Infections in baricitinib clinical trials for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence of infection in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor. METHODS: Infections are summarised from an integrated database (8 phase 3/2/1b clinical trials and 1 long-term extension (LTE)) with data to 1 April 2017. The 'all-bari-RA' analysis set included patients who received any baricitinib dose. Placebo comparison was based on six studies with 4 mg and placebo to week 24, including four trials with 2 mg (placebo-controlled set). Dose-response assessment was based on four studies with 2 mg and 4 mg, including LTE data (2-4 mg extended set). RESULTS: There were 3492 patients who received baricitinib for 7860 patient-years (PY) of exposure (median 2.6 years, maximum 6.1 years). Treatment-emergent infections were higher for baricitinib versus placebo (exposure-adjusted incidence rate (IR)/100 PY: placebo 75.9, 2 mg 84.0 (p not significant), 4 mg 88.4 (p≤0.001)). The IR of serious infection was similar for baricitinib versus placebo and stable over time (all-bari-RA IR 3.0/100 PY). There were 11 cases of tuberculosis (all-bari-RA IR 0.1/100 PY); all occurred with 4 mg in endemic regions. Herpes zoster (HZ) IR/100 PY was higher for baricitinib versus placebo (placebo 1.0, 2 mg 3.1 (p not significant), 4 mg 4.3 (p≤0.01)); rates remained elevated and stable over time (all-bari-RA 3.3). Opportunistic infections, including multidermatomal HZ, were infrequent in the baricitinib programme (all-bari-RA IR 0.5/100 PY). CONCLUSIONS: Increased rates of treatment-emergent infections including HZ were observed in patients with RA treated with baricitinib, consistent with baricitinib's immunomodulatory mode of action.

Tofacitinib versus methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is the most frequently used first-line antirheumatic drug. We report the findings of a phase 3 study of monotherapy with tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, as compared with methotrexate monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had not previously received methotrexate or therapeutic doses of methotrexate. METHODS: We randomly assigned 958 patients to receive 5 mg or 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily or methotrexate at a dose that was incrementally increased to 20 mg per week over 8 weeks; 956 patients received a study drug. The coprimary end points at month 6 were the mean change from baseline in the van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (which ranges from 0 to 448, with higher scores indicating greater structural joint damage) and the proportion of patients with an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 70 response (≥70% reduction in the number of both tender and swollen joints and ≥70% improvement in three of five other criteria: the patient's assessment of pain, level of disability, C-reactive protein level or erythrocyte sedimentation rate, global assessment of disease by the patient, and global assessment of disease by the physician). RESULTS: Mean changes in the modified total Sharp score from baseline to month 6 were significantly smaller in the tofacitinib groups than in the methotrexate group, but changes were modest in all three groups (0.2 points in the 5-mg tofacitinib group and <0.1 point in the 10-mg tofacitinib group, as compared with 0.8 points in the methotrexate group [P<0.001 for both comparisons]). Among the patients receiving tofacitinib, 25.5% in the 5-mg group and 37.7% in the 10-mg group had an ACR 70 response at month 6, as compared with 12.0% of patients in the methotrexate group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Herpes zoster developed in 31 of 770 patients who received tofacitinib (4.0%) and in 2 of 186 patients who received methotrexate (1.1%). Confirmed cases of cancer (including three cases of lymphoma) developed in 5 patients who received tofacitinib and in 1 patient who received methotrexate. Tofacitinib was associated with increases in creatinine levels and in low-density and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who had not previously received methotrexate or therapeutic doses of methotrexate, tofacitinib monotherapy was superior to methotrexate in reducing signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and inhibiting the progression of structural joint damage. The benefits of tofacitinib need to be considered in the context of the risks of adverse events. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Start ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01039688.).

