Izokibep for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: a phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-finding multicentre study including long-term treatment.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies to interleukin (IL)-17 have shown strong efficacy in patients with psoriasis. Izokibep is a unique IL-17A inhibitor with a small molecular size and favourable distribution to sites of inflammation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the dose response, efficacy and safety of izokibep in patients with plaque psoriasis. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, phase II dose-finding study (AFFIRM-35) in adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and inadequate response to two or more standard therapies, patients were randomized (1:1:1:1:1) to placebo or izokibep 2, 20, 80 or 160 mg every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. During the remainder of the 52-week core study, patients given placebo were switched to izokibep 80 mg, and dosing intervals were adapted based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores for all patients. The core study was followed by two optional consecutive 1-year extension periods for a total duration of 3 years. The primary endpoint was a 90% reduction in PASI score (PASI 90) at week 12. Additional efficacy outcomes and adverse event (AE) rates were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 109 patients were randomized [safety set, n = 108 (one exclusion criteria failure); full analysis set, n = 106]. At week 12, PASI 90 response rates were 0%, 5%, 19%, 71% and 59% for the placebo, 2-, 20-, 80- and 160-mg izokibep groups, respectively. Rapid dose-dependent improvements were also observed across other efficacy outcomes. During the placebo-controlled period, AEs in the izokibep groups were similar to placebo except for mild injection site reactions. AEs were generally mild to moderate and the drug was well tolerated. Izokibep maintained efficacy at the higher dosage groups for up to 3 years, with no new safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this phase II study indicate that izokibep is well tolerated and efficacious in the treatment of plaque psoriasis. Higher doses or more frequent dosing could be explored to further enhance response rates.

Exposure-response analyses demonstrate no evidence of interleukin 17A contribution to efficacy of ABT-122 in rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis.

Objectives: ABT-122 is a dual-variable-domain immunoglobulin that neutralizes both TNF-α and IL-17A. The objective of this work was to characterize exposure-response relationships for ABT-122 relative to adalimumab (TNF-α inhibitor) using ABT-122 phase 2 trials in patients with RA or PsA. Methods: Patients received subcutaneous doses of ABT-122 ranging from 60 mg every other week (EOW) to 240 mg every week, adalimumab 40 mg EOW, or placebo (PsA patients only) for 12 weeks. Relationships between ABT-122 or adalimumab serum concentrations and time course of ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 and PASI50, PASI75 and PASI90 responses were characterized using a non-linear mixed-effects Markov modelling approach. Results: A total of 221 RA patients and 240 PsA patients were included in the analyses. At comparable molar exposures, there was no differentiation of efficacy between ABT-122 and adalimumab and there were no consistent differences between ABT-122 and adalimumab in the potency estimates for different efficacy endpoints based on the Markov models. Plateau of ABT-122 efficacy was achieved at exposures associated with the 120 mg EOW dose in patients with RA, which were comparable to molar exposures of adalimumab 40 mg EOW, and at the lowest dose of 120 mg every week in patients with PsA. Conclusion: The exposure-response relationships for ABT-122 were not distinguishably different from those of adalimumab in patients with RA or PsA. Overall, there was no clear evidence that inhibition of the IL-17 pathway provided incremental benefit in the presence of TNF-α inhibition. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02433340, NCT02349451.

Dual inhibition of tumour necrosis factor and interleukin-17A with ABT-122: open-label long-term extension studies in rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Objectives: To evaluate the safety and maintenance of efficacy with ABT-122, a bi-specific monoclonal antibody targeting TNF and IL-17A, in patients with RA or PsA in open-label, 24-week extensions [open-label extensions (OLEs)] of 12-week, randomized, double-blind studies. Methods: All patients received ABT-122 (RA, 120 mg; PsA, 240 mg) subcutaneously every other week on background MTX. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory parameters. Efficacy was evaluated with ACR responses, 28-joint DAS using high-sensitivity CRP [DAS28 (hsCRP)], and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PsA study). Results: The RA OLE study enrolled 158 patients; the PsA OLE study enrolled 168 patients. In the RA OLE study, the incidence of treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs; 41%) appeared similar to the double-blind study (36-43%). In the PsA OLE study, 57% of patients reported ⩾1 TEAE (double-blind study, 42-53%). Most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. There were no neutrophil abnormalities greater than grade 2. Grade 3 and/or 4 laboratory abnormalities were reported for lymphocytes, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, bilirubin and haemoglobin; the number of these severe laboratory values was low (0.6-3.0%), except grade 3 lymphocyte count decreased (11.5%) in the RA study. In both OLE studies, efficacy assessed by ACR responses and other disease activity scores was maintained over the 24 weeks. Conclusion: ABT-122 demonstrated acceptable tolerability and maintenance of efficacy for up to 36 weeks in patients with RA or PsA receiving background MTX. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02433340 and NCT02429895.

