Safety and Efficacy of a Third Dose of BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Active immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) has been a critical mitigation tool against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In light of reports of waning protection occurring 6 months after the primary two-dose vaccine series, data are needed on the safety and efficacy of offering a third (booster) dose in persons 16 years of age or older. METHODS: In this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned participants who had received two 30-µg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least 6 months earlier to be injected with a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine or with placebo. We assessed vaccine safety and efficacy against Covid-19 starting 7 days after the third dose. RESULTS: A total of 5081 participants received a third BNT162b2 dose and 5044 received placebo. The median interval between dose 2 and dose 3 was 10.8 months in the vaccine group and 10.7 months in the placebo group; the median follow-up was 2.5 months. Local and systemic reactogenicity events from the third dose were generally of low grade. No new safety signals were identified, and no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported. Among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated, Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after dose 3 was observed in 6 participants in the vaccine group and in 123 participants in the placebo group, which corresponded to a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.3% (95% confidence interval, 89.5 to 98.3). CONCLUSIONS: A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered a median of 10.8 months after the second dose provided 95.3% efficacy against Covid-19 as compared with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine during a median follow-up of 2.5 months. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591031 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.).

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months.

BACKGROUND: BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and is currently approved, conditionally approved, or authorized for emergency use worldwide. At the time of initial authorization, data beyond 2 months after vaccination were unavailable. METHODS: In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned 44,165 participants 16 years of age or older and 2264 participants 12 to 15 years of age to receive two 30-µg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 or placebo. The trial end points were vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety, which were both evaluated through 6 months after vaccination. RESULTS: BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile. Few participants had adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.0 to 93.2) through 6 months of follow-up among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated. There was a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy. Vaccine efficacy of 86 to 100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse ages, sexes, race or ethnic groups, and risk factors for Covid-19 among participants without evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine efficacy against severe disease was 96.7% (95% CI, 80.3 to 99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.351 (or beta) was predominant, a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI, 53.5 to 100) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Through 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.).

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. METHODS: In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 µg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. RESULTS: A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.).

Chronic arthritides and bone structure: focus on rheumatoid arthritis-an update.

Normal bone remodeling depends of a balance between bone forming cells, osteoblasts and bone resorbing cells, the osteoclasts. In chronic arthritides and some inflammatory and autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, there is a great constellation of cytokines produced by pannus that impair bone formation and stimulate bone resorption by inducing osteoclast differentiation and inhibiting osteoblast maturation. Patients with chronic inflammation have multiple causes that lead to low bone mineral density, osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture including circulating cytokines, impaired mobility, chronic administration of glucocorticoids, low vitamin D levels and post-menopausal status in women, among others. Biologic agents and other therapeutic measures to reach prompt remission might ameliorate these deleterious effects. In many cases, bone acting agents need to be added to conventional treatment to reduce the risk of fractures and to preserve articular integrity and independency for daily living activities. A limited number of studies related to fractures in chronic arthritides were published, and future investigation is needed to determine the risk of fractures and the protective effects of different treatments to reduce this risk.

The Adjuvanted Recombinant Zoster Vaccine Confers Long-Term Protection Against Herpes Zoster: Interim Results of an Extension Study of the Pivotal Phase 3 Clinical Trials ZOE-50 and ZOE-70.

BACKGROUND: This ongoing follow-up study evaluated the persistence of efficacy and immune responses for 6 additional years in adults vaccinated with the glycoprotein E (gE)-based adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) at age ≥50 years in 2 pivotal efficacy trials (ZOE-50 and ZOE-70). The present interim analysis was performed after ≥2 additional years of follow-up (between 5.1 and 7.1 years [mean] post-vaccination) and includes partial data for year (Y) 8 post-vaccination. METHODS: Annual assessments were performed for efficacy against herpes zoster (HZ) from Y6 post-vaccination and for anti-gE antibody concentrations and gE-specific CD4[2+] T-cell (expressing ≥2 of 4 assessed activation markers) frequencies from Y5 post-vaccination. RESULTS: Of 7413 participants enrolled for the long-term efficacy assessment, 7277 (mean age at vaccination, 67.2 years), 813, and 108 were included in the cohorts evaluating efficacy, humoral immune responses, and cell-mediated immune responses, respectively. Efficacy of RZV against HZ through this interim analysis was 84.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.9-89.8) from the start of this follow-up study and 90.9% (95% CI, 88.2-93.2) from vaccination in ZOE-50/70. Annual vaccine efficacy estimates were >84% for each year since vaccination and remained stable through this interim analysis. Anti-gE antibody geometric mean concentrations and median frequencies of gE-specific CD4[2+] T cells reached a plateau at approximately 6-fold above pre-vaccination levels. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy against HZ and immune responses to RZV remained high, suggesting that the clinical benefit of RZV in older adults is sustained for at least 7 years post-vaccination. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02723773.