Comparing the effects of tofacitinib, methotrexate and the combination, on bone marrow oedema, synovitis and bone erosion in methotrexate-naive, early active rheumatoid arthritis: results of an exploratory randomised MRI study incorporating semiquantitative and quantitative techniques.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the effects of tofacitinib-an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-with or without methotrexate (MTX), on MRI endpoints in MTX-naive adult patients with early active RA and synovitis in an index wrist or hand. METHODS: In this exploratory, phase 2, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients received tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily + MTX, tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily + placebo (tofacitinib monotherapy), or MTX + placebo (MTX monotherapy), for 1 year. MRI endpoints (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials RA MRI score (RAMRIS), quantitative RAMRIS (RAMRIQ) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI) were assessed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. Treatment differences with p<0.05 (vs MTX monotherapy) were considered significant. RESULTS: In total, 109 patients were randomised and treated. Treatment differences in RAMRIS bone marrow oedema (BME) at month 6 were -1.55 (90% CI -2.52 to -0.58) for tofacitinib + MTX and -1.74 (-2.72 to -0.76) for tofacitinib monotherapy (both p<0.01 vs MTX monotherapy). Numerical improvements in RAMRIS synovitis at month 3 were -0.63 (-1.58 to 0.31) for tofacitinib + MTX and -0.52 (-1.46 to 0.41) for tofacitinib monotherapy (both p>0.05 vs MTX monotherapy). Treatment differences in RAMRIQ synovitis were statistically significant at month 3, consistent with DCE MRI findings. Less deterioration of RAMRIS and RAMRIQ erosive damage was seen at months 6 and 12 in both tofacitinib groups versus MTX monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide consistent evidence using three different MRI technologies that tofacitinib treatment leads to early reduction of inflammation and inhibits progression of structural damage. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01164579.

Meta-analysis of long-term joint structural deterioration in minimally treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by inflammation and joint structural deterioration. Driven by recent expectations that patients in clinical trials randomized to placebo should be 'rescued' with active therapy within 6 months of starting treatment, the relative benefit of arresting joint damage with biologic agents beyond this period is unclear. With longer-term evidence of the rate of joint deterioration with minimal treatment, the efficacy of biologic agents and novel treatments might be projected beyond the placebo-controlled phase observed in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to estimate radiographic structural deterioration over time in patients with moderate-to-severe RA minimally treated with DMARDs. METHODS: A literature review identified evidence of joint structural deterioration in patients with (DMARD-IR population) and without (non-DMARD-IR population) a history of inadequate response to DMARDs. Patients were minimally treated with one non-biologic DMARD or palliative care (non-DMARD-IR population only). Outcomes of interest were the (modified) Total Sharp Score (TSS) and subscales (Erosion Subscore [ES] and Joint Space Narrowing [JSN] Subscore), and Larsen score. Pooled joint-deterioration curves over time were obtained with meta-analysis models. RESULTS: Mean change from baseline in TSS increased in the DMARD-IR population from 1.14 (95 % credible interval [CrI] 0.66, 1.67) to 9.84 (5.68, 14.46) at Weeks 12 and 104, respectively, and a non-linear increase of 1.56 (0.79, 2.34) and 5.13 (-1.35, 11.67) in the non-DMARD-IR population. At the same time points, mean changes (95 % CrI) were 0.51 (0.27, 0.83) and 4.43 (2.38, 7.21) for ES and 0.36 (0.09, 0.67) and 3.14 (0.80, 5.78) for JSN in the DMARD-IR population, whereas corresponding changes in the non-DMARD-IR population were 0.69 (0.31, 1.12) and 2.93 (0.92, 5.02), and 0.29 (0.17, 0.44) and 2.55 (1.45, 3.80), respectively. Larsen scores were only available for the non-DMARD-IR population, with mean changes (95 % CrI) of 0.08 (0.04, 0.11) and 0.65 (0.36, 0.96) at Weeks 12 and 104, respectively. CONCLUSION: Minimal treatment of RA with one non-biologic DMARD results in deterioration of joint structure in patients with or without a history of inadequate response to non-biologic DMARDs.