A randomized, clinical trial to assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of two doses of etoricoxib versus naproxen in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated two doses of etoricoxib (60 and 90 mg) vs. naproxen 1000 mg in subjects with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: This was a 2-part, double-blind, active comparator-controlled non-inferiority study in subjects ≥18 years of age with AS. In Part I, subjects were randomized to naproxen 1000 mg; etoricoxib 60 mg, and 90 mg. In Part II, naproxen and etoricoxib 90 mg subjects continued on the same treatment; subjects on etoricoxib 60 mg either continued on 60 mg or escalated to 90 mg. Part I (6 weeks) assessed the efficacy of A) etoricoxib 60 mg vs. naproxen and B) 90 mg vs. naproxen according to the time-weighted average change from baseline in Spinal Pain Intensity (SPI; 0-100 mm VAS) (primary endpoint). The non-inferiority margin was set at 8 mm for SPI. In Part II (20 weeks) we evaluated the potential benefit of increasing from 60 to 90 mg (predefined minimum clinically important difference = 6 mm in SPI) for inadequate responders (<50 % improvement from baseline in SPI) on etoricoxib 60 mg in Part I. RESULTS: In total, 1015 subjects were randomized to receive etoricoxib 60 mg (N = 702), etoricoxib 90 mg (N = 156), and naproxen 1000 mg (N = 157); 70.9 % were male and the mean age was 45.2 years. There were 919 subjects who completed Part I and all continued to Part II. In Part I, SPI change was non-inferior for both etoricoxib doses vs. naproxen. In both Part I and II, the incidence of adverse events (AEs), drug-related AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs) were similar between the 3 treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Both doses of etoricoxib were non-inferior to naproxen. All treatments were well tolerated. Etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg effectively control pain in patients with AS, with 60 mg once daily as the lowest effective dose for most patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry # NCT01208207 . Registered on 22 September 2010.

Evaluation of two doses of etoricoxib, a COX-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) is a common component of treatment regimens for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Etoricoxib is a COX-2 selective NSAID that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of RA at a dose of 90 mg. The current study further evaluated the efficacy of etoricoxib 60 mg and 90 mg in RA patients with active disease. METHODS: This was a 2-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in RA (NCT01208181). Patients were required to have a diagnosis of RA (according to ARA 1987 revised classification criteria) and were to demonstrate symptom flare upon discontinuation of previous NSAID treatment prior to randomization. Part I was a 6-week, placebo-controlled period to assess the efficacy of etoricoxib 90 mg and etoricoxib 60 mg, each compared to placebo, as well as to each other. Part II was a 6-week period to evaluate the potential benefit of dose escalation from etoricoxib 60 mg to etoricoxib 90 mg after 6 weeks exposure to etoricoxib 60 mg in Part I compared to maintaining a steady dose of etoricoxib 60 mg throughout Parts I and II. Primary endpoints were Disease Activity Score evaluating 28 joints and C reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) index and Patient Global Assessment of Pain (Pain) score (0-100 mm VAS) after 6 weeks of treatment in Part I. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: In total, 1404 patients were randomized in a 2:7:7:8 ratio; 1228 patients completed Part I and 713 patients continued to Part II. Both etoricoxib doses were superior to placebo on both primary efficacy endpoints (p = 0.004 for 60 mg and p = 0.034 for 90 mg for DAS28-CRP; p < 0.001 for both doses for PGAP) in Part I. Further in Part I, etoricoxib 90 mg was not significantly different from 60 mg for DAS28-CRP, but did demonstrate a small, but statistically significant decrease in baseline PGAP score vs. 60 mg (p = 0.019). In Part II, there was no significant decrease in PGAP score after increasing to 90 mg in subjects with inadequate pain relief on 60 mg as compared to subjects who stayed on 60 mg. The incidence of AEs and SAEs were similar between etoricoxib 60 mg and 90 mg in both Part I and II. CONCLUSION: Both etoricoxib 90 mg and 60 mg are superior to placebo in relieving the symptoms of RA. Etoricoxib 90 mg vs 60 mg resulted in a statistically significant, though small, improvement in PGAP score, but not DAS28-CRP. Dose escalation from 60 mg to 90 mg in pain inadequate responders did not significantly improve efficacy. These results confirm the efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib 90mg in patients with RA. In addition, this study demonstrated that etoricoxib 60 mg is also efficacious and well-tolerated in RA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01208181 (registered September 22, 2010).