Evidence based Latin American Guidelines of clinical practice on prevention, diagnosis, management and treatment of glucocorticoid induced osteoporosis. A 2022 update : This manuscript has been produced under the auspices of the Committee of National Societies (CNS) and the Committee of Scientific Advisors (CSA) of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF).

Guidelines and recommendations developed and endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) are intended to provide guidance for particular pattern of practice for physicians who usually prescribe glucocorticoid (GC) therapy, and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. Adherence to the recommendations within this guideline is voluntary and the ultimate determination regarding their application should be made by the physician in light of each patient's circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote a desirable outcome but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. This guideline and its recommendations are not intended to dictate payment, reimbursement or insurance decisions. Guidelines and recommendations are subjected to periodic revisions as a consequence of the evolution of medicine, technology and clinical practice. A panel of Latin American (LATAM) experts specialized in osteoporosis with recognized clinical experience in managing patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) met to produce evidence-based LATAM recommendations for the diagnosis and management of GIO. These guidelines are particularly intended to general practitioners and primary care physicians who prescribe GC treatments in LATAM to guide their daily clinical practice in terms of evaluation, prevention and treatment of GIO. These recommendations were based on systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE Library database during the period from 2012 to 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCT), systematic reviews of RCT, controlled observational studies, guidelines and consensus were considered. Based on the review and expert opinion the panel members voted recommendations during two successive rounds of voting by panel members. Agreements for each statement were considered if a concordance of at least 70% was achieved following Delphi methodology. Grading of recommendations was made according to the Oxford Centre for the Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) criteria. Among five GIO guidelines and consensus initially identified, two of them (American College of Rheumatology 2017 and the Brazilian Guidelines 2021) were selected for comparison considering the latter as the most current guides in the LATAM region. Based on this methodology fifty statements were issued. All of them but four (1.20, 1.21, 1.23 and 4.2) attained agreement.

Safety profile of upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis: integrated analysis from the SELECT phase III clinical programme.

OBJECTIVES: This integrated analysis presents the safety profile of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, at 15 mg and 30 mg once daily in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory data from five randomised, placebo- or active-controlled phase III trials of upadacitinib for patients with RA were analysed and summarised. Exposure-adjusted event rates are shown for placebo (three trials; 12/14 weeks), methotrexate (two trials; mean exposure: 36 weeks), adalimumab (one trial; mean exposure: 42 weeks), upadacitinib 15 mg (five trials; mean exposure: 53 weeks) and upadacitinib 30 mg (four trials; mean exposure: 59 weeks). RESULTS: 3834 patients received one or more doses of upadacitinib 15 mg (n=2630) or 30 mg (n=1204), for a total of 4020.1 patient-years of exposure. Upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis and urinary tract infection were the most commonly reported TEAEs with upadacitinib. Rates of serious infection were similar between upadacitinib 15 mg and adalimumab but higher compared with methotrexate. Rates of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were higher in both upadacitinib groups versus methotrexate and adalimumab, and rates of gastrointestinal perforations were higher with upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of deaths, malignancies, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In the phase III clinical programme for RA, patients receiving upadacitinib had an increased risk of herpes zoster and CPK elevation versus adalimumab. Rates of malignancies, MACEs and VTEs were similar among patients receiving upadacitinib, methotrexate or adalimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: SELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873; SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847.