Placebo-controlled trial of tofacitinib monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) is a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is being investigated as a targeted immunomodulator and disease-modifying therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 6-month study, 611 patients were randomly assigned, in a 4:4:1:1 ratio, to 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, placebo for 3 months followed by 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, or placebo for 3 months followed by 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily. The primary end points, assessed at month 3, were the percentage of patients with at least a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology scale (ACR 20), the change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores (which range from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater disability), and the percentage of patients with a Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4[ESR]) of less than 2.6 (with scores ranging from 0 to 9.4 and higher scores indicating more disease activity). RESULTS: At month 3, a higher percentage of patients in the tofacitinib groups than in the placebo groups met the criteria for an ACR 20 response (59.8% in the 5-mg tofacitinib group and 65.7% in the 10-mg tofacitinib group vs. 26.7% in the combined placebo groups, P<0.001 for both comparisons). The reductions from baseline in HAQ-DI scores were greater in the 5-mg and 10-mg tofacitinib groups than in the placebo groups (-0.50 and -0.57 points, respectively, vs. -0.19 points; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a DAS28-4(ESR) of less than 2.6 was not significantly higher with tofacitinib than with placebo (5.6% and 8.7% in the 5-mg and 10-mg tofacitinib groups, respectively, and 4.4% with placebo; P=0.62 and P=0.10 for the two comparisons). Serious infections developed in six patients who were receiving tofacitinib. Common adverse events were headache and upper respiratory tract infection. Tofacitinib treatment was associated with elevations in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and reductions in neutrophil counts. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active rheumatoid arthritis, tofacitinib monotherapy was associated with reductions in signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and improvement in physical function. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Solo ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00814307.).

Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) is a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is being investigated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In this 12-month, phase 3 trial, 717 patients who were receiving stable doses of methotrexate were randomly assigned to 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, 40 mg of adalimumab once every 2 weeks, or placebo. At month 3, patients in the placebo group who did not have a 20% reduction from baseline in the number of swollen and tender joints were switched in a blinded fashion to either 5 mg or 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily; at month 6, all patients still receiving placebo were switched to tofacitinib in a blinded fashion. The three primary outcome measures were a 20% improvement at month 6 in the American College of Rheumatology scale (ACR 20); the change from baseline to month 3 in the score on the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (which ranges from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater disability); and the percentage of patients at month 6 who had a Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4[ESR]) of less than 2.6 (with scores ranging from 0 to 9.4 and higher scores indicating greater disease activity). RESULTS: At month 6, ACR 20 response rates were higher among patients receiving 5 mg or 10 mg of tofacitinib (51.5% and 52.6%, respectively) and among those receiving adalimumab (47.2%) than among those receiving placebo (28.3%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). There were also greater reductions in the HAQ-DI score at month 3 and higher percentages of patients with a DAS28-4(ESR) below 2.6 at month 6 in the active-treatment groups than in the placebo group. Adverse events occurred more frequently with tofacitinib than with placebo, and pulmonary tuberculosis developed in two patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group. Tofacitinib was associated with an increase in both low-density and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and with reductions in neutrophil counts. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving background methotrexate, tofacitinib was significantly superior to placebo and was numerically similar to adalimumab in efficacy. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Standard ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00853385.).

Open-label tofacitinib and double-blind atorvastatin in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a randomised study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin versus placebo in modifying lipids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving the oral Janus kinase inhibitor, tofacitinib. METHODS: A randomised, placebo controlled, multicentre phase 2 study, open-label for tofacitinib and blinded for atorvastatin. Patients received tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily for 12 weeks; at week 6, patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral atorvastatin 10 mg once daily or placebo for 6 weeks. Main outcome measures were lipid moieties, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, disease activity score in 28 joint counts and safety. RESULTS: 111 patients meeting ACR 1987 RA criteria with active disease were enrolled. Tofacitinib-induced elevation of mean total, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglycerides and apolipoprotein A-1 concentrations were sustained in placebo recipients to week 12; atorvastatin added at week 6 significantly reduced tofacitinib-associated increases in total and LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and apolipoprotein B to below week 0 levels. Co-administration of atorvastatin resulted in a significant reduction of LDL-cholesterol versus placebo (primary endpoint; p<0.0001); from week 6 to week 12 the least squares mean reduction was 35.3% with atorvastatin, versus 5.8% increase with placebo. ACR responses were observed with tofacitinib; numerically greater rates were seen with atorvastatin versus placebo. Adverse events were consistent with phase 3 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib-associated elevated total and LDL-cholesterol and triglycerides were rapidly and significantly reduced by atorvastatin. Further investigation is required to explore the significance of reductions in RA disease activity in patients receiving tofacitinib and atorvastatin. (Pfizer protocol A3921109).

Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate: twelve-month data from a twenty-four-month phase III randomized radiographic study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this 24-month phase III study was to examine structural preservation with tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Data from a planned 12-month interim analysis are reported. METHODS: In this double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, patients receiving background MTX were randomized 4:4:1:1 to tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, tofacitinib at 10 mg twice daily, placebo to tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, and placebo to tofacitinib at 10 mg twice daily. At month 3, nonresponder placebo-treated patients were advanced in a blinded manner to receive tofacitinib as indicated above; remaining placebo-treated patients were advanced at 6 months. Four primary efficacy end points were all analyzed in a step-down procedure. RESULTS: At month 6, response rates according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were higher than those for placebo (51.5% and 61.8%, respectively, versus 25.3%; both P < 0.0001). At month 6, least squares mean (LSM) changes in total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were 0.12 and 0.06, respectively, versus 0.47 for placebo (P = 0.0792 and P ≤ 0.05, respectively). At month 3, LSM changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index score for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were -0.40 (significance not declared due to step-down procedure) and -0.54 (P < 0.0001), respectively, versus -0.15 for placebo. At month 6, rates of remission (defined as a value <2.6 for the 4-variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate) for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were 7.2% (significance not declared due to step-down procedure) and 16.0% (P < 0.0001), respectively, versus 1.6% for placebo. The safety profile was consistent with findings in previous studies. CONCLUSION: Data from this 12-month interim analysis demonstrate that tofacitinib inhibits progression of structural damage and improves disease activity in patients with RA who are receiving MTX.

Clinical efficacy and safety of glucosamine, chondroitin sulphate, their combination, celecoxib or placebo taken to treat osteoarthritis of the knee: 2-year results from GAIT.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a major cause of pain and functional limitation in older adults, yet longer-term studies of medical treatment of OA are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of glucosamine and chondroitin sulphate (CS), alone or in combination, as well as celecoxib and placebo on painful knee OA over 2 years. METHODS: A 24-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, conducted at nine sites in the US ancillary to the Glucosamine/chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial, enrolled 662 patients with knee OA who satisfied radiographic criteria (Kellgren/Lawrence grade 2 or 3 changes and baseline joint space width of at least 2 mm). This subset continued to receive their randomised treatment: glucosamine 500 mg three times daily, CS 400 mg three times daily, the combination of glucosamine and CS, celecoxib 200 mg daily, or placebo over 24 months. The primary outcome was a 20% reduction in Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain over 24 months. Secondary outcomes included an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology/Osteoarthritis Research Society International response and change from baseline in WOMAC pain and function. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, the odds of achieving a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain were celecoxib: 1.21, glucosamine: 1.16, combination glucosamine/CS: 0.83 and CS alone: 0.69, and were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Over 2 years, no treatment achieved a clinically important difference in WOMAC pain or function as compared with placebo. However, glucosamine and celecoxib showed beneficial but not significant trends. Adverse reactions were similar among treatment groups and serious adverse events were rare for all treatments.

Glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, and the two in combination for painful knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are used to treat osteoarthritis. The multicenter, double-blind, placebo- and celecoxib-controlled Glucosamine/chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT) evaluated their efficacy and safety as a treatment for knee pain from osteoarthritis. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1583 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis to receive 1500 mg of glucosamine daily, 1200 mg of chondroitin sulfate daily, both glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate, 200 mg of celecoxib daily, or placebo for 24 weeks. Up to 4000 mg of acetaminophen daily was allowed as rescue analgesia. Assignment was stratified according to the severity of knee pain (mild [N=1229] vs. moderate to severe [N=354]). The primary outcome measure was a 20 percent decrease in knee pain from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 59 years, and 64 percent were women. Overall, glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate were not significantly better than placebo in reducing knee pain by 20 percent. As compared with the rate of response to placebo (60.1 percent), the rate of response to glucosamine was 3.9 percentage points higher (P=0.30), the rate of response to chondroitin sulfate was 5.3 percentage points higher (P=0.17), and the rate of response to combined treatment was 6.5 percentage points higher (P=0.09). The rate of response in the celecoxib control group was 10.0 percentage points higher than that in the placebo control group (P=0.008). For patients with moderate-to-severe pain at baseline, the rate of response was significantly higher with combined therapy than with placebo (79.2 percent vs. 54.3 percent, P=0.002). Adverse events were mild, infrequent, and evenly distributed among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate alone or in combination did not reduce pain effectively in the overall group of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Exploratory analyses suggest that the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate may be effective in the subgroup of patients with moderate-to-severe knee pain. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00032890.).

Baricitinib in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and an Inadequate Response to Conventional Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in United States and Rest of World: A Subset Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This article evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib 4 mg versus placebo in United States including Puerto Rico (US) and rest of the world (ROW) subpopulations using data pooled from RA-BEAM and RA-BUILD, which enrolled patients with moderate-to-severe adult-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In RA-BEAM, patients with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate, at least one X-ray erosion, and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) ≥ 6 mg/L were randomized to placebo or orally administered baricitinib 4 mg daily or subcutaneously administered adalimumab 40 mg every other week. In RA-BUILD, patients with an IR to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) and with hsCRP ≥ 3.6 mg/L were randomized to placebo or baricitinib 2 or 4 mg daily. Patients in both trials were biologic naive. In this post hoc analysis, data from both studies were pooled (714 baricitinib 4 mg-treated, 716 placebo-treated patients). RESULTS: Overall, 188 US and 1242 ROW patients were included. Subgroups differed in baseline characteristics including race, weight, age, time since RA diagnosis, current corticosteroid use, and previous csDMARD use. At weeks 12 and 24, baricitinib-treated patients had larger responses compared to placebo-treated patients for multiple efficacy outcomes: American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response, low disease activity, remission, Disease Activity Score 28-C-reactive protein, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index. Overall, similar efficacy was observed in US and ROW subgroups with no notable safety differences between subgroups at weeks 12 or 24. CONCLUSION: Baricitinib 4 mg was efficacious compared to placebo in US and ROW subpopulations. Safety was similar between subgroups. FUNDING: Eli Lilly & Company and Incyte Corporation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT01721057; NCT01710358.

Is radiographic progression in modern rheumatoid arthritis trials still a robust outcome? Experience from tofacitinib clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The detection of statistically significant reductions in radiographic progression during clinical studies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has become increasingly difficult over the past decade due to early-escape study designs and declining rates of progression in control-group patients. We investigated the impact of extremes of radiographic data (outliers) and baseline prognostic factors on detection of treatment effects, to provide guidance on future analysis of joint structural data in RA clinical trials. METHODS: Data were from two, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of tofacitinib in adult patients with moderate to severe RA: ORAL Scan (NCT00847613) and ORAL Start (NCT01039688). These studies detected significant reductions in radiographic progression with tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily (BID) plus background methotrexate (ORAL Scan), and with tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID as monotherapy (ORAL Start). We evaluated mean changes from baseline in van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (mTSS) at month 6 and month 12, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). A trimmed analysis was used to deal with extremes of data. The impact of baseline prognostic factors on radiographic progression was evaluated using ANCOVA to analyze the mean change from baseline in mTSS for each factor in turn. RESULTS: The analysis included data from 720 patients from ORAL Scan and 880 patients from ORAL Start. Trimmed analyses were unbiased for the true mean estimate and enabled us to remove the effect of influential extreme observations in the data set. Almost all patients had at least one poor prognostic factor at baseline (e.g., high level of disease activity, or positive for rheumatoid factor). The strongest predictor of treatment effect was the severity of radiographic damage at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: A trimmed analysis can establish whether any significant inhibition of structural damage is being driven by extremes of data, and should be one of the sensitivity analyses of choice for structural data in RA clinical trials. Furthermore, analysis of radiographic data based on baseline prognostic factors may reveal increased treatment effects. Application of these methods to analysis of radiographic data from clinical trials in patients with RA, allows a more complete interpretation of data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00847613 (registered 17 February 2009) and NCT01039688 (registered 23 December 2009).