Inadequate pain relief and large functional loss among patients with knee osteoarthritis: evidence from a prospective multinational longitudinal study of osteoarthritis real-world therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of inadequate pain relief (IPR) among patients with symptomatic knee OA prescribed analgesic therapy and to characterize patients with IPR. METHODS: Patients ≥50 years old with physician-diagnosed knee OA who had taken topical or oral pain medication for at least 14 days were recruited for this prospective non-interventional study in six European countries. Pain and function were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the WOMAC; quality of life (QoL) was assessed using the 12-item short form. IPR was defined as an average pain score of >4 out of 10 on BPI question 5. RESULTS: Of 1187 patients enrolled, 68% were female and the mean age was 68 years (s.d. 9); 639 (54%) met the definition of IPR. Patient responses for the BPI average pain question were well correlated with responses on the WOMAC pain subscale (Spearman r = 0.64, P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression, patients with IPR had greater odds of being female [adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) 1.90 (95% CI 1.46, 2.48)] and having OA in both knees [adjOR 1.48 (95% CI 1.15, 1.90)], higher BMI, longer OA duration, depression or diabetes. Patients with IPR (vs non-IPR) were more likely to have worse QoL, greater function loss and greater pain interference. CONCLUSION: IPR is common among patients with knee OA requiring analgesics and is associated with large functional loss and impaired QoL. Patients at particular risk of IPR, as characterized in this study, may require greater attention towards their analgesic treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT01294696).

Do COX-2 inhibitors provide additional pain relief and anti-inflammatory effects in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are on biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and/or corticosteroids? Post-hoc analyses from a randomized clinical trial with etoricoxib.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate the effect of background biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and/or corticosteroids (CS) on response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: The following efficacy endpoints were evaluated using time-weighted change from baseline in a 12-week, randomized controlled clinical trial with etoricoxib: Patient Global Assessment of Pain, Swollen Joint Count, Tender Joint Count, Health Assessment Questionnaire. The following three treatment groups were evaluated: placebo, pooled etoricoxib 10/30/60 mg, and etoricoxib 90 mg. Screening values, values post flare, as well as changes after treatment were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 1014 patients screened, 761 were randomized; 50% were on no background bDMARDs and/or CS therapy, 23% used bDMARDs, 34% used CS, and 8% used both bDMARDs and CS. It was demonstrated that RA patients on bDMARDs or CS had similar pain levels at screening as patients without this co-medication. They experienced flare upon NSAID withdrawal and demonstrated dose-dependent pain improvement with etoricoxib. CONCLUSION: These results support that RA patients receiving bDMARDs or CS may still require the use of concomitant analgesics to treat pain. Clinicians should continue to monitor and treat pain even after initiating a bDMARD and/or CS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: [clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00264147].