Switching between Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib and adalimumab following insufficient response: efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate efficacy and safety of immediate switch from upadacitinib to adalimumab, or vice versa, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with non-response or incomplete-response to the initial therapy. METHODS: SELECT-COMPARE randomised patients to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (n=651), placebo (n=651) or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (n=327). A treat-to-target study design was implemented, with blinded rescue occurring prior to week 26 for patients who did not achieve at least 20% improvement in both tender and swollen joint counts ('non-responders') and at week 26 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 ('incomplete-responders') without washout. RESULTS: A total of 39% (252/651) and 49% (159/327) of patients originally randomised to upadacitinib and adalimumab were rescued to the alternate therapy. In both switch groups (adalimumab to upadacitinib and vice versa) and in non-responders and incomplete-responders, improvements in disease activity were observed at 3 and 6 months following rescue. CDAI low disease activity was achieved by 36% and 47% of non-responders and 45% and 58% of incomplete-responders switched to adalimumab and upadacitinib, respectively, 6 months following switch. Overall, approximately 5% of rescued patients experienced worsening in disease activity at 6 months postswitch. The frequency of adverse events was similar between switch groups. CONCLUSIONS: These observations support a treat-to-target strategy, in which patients who fail to respond initially (or do not achieve sufficient response) are switched to a therapy with an alternate mechanism of action and experience improved outcomes. No new safety findings were observed despite immediate switch without washout.

Baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to methotrexate: results from a phase 3 study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) therapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, 52-week, placebo-controlled study, 290 patients with moderately to severely active RA and inadequate response to MTX were randomly assigned 1:1 to placebo or baricitinib 4-mg once daily, stratified by country (China, Brazil, Argentina) and presence of joint erosions. Primary endpoint measures included American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary endpoints included changes in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts (DAS28)-high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score ≤3.3, mean duration of morning joint stiffness, severity of morning joint stiffness numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10), worst tiredness NRS, and worst joint pain NRS at week 12. RESULTS: Most patients (approximately 80%) were from China. More patients achieved ACR20 response at week 12 with baricitinib than with placebo (58.6% vs. 28.3%; p<0.001). Statistically significant improvements were also seen in HAQ-DI, DAS28-hsCRP, morning joint stiffness, worst tiredness, and worst joint pain in the baricitinib group compared to placebo at week 12. Through week 24, rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, including infections, were higher for baricitinib compared to placebo, while serious adverse event rates were similar between baricitinib and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX, baricitinib was associated with significant clinical improvements as compared with placebo.

Tofacitinib in combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient-reported outcomes from the 24-month Phase 3 ORAL Scan study.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we present data from the completed Phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) ORAL Scan (NCT00847613), which evaluated the impact of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through 24 months in patients with active RA and inadequate responses to methotrexate (MTX-IR). METHODS: Patients were randomised 4:4:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg, plus background MTX. Patients receiving placebo advanced to tofacitinib at month 3 (non-responders) or month 6 (remaining patients). Mean changes from baseline in PROs, assessed at months 1-24, included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (visual analogue scale [VAS]), Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS), health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 version 2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep. RESULTS: Overall, 539/797 (67.6%) patients completed 24 months' treatment. At month 3, tofacitinib-treated patients reported signi cant (p<0.05) mean changes from baseline versus placebo across all PROs, and significantly more patients reported improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences versus placebo. Improvements in PROs with tofacitinib were sustained to month 24. Following advancement to tofacitinib, placebo-treated patients generally reported changes of similar magnitude to tofacitinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA and MTX-IR receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID plus MTX reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo at month 3, which were sustained through 24 months.

Effects of teriparatide and risedronate on new fractures in post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis (VERO): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No clinical trials have compared osteoporosis drugs with incident fractures as the primary outcome. We compared the anti-fracture efficacy of teriparatide with risedronate in patients with severe osteoporosis. METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy trial, we enrolled post-menopausal women with at least two moderate or one severe vertebral fracture and a bone mineral density T score of less than or equal to -1·50. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 20 µg of teriparatide once daily plus oral weekly placebo or 35 mg of oral risedronate once weekly plus daily injections of placebo for 24 months. The primary outcome was new radiographic vertebral fractures. Secondary, gated outcomes included new and worsened radiographic vertebral fractures, clinical fractures (a composite of non-vertebral and symptomatic vertebral), and non-vertebral fractures. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01709110) and EudraCT (2012-000123-41). FINDINGS: We enrolled 680 patients in each group. At 24 months, new vertebral fractures occurred in 28 (5·4%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group and 64 (12·0%) of 680 patients in the risedronate group (risk ratio 0·44, 95% CI 0·29-0·68; p<0·0001). Clinical fractures occurred in 30 (4·8%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group compared with 61 (9·8%) of 680 in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·48, 95% CI 0·32-0·74; p=0·0009). Non-vertebral fragility fractures occurred in 25 (4·0%) patients in the teriparatide group and 38 (6·1%) in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·39-1·10; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures is significantly lower in patients receiving teriparatide than in those receiving risedronate. FUNDING: Lilly.