The effect of glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulfate on the progression of knee osteoarthritis: a report from the glucosamine/chondroitin arthritis intervention trial.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee causes significant morbidity and current medical treatment is limited to symptom relief, while therapies able to slow structural damage remain elusive. This study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate (CS), alone or in combination, as well as celecoxib and placebo on progressive loss of joint space width (JSW) in patients with knee OA. METHODS: A 24-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, conducted at 9 sites in the United States as part of the Glucosamine/Chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT), enrolled 572 patients with knee OA who satisfied radiographic criteria (Kellgren/Lawrence [K/L] grade 2 or grade 3 changes and JSW of at least 2 mm at baseline). Patients with primarily lateral compartment narrowing at any time point were excluded. Patients who had been randomized to 1 of the 5 groups in the GAIT continued to receive glucosamine 500 mg 3 times daily, CS 400 mg 3 times daily, the combination of glucosamine and CS, celecoxib 200 mg daily, or placebo over 24 months. The minimum medial tibiofemoral JSW was measured at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. The primary outcome measure was the mean change in JSW from baseline. RESULTS: The mean JSW loss at 2 years in knees with OA in the placebo group, adjusted for design and clinical factors, was 0.166 mm. No statistically significant difference in mean JSW loss was observed in any treatment group compared with the placebo group. Treatment effects on K/L grade 2 knees, but not on K/L grade 3 knees, showed a trend toward improvement relative to the placebo group. The power of the study was diminished by the limited sample size, variance of JSW measurement, and a smaller than expected loss in JSW. CONCLUSION: At 2 years, no treatment achieved a predefined threshold of clinically important difference in JSW loss as compared with placebo. However, knees with K/L grade 2 radiographic OA appeared to have the greatest potential for modification by these treatments.

Tolerance to the therapeutic effect of tadalafil does not occur during 6 months of treatment: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in men with erectile dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Tolerance can cause a decrease in drug efficacy during chronic therapy, possibly leading to treatment failures. AIM: The aim of this article is to determine whether tolerance developed to the effects of tadalafil on erectile function (EF) over a 6-month treatment period. METHODS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Post hoc analysis of data from a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group study was performed. Men (> or =18 years of age) with erectile dysfunction (ED) were randomized to treatment with placebo (N = 47) or 20-mg tadalafil (N = 93) taken as needed for 6 months. This report focuses on efficacy assessed with the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) diary (diaries were collected after a 4-week treatment-free run-in period [baseline], and monthly for 6 months), and with the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) (administered at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months). RESULTS. The mean per-patient percentage "yes" response on SEP question 3 (SEP3, successful intercourse) was 33 +/- 4% at baseline, 74 +/- 4% after 1 month, and 78 +/- 4% after 6 months of tadalafil treatment. The IIEF EF domain score was 16.2 +/- 0.7 at baseline, 24.3 +/- 0.8 after 3 months, and 24.3 +/- 0.9 after 6 months of tadalafil treatment. In a subgroup of patients who took tadalafil > or =3 times per week (N = 24), the SEP3 score was 87 +/- 4% after 1 month and 93 +/- 3% after 6 months of treatment, and the IIEF EF domain score was 27.3 +/- 0.9 after 3 months and 28.5 +/- 0.4 after 6 months. Of 16 tadalafil-treated patients who discontinued, three cited a lack of efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Tadalafil treatment significantly improved SEP3 and IIEF EF domain scores. The efficacy of tadalafil, taken as needed, was maintained over a 6-month treatment period in men with ED.