Evaluation of etoricoxib in patients undergoing total knee replacement surgery in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal postoperative pain management is important to ensure patient comfort and early mobilization. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated postoperative pain following knee replacement in patients receiving placebo, etoricoxib (90 or 120 mg), or ibuprofen 1800 mg daily for 7 days. Patients ≥18 years of age who had pain at rest ≥5 (0-10 Numerical Rating Scale [NRS]) after unilateral total knee replacement were randomly assigned to placebo (N = 98), etoricoxib 90 mg (N = 224), etoricoxib 120 mg (N = 230), or ibuprofen 1800 mg (N = 224) postoperatively. Co-primary endpoints included Average Pain Intensity Difference at Rest over Days 1-3 (0- to 10-point NRS) and Average Total Daily Dose of Morphine over Days 1-3. Pain upon movement was evaluated using Average Pain Intensity Difference upon Knee Flexion (0- to 10-point NRS). The primary objective was to demonstrate analgesic superiority for the etoricoxib doses vs. placebo; the secondary objective was to demonstrate that the analgesic effect of the etoricoxib doses was non-inferior to ibuprofen. Adverse experiences (AEs) including opioid-related AEs were evaluated. RESULTS: The least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) differences from placebo for Pain Intensity Difference at Rest over Days 1-3 were -0.54 (-0.95, -0.14); -0.49 (-0.89, -0.08); and -0.45 (-0.85, -0.04) for etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, and ibuprofen, respectively (p < 0.05 for etoricoxib vs. placebo). Differences in LS Geometric Mean Ratio morphine use over Days 1-3 from placebo were 0.66 (0.54, 0.82); 0.69 (0.56, 0.85); and 0.66 (0.53, 0.81) for etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, and ibuprofen, respectively (p < 0.001 for etoricoxib vs. placebo). Differences in LS Mean Pain Intensity upon Knee Flexion were -0.37 (-0.85, 0.11); -0.46 (-0.94, 0.01); and -0.42 (-0.90, 0.06) for etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, and ibuprofen, respectively. Opioid-related AEs occurred in 41.8%, 34.7%, 36.5%, and 36.3% of patients on placebo, etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, and ibuprofen, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative use of etoricoxib 90 and 120 mg in patients undergoing total knee replacement is both superior to placebo and non-inferior to ibuprofen in reducing pain at rest and also reduces opioid (morphine) consumption. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00820027.

Izokibep: Preclinical development and first-in-human study of a novel IL-17A neutralizing Affibody molecule in patients with plaque psoriasis.

Psoriasis, an immune-mediated inflammatory disease, affects nearly 125 million people globally. The interleukin (IL)-17A homodimer is a key driver of psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases, including psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and uveitis. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against IL-17A provides an improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index compared to conventional systemic agents. In this study, the AffibodyⓇ technology was used to identify and optimize a novel, small, biological molecule comprising three triple helical affinity domains, izokibep (previously ABY-035), for the inhibition of IL-17A signaling. Preclinical studies show that izokibep, a small 18.6 kDa IL-17 ligand trap comprising two IL-17A-specific Affibody domains and one albumin-binding domain, selectively inhibits human IL-17A in vitro and in vivo with superior potency and efficacy relative to anti-IL-17A mAbs. A Phase 1 first-in-human study was conducted to establish the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of izokibep, when administered intravenously and subcutaneously as single doses to healthy subjects, and as single intravenous and multiple subcutaneous doses to patients with psoriasis (NCT02690142; EudraCT No: 2015-004531-13). Izokibep was well tolerated with no meaningful safety concerns identified in healthy volunteers and patients with psoriasis. Rapid efficacy was seen in all psoriasis patients after one dose which further improved in patients receiving multiple doses. A therapeutic decrease in joint pain was also observed in a single patient with concurrent psoriatic arthritis. The study suggests that izokibep has the potential to safely treat IL17A-associated diseases such as psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and uveitis.

Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Has Additional Prognostic Value Over Clinical Measures in Gout Including Tophi: A Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review determined whether there is clinical utility for dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to inform on prognosis for patients with gout. With DECT, individualized treatment plans could be developed based on the patient's unique urate burden, with DECT being used as a clinical outcome measure in gout management. METHODS: To evaluate DECT as a reliable, valid, and sensitive prognostic instrument, a librarian-assisted search was undertaken in PubMed and Embase for articles on gout and DECT informing on reliability; content, construct, and criterion validity; sensitivity to change; and minimum clinically important changes. RESULTS: This systematic literature review showed that DECT has high intra- and interrater reliability. Tophus burden correlates with functional loss to show content validity. DECT volume is positively correlated with death, cardiovascular risk factors, and the risk for future gout flares. DECT has excellent sensitivity to change with effective urate-lowering therapies. CONCLUSION: DECT is a promising prognostic tool based on its high reliability, sensitivity to change, and emerging validity. Additional large, well-designed, prospective cohort studies are needed to fully evaluate its prognostic utility. This systematic review suggests that DECT very likely has additional prognostic information beyond clinical tophi assessment alone.