Romosozumab Treatment in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds sclerostin, increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption. METHODS: We enrolled 7180 postmenopausal women who had a T score of -2.5 to -3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck. Patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of romosozumab (at a dose of 210 mg) or placebo monthly for 12 months; thereafter, patients in each group received denosumab for 12 months, at a dose of 60 mg, administered subcutaneously every 6 months. The coprimary end points were the cumulative incidences of new vertebral fractures at 12 months and 24 months. Secondary end points included clinical (a composite of nonvertebral and symptomatic vertebral) and nonvertebral fractures. RESULTS: At 12 months, new vertebral fractures had occurred in 16 of 3321 patients (0.5%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 59 of 3322 (1.8%) in the placebo group (representing a 73% lower risk with romosozumab; P<0.001). Clinical fractures had occurred in 58 of 3589 patients (1.6%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 90 of 3591 (2.5%) in the placebo group (a 36% lower risk with romosozumab; P=0.008). Nonvertebral fractures had occurred in 56 of 3589 patients (1.6%) in the romosozumab group and in 75 of 3591 (2.1%) in the placebo group (P=0.10). At 24 months, the rates of vertebral fractures were significantly lower in the romosozumab group than in the placebo group after each group made the transition to denosumab (0.6% [21 of 3325 patients] in the romosozumab group vs. 2.5% [84 of 3327] in the placebo group, a 75% lower risk with romosozumab; P<0.001). Adverse events, including instances of hyperostosis, cardiovascular events, osteoarthritis, and cancer, appeared to be balanced between the groups. One atypical femoral fracture and two cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were observed in the romosozumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, romosozumab was associated with a lower risk of vertebral fracture than placebo at 12 months and, after the transition to denosumab, at 24 months. The lower risk of clinical fracture that was seen with romosozumab was evident at 1 year. (Funded by Amgen and UCB Pharma; FRAME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01575834 .).

Comparison of patient and physician perspectives in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: results from global physician- and patient-based surveys.

BACKGROUND: In order to better understand the perspectives of patients and physicians regarding the treatment and management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), we present and compare results from a patient-based and a physician-based survey developed by the RA NarRAtive advisory panel. METHODS: The RA NarRAtive initiative is directed by a global advisory panel of 39 healthcare providers and patient organization leaders from 17 countries. A survey of patients self-reporting a diagnosis of RA and a physician-based survey, designed by the advisory panel, were fielded online by Harris Poll from September 2014 to April 2016, and from August 2015 to October 2015, respectively. RESULTS: We present findings from 1805 patients whose RA was primarily managed by a rheumatologist, and 1736 physicians managing patients with RA. Results confirmed that RA carries a substantial disease burden; half of the patients surveyed reported stopping participation in certain activities as a result of their disease. While 90% of physicians were satisfied with their communications with their patients regarding RA treatment, 61% of patients felt uncomfortable raising concerns or fears with their physician. Of the patients providing responses, 52% felt that improved dialogue/discussion would optimize their RA management, and 68% of physicians wished that they and their patients talked more about their RA goals and treatment. Overall, 88% of physicians agreed that patients involved in making treatment decisions tend to be more satisfied with their treatment experience. CONCLUSION: The results of these surveys highlight the impact of RA on patients, and a discrepancy between patient and physician views on communication. Further research, focused on improving patient-physician dialogue, shared goal-setting, and treatment planning, is needed.

Maintenance of remission with combination etanercept-DMARD therapy versus DMARDs alone in active rheumatoid arthritis: results of an international treat-to-target study conducted in regions with limited biologic access.

