine genotypes.

OBJECTIVE: A number of North American native (NAN) populations have high prevalence rates of both rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the shared epitope (SE). We examined the phenotype and familial incidence of RA in a NAN population, and investigated how the SE and cytokine genes may affect disease risk within affected families. METHODS: NAN patients with seropositive RA or polyarthritis rheumatoid factor (RF) positive juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) were identified from clinical databases. Patients were recruited consecutively as they presented for clinic visits. Family pedigrees were constructed and consenting relatives were interviewed and examined. The risk of RA within families was calculated by multiple logistic regression. Input variables were the SE and cytokine genotypes. Probands and affected relatives were entered as the affected group, and unaffected relatives within families as the unaffected group. Results were confirmed among unrelated subjects, i.e., unrelated patients and unaffected relatives of other probands. RESULTS: The familial prevalence of RA was 0.50 (95% confidence intervals 0.30, 0.70) among 28 families studied. The interleukin 10 (IL-10) promoter -1082 G/A genotype decreased the odds of RA relative to the A/A genotype in affected families (OR 0.247, 95% CI 0.081, 0.751; p = 0.014) and among unrelated subjects (OR 0.203, 95% CI 0.064, 0.640; p = 0.006). The G/G genotype yielded an OR of 0.093 (95% 0.013, 0.676; p = 0.019) among unrelated subjects. The SE had no effect in these calculations. CONCLUSION: There was a high familial prevalence of RA in this NAN cohort. In susceptible NAN families, the risk of RA was reduced by IL-10 genotypes, whereas the SE did not affect risk. Study of healthy NAN controls is required to determine if these conclusions apply to this NAN population as a whole.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled glucosamine discontinuation trial in knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of glucosamine sulfate in knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A 4-center, 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled glucosamine discontinuation trial was conducted in 137 current users of glucosamine with knee OA who had experienced at least moderate improvement in knee pain after starting glucosamine. Study medication dosage was equivalent to the dosage of glucosamine taken prior to the study (maximum 1,500 mg/day). Followup continued for 6 months or until disease flare, whichever occurred first. The primary outcome was the proportion of disease flares in the glucosamine and placebo groups using an intent-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included time to disease flare; analgesic medication use; severity of disease flare; and change in pain, stiffness, function and quality of life in the glucosamine and placebo groups. RESULTS: Disease flare was seen in 28 (42%) of 66 placebo patients and 32 (45%) of 71 glucosamine patients (difference -3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -19, 14; P = 0.76). In the Cox regression analysis, after adjustment for sex, study site, and OA radiographic severity, time to disease flare was not significantly different in the glucosamine compared with placebo group (hazard ratio of flare = 0.8; 95% CI 0.5, 1.4; P = 0.45). At final study visit, acetaminophen was used in 27% and 21% of placebo and glucosamine patients, respectively (P = 0.40), nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were used in 29% and 30% (P = 0.92), and both were used in 20% and 21% (P = 0.84). No differences were found in severity of disease flare or other secondary outcomes between placebo and glucosamine patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with knee OA with at least moderate subjective improvement with prior glucosamine use, this study provides no evidence of symptomatic benefit from continued use of glucosamine sulfate.