A multicentre, efficacy and safety study of methotrexate to increase response rates in patients with uncontrolled gout receiving pegloticase (MIRROR): 12-month efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetic findings during long-term extension of an open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Publications suggest immunomodulation co-therapy improves responder rates in uncontrolled/refractory gout patients undergoing pegloticase treatment. The MIRROR open-label trial showed a 6-month pegloticase + methotrexate co-therapy responder rate of 79%, compared to an established 42% pegloticase monotherapy responder rate. Longer-term efficacy/safety data are presented here. METHODS: Uncontrolled gout patients (serum urate [SU] ≥ 6 mg/dL and SU ≥ 6 mg/dL despite urate-lowering therapy [ULT], ULT intolerance, or functionally-limiting tophi) were included. Patients with immunocompromised status, G6PD deficiency, severe kidney disease, or methotrexate contraindication were excluded. Oral methotrexate (15 mg/week) and folic acid (1 mg/day) were administered 4 weeks before and during pegloticase therapy. Twelve-month responder rate (SU < 6 mg/dL for ≥ 80% during month 12), 52-week change from baseline in SU, and extended safety were examined. Efficacy analyses were performed for patients receiving ≥ 1 pegloticase infusion. Pharmacokinetics (PK)/anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) were examined and related to efficacy/safety findings. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were included (all male, 49.3 ± 8.7 years, 13.8 ± 7.4-year gout history, pre-therapy SU 9.2 ± 2.5 mg/dL). Three patients were non-responders and discontinued study treatment before 24 weeks, one patient exited the study per protocol at 24 weeks (enrolled prior to treatment extension amendment), and 10 remained in the study through week 52. Of the 10, 8 completed 52 weeks of pegloticase + methotrexate and were 12-month responders. The remaining two discontinued pegloticase + methotrexate at week 24 (met treatment goals) and stayed in the study under observation (allopurinol prescribed at physicians' discretion); one remained a responder at 12 months. At 52 weeks, change from baseline in SU was - 8.2 ± 4.1 mg/dL (SU 1.1 ± 2.4 mg/dL, n = 10). Gout flares were common early in treatment but progressively decreased while on therapy (weeks 1-12, 13/14 [92.9%]; weeks 36-52, 2/8 [25.0%]). One patient recovered from sepsis (serious AE). Two non-responders developed high ADA titers; fewer patients had trough concentrations (Cmin) below the quantitation limit (BQL), and the median Cmin was higher (1.03 µg/mL vs. BQL) than pegloticase monotherapy trials. CONCLUSIONS: Pegloticase + methotrexate co-therapy was well-tolerated over 12 months, with sustained SU lowering, progressive gout flare reduction, and no new safety concerns. Antibody/PK findings suggest methotrexate attenuates ADA formation, coincident with higher treatment response rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03635957 . Registered on 17 August 2018.

Predictors of response to cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors in osteoarthritis: pooled results from two identical trials comparing etoricoxib, celecoxib, and placebo.

OBJECTIVE: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) responses in osteoarthritis (OA) are highly variable, often requiring multiple medication changes. We sought to determine pre-randomization predictors of response to NSAIDs in OA. METHODS: Data were pooled from two identical 26-week double-blind, randomized flare design trials comparing etoricoxib 30 mg/day (N=475), celecoxib 200 mg/day (N=488), and placebo (N=244) in patients with OA of the hip or knee. This analysis was limited to the 12-week placebo-controlled period. Response at Week 12 was defined using Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria. Factors were analyzed using logistic regression and included age, race, gender, body mass index, index joint, screening (pre-washout) and baseline (post-washout) Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index pain, physical function, and stiffness, and patient global assessment of disease status, prior NSAID/coxib or acetaminophen use, American Rheumatology Association functional class, and disease duration. RESULTS: We found that screening WOMAC physical function was the only factor that predicted response in all treatment groups; worse function was associated with lower odds of achieving an OMERACT-OARSI response at 12 weeks (odds ratio 0.84 placebo; 0.87 etoricoxib; 0.89 celecoxib; P<0.05 for all). However, the differences in WOMAC physical function between responders and nonresponders were small (∼5 mm on a 100-mm scale). No factor discriminated between the ability to predict placebo response from active treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Lower levels of physical function decreased the odds of a response to NSAID treatment in OA, although the clinical significance is unknown given the small differences between responders and nonresponders. No other measured baseline variables consistently predicted response in these studies, which may reflect the known individual variability in NSAID response.