In this transglobal, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treat-to-target study, the maintenance of efficacy was compared between biologic-and biologic-free-disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combination regimens after low disease activity (LDA) was achieved with biologic DMARD induction therapy. Patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy received open-label etanercept 50 mg subcutaneously once weekly plus methotrexate with or without other conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs for 24 weeks. Patients achieving LDA [disease activity score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) <3.2] at week 24 were randomized to receive etanercept-methotrexate combination therapy or placebo-methotrexate combination therapy, with or without other csDMARDs, for 28 weeks. In the open-label period, 72% of patients achieved DAS28-ESR LDA at week 24. Patients enrolled in the double-blind period had long-standing rheumatoid arthritis and high disease activity at baseline (mean duration, 8.1 years; DAS28-ESR, 6.4). In the etanercept and placebo combination groups, 44% versus 17% achieved DAS28-ESR LDA and 34 versus 13% achieved DAS28-ESR remission at week 52 (p < 0.001). Adverse events were reported in 37 and 43%, serious adverse events in 0 and 4%, and serious infections in 0 and 2% in these groups, respectively, in the double-blind period. After induction of response with etanercept combination therapy following a treat-to-target approach in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis and high disease activity at baseline, the etanercept combination regimen was significantly more effective in maintaining LDA and remission than a biologic-free regimen. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT01578850.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib following inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

OBJECTIVES: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have shown diminished clinical response following an inadequate response (IR) to ≥1 previous bDMARD. Here, tofacitinib was compared with placebo in patients with an IR to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs; bDMARD-naive) and in patients with an IR to bDMARDs (bDMARD-IR). METHODS: Data were taken from phase II and phase III studies of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo, as monotherapy or with background methotrexate or other csDMARDs. Efficacy endpoints and incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) of special interest were assessed. RESULTS: 2812 bDMARD-naive and 705 bDMARD-IR patients were analysed. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups within subpopulations. Across subpopulations, improvements in efficacy parameters at month 3 were generally significantly greater for both tofacitinib doses versus placebo. Clinical response was numerically greater with bDMARD-naive versus bDMARD-IR patients (overlapping 95% CIs). Rates of safety events of special interest were generally similar between tofacitinib doses and subpopulations; however, patients receiving glucocorticoids had more serious AEs, discontinuations due to AEs, serious infection events and herpes zoster. Numerically greater clinical responses and incidence rates of AEs of special interest were generally reported for tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily versus tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (overlapping 95% CIs). CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib demonstrated efficacy in both bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-IR patients with RA. Clinical response to tofacitinib was generally numerically greater in bDMARD-naive than bDMARD-IR patients. The safety profile appeared similar between subpopulations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: (NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385).

Prediction of remission and low disease activity in disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with golimumab.

OBJECTIVE: To create a tool to predict probability of remission and low disease activity (LDA) in patients with RA being considered for anti-TNF treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: We analysed data from GO-MORE, an open-label, multinational, prospective study in biologic-naïve patients with active RA (DAS28-ESR ⩾3.2) despite DMARD therapy. Patients received 50 mg s.c. golimumab (GLM) once monthly for 6 months. In secondary analyses, regression models were used to determine the best set of baseline factors to predict remission (DAS28-ESR <2.6) at month 6 and LDA (DAS28-ESR ⩽3.2) at month 1. RESULTS: In 3280 efficacy-evaluable patients, of 12 factors included in initial regression models predicting remission or LDA, six were retained in final multivariable models. Greater likelihood of LDA and remission was associated with being male; younger age; lower HAQ, ESR (or CRP) and tender joint count (or swollen joint count) scores; and absence of comorbidities. In models predicting 1-, 3- and 6-month LDA or remission, area under the receiver operating curve was 0.648-0.809 (R(2) = 0.0397-0.1078). The models also predicted 6-month HAQ and EuroQoL-5-dimension scores. A series of matrices were developed to easily show predicted rates of remission and LDA. CONCLUSION: A matrix tool was developed to show predicted GLM treatment outcomes in patients with RA, based on a combination of six baseline characteristics. The tool could help provide practical guidance in selection of candidates for anti-TNF therapy.