A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial of LY333013, a selective inhibitor of group II secretory phospholipase A2, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a selective inhibitor of secretory phospholipase (sPLA2), LY333013, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Two hundred and fifty-one patients with active RA despite treatment with one or more disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) received oral doses of LY333013 (50, 250, and 1000 mg) or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. Concomitant low-dose glucocorticoids (< or = 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent) were allowed. Clinical improvement was assessed using the response criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20), and safety was evaluated with respect to adverse events and laboratory test abnormalities. RESULTS: The demographic characteristics of the treatment groups were similar. Dose-response relationships were found for ACR20 responses (p = 0.058) and reductions in C-reactive protein (p = 0.058) at week 1. The proportions of patients with an ACR20 response subsequently increased in all study groups including the placebo group at weeks 4 and 8, and the initial treatment benefit was lost. Adverse events were generally mild in severity and not associated with treatment. CONCLUSION: Treatment with LY333013 for 12 weeks was well tolerated but ineffective as an adjunct to DMARD treatment of active RA.

Severity of joint pain and Kellgren-Lawrence grade at baseline are better predictors of joint space narrowing than bone scintigraphy in obese women with knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of a baseline late-phase bone scan and assessments of the radiographic and symptomatic severity of knee osteoarthritis (OA) at baseline as predictors of loss of articular cartilage thickness, as reflected in joint space narrowing (JSN) in the medial tibiofemoral compartment. METHODS: Subjects (174 obese women, 45-64 yrs of age, with unilateral knee OA) were a subset of a larger cohort who participated in a placebo controlled trial of a disease modifying OA drug. Uptake of technetium medronate (99mTc-MDP) in anteroposterior (AP) and lateral views of a late-phase bone scan was measured at baseline in a region of interest drawn around the medial tibia, and was adjusted for (i.e., expressed as a ratio to) uptake in a reference segment of the tibial shaft, which served as an internal standard. Each subject underwent a fluoroscopically standardized radiographic examination of the knees (semiflexed AP view) and a pain assessment with the WOMAC OA Index at baseline, 16 months, and 30 months. RESULTS: Controlling for baseline joint space width and treatment group, multiple linear regression models showed that the adjusted 99mTc-MDP uptake at baseline was a significant predictor of joint space narrowing (JSN) in the index knee at 16 months (b = 0.180, p = 0.015) and 30 months (b = 0.221, p = 0.049). In the contralateral knee, uptake was only a marginally significant predictor of JSN at 30 months (b = 0.246, p = 0.083). Uptake in the upper and middle tertiles of the distribution predicted subjects who would exhibit JSN >/= 0.50 mm within 16 months with 65% sensitivity (PPV 23%) and 36% specificity (NPV 77%). In contrast, a prediction rule based solely on the presence of Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 OA severity and greater than median WOMAC Pain score identified progressors with 65% sensitivity (PPV 48%) and 79% specificity (NPV 88%). CONCLUSION: Although the level of adjusted 99mTc-MDP uptake was significantly associated with JSN in knees with established radiographic OA, baseline bone scintigraphy is inferior to the radiographic severity of OA and knee pain (alone or in combination) as a predictor of loss of articular cartilage in subjects with knee OA.