Longitudinal numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for achieving various levels of analgesic response and improvement with etoricoxib, naproxen, and placebo in ankylosing spondylitis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical analgesic trials typically report response as group mean results. However, research has shown that few patients are average and most have responses at the extremes. Moreover, group mean results do not convey response levels and thus have limited value in representing the benefit-risk at an individual level. Responder analyses and numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) are considered more relevant for evaluating treatment response. We evaluated levels of analgesic response and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score improvement and the associated NNTs. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a 6-week, randomized, double-blind study (N = 387) comparing etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, naproxen 1000 mg, and placebo in AS. Spine pain and BASDAI were measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale. The number and percentage of patients achieving ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in both BASDAI and spine pain were calculated and used to determine the corresponding NNTs. Patients who discontinued from the study for any reason were assigned zero improvement beyond 7 days of the time of discontinuation. RESULTS: For etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg and naproxen 1000 mg, the NNTs at 6 weeks compared with placebo were 2.0, 2.0, and 2.7 respectively for BASDAI ≥30% improvement, and 3.2, 2.8, and 4.1 for ≥50% improvement. For spine pain, the NNTs were 1.9, 2.0, and 3.2, respectively, for ≥30% improvement, and 2.7, 2.5, and 3.7 for ≥50% improvement. The differences between etoricoxib and naproxen exceeded the limit of ±0.5 units described as a clinically meaningful difference for pain. Response rates and NNTs were generally similar and stable over 2, 4, and 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: For every 2 patients treated with etoricoxib, 1 achieved a clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvement in spine pain and BASDAI beyond that expected from placebo, whereas the corresponding values were approximately 1 in every 3 patients treated with naproxen. Use of NNTs and responder analyses provide additional, complementary information beyond population mean responses when assessing efficacy compared to placebo and amongst active therapies.

Pegloticase in Combination With Methotrexate in Patients With Uncontrolled Gout: A Multicenter, Open-label Study (MIRROR).

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of pegloticase in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with uncontrolled gout in an exploratory, open-label clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03635957) prior to a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: A multicenter, open-label efficacy and safety study of pegloticase with MTX co-treatment was conducted in patients with uncontrolled gout. Patients were administered oral MTX (15 mg/week) and folic acid (1 mg/day) 4 weeks prior to and throughout pegloticase treatment. The primary study outcome was the proportion of responders, defined as serum uric acid (sUA) < 6 mg/dL for ≥ 80% of the time during Month 6 (Weeks 20, 22, and 24). All analyses were performed on a modified intent-to-treat population, defined as patients who received ≥ 1 pegloticase infusion. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were screened and 14 patients (all men, average age 49.3 ± 8.7 years) were enrolled. On Day 1, mean sUA was 9.2 ± 2.5 mg/dL, and 12 of the 14 patients had visible tophi. At the 6-month timepoint, 11/14 (78.6%, 95% CI 49.2-95.3%) met the responder definition, with 3 patients discontinuing after meeting protocol-defined treatment discontinuation rules (preinfusion sUA values > 6 mg/dL at 2 consecutive scheduled visits). All patients tolerated MTX. No new safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSION: In this study, an increased proportion of patients maintained therapeutic response at 6 months when treated concomitantly with MTX and pegloticase as compared to the previously reported 42% using pegloticase alone. These results support the need for a randomized study of MTX or placebo with pegloticase to validate these open-label findings.