Effect of Abaloparatide vs Placebo on New Vertebral Fractures in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Additional therapies are needed for prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Abaloparatide is a selective activator of the parathyroid hormone type 1 receptor. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of abaloparatide, 80 µg, vs placebo for prevention of new vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women at risk of osteoporotic fracture. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Abaloparatide Comparator Trial In Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) was a phase 3, double-blind, RCT (March 2011-October 2014) at 28 sites in 10 countries. Postmenopausal women with bone mineral density (BMD) T score ≤-2.5 and >-5.0 at the lumbar spine or femoral neck and radiological evidence ≥2 mild or ≥1 moderate lumbar or thoracic vertebral fracture or history of low-trauma nonvertebral fracture within the past 5 years were eligible. Postmenopausal women (>65 y) with fracture criteria and a T score ≤-2.0 and >-5.0 or without fracture criteria and a T score ≤-3.0 and >-5.0 could enroll. INTERVENTIONS: Blinded, daily subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 821); abaloparatide, 80 µg (n = 824); or open-label teriparatide, 20 µg (n = 818) for 18 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point was percentage of participants with new vertebral fracture in the abaloparatide vs placebo groups. Sample size was set to detect a 4% difference (57% risk reduction) between treatment groups. Secondary end points included change in BMD at total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine in abaloparatide-treated vs placebo participants and time to first incident nonvertebral fracture. Hypercalcemia was a prespecified safety end point in abaloparatide-treated vs teriparatide participants. RESULTS: Among 2463 women (mean age, 69 years [range, 49-86]), 1901 completed the study. New morphometric vertebral fractures occurred less frequently in the active treatment groups vs placebo. The Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate for nonvertebral fracture was lower with abaloparatide vs placebo. BMD increases were greater with abaloparatide than placebo (all P < .001). Incidence of hypercalcemia was lower with abaloparatide (3.4%) vs teriparatide (6.4%) (risk difference [RD], −2.96 [95%CI, −5.12 to −0.87]; P = .006). [table: see text]. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, the use of subcutaneous abaloparatide, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures over 18 months. Further research is needed to understand the clinical importance of RD, the risks and benefits of abaloparatide treatment, and the efficacy of abaloparatide vs other osteoporosis treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01343004.

Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) in combination with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a heterogeneous chronic disease, and no therapeutic agent has been identified which is universally and persistently effective in all patients. We investigated the effectiveness of tofacitinib (CP-690,550), a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor, as a targeted immunomodulator and disease-modifying therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We did a 6-month, double-blind, parallel-group phase 3 study at 82 centres in 13 countries, including North America, Europe, and Latin America. 399 patients aged 18 years or older with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1:1 ratio with an automated internet or telephone system to receive twice a day treatment with: tofacitinib 5 mg (n=133); tofacitinib 10 mg (n=134); or placebo (n=132), all with methotrexate. At month 3, patients given placebo advanced to either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day (n=66) or 10 mg twice a day (n=66). Primary endpoints included American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response rate, mean change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and rates of disease activity score (DAS)28-4(ESR) less than 2·6 (referred to as DAS28<2·6), all at month 3. The full analysis set for the primary analysis included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00960440. FINDINGS: At month 3, ACR20 response rates were 41·7% (55 of 132 [95% CI vs placebo 6·06-28·41]; p=0·0024) for tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day and 48·1% (64 of 133; [12·45-34·92]; p<0·0001) for tofacitinib 10 mg twice a day versus 24·4% (32 of 131) for placebo. Improvements from baseline in HAQ-DI were -0·43 ([-0·36 to -0·15]; p<0·0001) for 5 mg twice a day and -0·46 ([-0·38 to -0·17]; p<0·0001) for 10 mg twice a day tofacitinib versus -0·18 for placebo; DAS28<2·6 rates were 6·7% (eight of 119; [0-10·10]; p=0·0496) for 5 mg twice a day tofacitinib and 8·8% (11 of 125 [1·66-12·60]; p=0·0105) for 10 mg twice a day tofacitinib versus 1·7% (two of 120) for placebo. Safety was consistent with phase 2 and 3 studies. The most common adverse events in months 0-3 were diarrhoea (13 of 267; 4·9%), nasopharyngitis (11 of 267; 4·1%), headache (11 of 267; 4·1%), and urinary tract infection (eight of 267; 3·0%) across tofacitinib groups, and nausea (nine of 132; 6·8%) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In this treatment-refractory population, tofacitinib with methotrexate had rapid and clinically meaningful improvements in signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and physical function over 6 months with manageable safety. Tofacitinib could provide an effective treatment option in patients with an inadequate response to TNFi. FUNDING: Pfizer.