Effects of doxycycline on progression of osteoarthritis: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE: To confirm preclinical data suggesting that doxycycline can slow the progression of osteoarthritis (OA). The primary outcome measure was joint space narrowing (JSN) in the medial tibiofemoral compartment. METHODS: In this placebo-controlled trial, obese women (n = 431) ages 45-64 years with unilateral radiographic knee OA were randomly assigned to receive 30 months of treatment with 100 mg doxycycline or placebo twice a day. Tibiofemoral JSN was measured manually in fluoroscopically standardized radiographic examinations performed at baseline, 16 months, and 30 months. Severity of joint pain was recorded at 6-month intervals. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of all randomized subjects completed the trial. Radiographs were obtained from 85% of all randomized subjects at 30 months. Adherence to the dosing regimen was 91.8% among subjects who completed the study per protocol. After 16 months of treatment, the mean +/- SD loss of joint space width in the index knee in the doxycycline group was 40% less than that in the placebo group (0.15 +/- 0.42 mm versus 0.24 +/- 0.54 mm); after 30 months, it was 33% less (0.30 +/- 0.60 mm versus 0.45 +/- 0.70 mm). Doxycycline did not reduce the mean severity of joint pain, although pain scores in both treatment groups were low at baseline and remained low throughout the trial, suggesting the presence of a floor effect. However, the frequency of followup visits at which the subject reported a > or = 20% increase in pain in the index knee, relative to the previous visit, was reduced among those receiving doxycycline. In contrast, doxycycline did not have an effect on either JSN or pain in the contralateral knee. In both treatment groups, subjects who reported a > or = 20% increase in knee pain at the majority of their followup visits had more rapid JSN than those whose pain did not increase. CONCLUSION: Doxycycline slowed the rate of JSN in knees with established OA. Its lack of effect on JSN in the contralateral knee suggests that pathogenetic mechanisms in that joint were different from those in the index knee.

Joint irrigation as treatment for osteoarthritis.

Irrigation is necessary to achieve distension and visualization of the joint during arthroscopy. Clinical improvement observed after diagnostic arthroscopy has been attributed to irrigation, and this is supported by sound pathophysiologic rationales. Studies have been performed using various irrigation techniques with and without concomitant arthroscopy. Unblinded studies have generally yielded favorable results, although recent blinded studies have demonstrated a substantial and durable placebo effect, but little support for the benefit of the irrigation procedure.

Tidal irrigation as treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a sham-controlled, randomized, double-blinded evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of tidal irrigation (TI) in comparison with a well-matched sham irrigation (SI) procedure as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: One hundred eighty subjects with knee OA were randomized to receive TI or SI, with clinical followup over the ensuing 12 months. The primary outcomes of interest were change in pain and function, as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Subjects and the nurse assessor were blinded, and success of blinding was assessed. RESULTS: Although the study groups were otherwise comparable, the baseline WOMAC pain and physical functioning scores were higher (worse) in the SI group. After adjustment for baseline, there were no differences between the effects of

Subject retention and adherence in a randomized placebo-controlled trial of a disease-modifying osteoarthritis drug.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the methods by which remarkable levels of subject retention and adherence were achieved in a 30-month multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial (RCT) of a disease-modifying osteoarthritis drug (DMOAD). METHODS: Subjects were obese 45-64-year-old women with unilateral knee osteoarthritis. Before randomization, each volunteer completed a 4-week "faintness-of-heart" (FOH) test, during which she was required to demonstrate reliable appointment keeping and > or =80% adherence to the dosing regimen. Subjects who passed the FOH test were randomized to treatment with doxycycline or placebo for 30 months. The double-blind phase entailed 15 bimonthly followup visits; intervisit adherence data were downloaded from the dosing monitor and used to estimate therapeutic coverage and to identify correctable patterns of nonadherence. Subjects received token incentives and a small cash payment at each followup visit. Measures to prevent or treat side effects of doxycycline were dispensed free of charge. Study coordinators monitored safety and reinforced participation through between-visit telephone calls. RESULTS: Of 463 eligible volunteers, 32 (7%) failed the FOH test and were excluded from the double-blind phase. Among the 431 subjects randomized to treatment groups, 307 (71%) completed the 30-month RCT and 124 discontinued the study drug prematurely. Nearly half of the dropouts returned for their 16- and 30-month radiographs, resulting in loss to followup of 14.8% of randomized subjects. The 2 treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to rates of discontinuation or retention. Therapeutic coverage over 30 months was very high in both groups. CONCLUSION: The rate of discontinuation in this 30-month RCT (29%) was lower than that of any DMOAD trial of > or =2 years duration published to date. The proportion of subjects for whom 30-month radiographs were available (85%) and adherence to the dosing regimen (mean >80%) also were remarkably high.