Reducing Immunogenicity of Pegloticase With Concomitant Use of Mycophenolate Mofetil in Patients With Refractory Gout: A Phase II, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Pegloticase is used for the treatment of severe gout, but its use is limited by immunogenicity. This study was undertaken to evaluate whether mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) prolongs the efficacy of pegloticase. METHODS: Participants were randomized 3:1 to receive 1,000 mg MMF twice daily or placebo for 14 weeks, starting 2 weeks before receiving pegloticase and continuing while receiving intravenous pegloticase 8 mg biweekly for 12 weeks. Participants then received pegloticase alone from week 12 to week 24. The primary end points were the proportion of patients who sustained a serum urate level of ≤6 mg/dl at 12 weeks and the rate of adverse events (AEs). Secondary end points included 24-week durability of serum urate level ≤6 mg/dl. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's 2-sample test were used for analyses, along with Kaplan-Meier estimates and log rank tests. RESULTS: A total of 32 participants received ≥1 dose of pegloticase. Participants were predominantly men (88%), with a mean age of 55.2 years, mean gout duration of 13.4 years, and mean baseline serum urate level of 9.2 mg/dl. At 12 weeks, a serum urate level of ≤6 mg/dl was achieved in 19 (86%) of 22 participants in the MMF arm compared to 4 (40%) of 10 in the placebo arm (P = 0.01). At week 24, the serum urate level was ≤6 mg/dl in 68% of MMF-treated patients versus 30% of placebo-treated patients (P = 0.06), and rates of AEs were similar between groups, with more infusion reactions occurring in the placebo arm (30% versus 0%). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that MMF therapy with pegloticase is well tolerated and shows a clinically meaningful improvement in targeted serum urate level of ≤6 mg/dl at 12 and 24 weeks. This study suggests an innovative approach to pegloticase therapy in gout.

Course and prognostic factors for neck pain in workers: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders.

STUDY DESIGN: Best-evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To perform a best evidence synthesis on the course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders in workers. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Knowledge of the course of neck pain in workers guides expectations for recovery. Identifying prognostic factors assists in planning effective workplace policies, formulating interventions and promoting lifestyle changes to decrease the frequency and burden of neck pain in the workplace. METHODS: The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: We found 226 articles related to course and prognostic factors in neck pain and its associated disorders. After a critical review, 70 (31%) were accepted on scientific merit; 14 of these studies related to course and prognostic factors in working populations. Between 60% and 80% of workers with neck pain reported neck pain 1 year later. Few workplace or physical job demands were identified as being linked to recovery from neck pain. However, workers with little influence on their own work situation had a slightly poorer prognosis, and white-collar workers had a better prognosis than blue-collar workers. General exercise was associated with better prognosis; prior neck pain and prior sick leave were associated with poorer prognosis. CONCLUSION: The Neck Pain Task Force presents a report of current best evidence on course and prognosis for neck pain. Few modifiable prognostic factors were identified; however, having some influence over one's own job and being physically active seem to hold promise as prognostic factors.

Assessment of neck pain and its associated disorders: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders.

STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on assessment of neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The published literature on assessment of neck pain is large and of variable quality. There have been no prior systematic reviews of this literature. METHODS: The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders conducted a critical review of the literature (published 1980-2006) on assessment tools and screening protocols for traumatic and nontraumatic neck pain. RESULTS: We found 359 articles on assessment of neck pain. After critical review, 95 (35%) were judged scientifically admissible. Screening protocols have high predictive values to detect cervical spine fracture in alert, low-risk patients seeking emergency care after blunt neck trauma. Computerized tomography (CT) scans had better validity (in adults and elderly) than radiographs in assessing high-risk and/or multi-injured blunt trauma neck patients. In the absence of serious pathology, clinical physical examinations are more predictive at excluding than confirming structural lesions causing neurologic compression. One exception is the manual provocation test for cervical radiculopathy, which has high positive predictive value. There was no evidence that specific MRI findings are associated with neck pain, cervicogenic headache, or whiplash exposure. No evidence supports using cervical provocative discography, anesthetic facet, or medial branch blocks in evaluating neck pain. Reliable and valid self-report questionnaires are useful in assessing pain, function, disability, and psychosocial status in individuals with neck pain. CONCLUSION: The scientific evidence supports screening protocols in emergency care for low-risk patients; and CT-scans for high-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck. In nonemergency neck pain without radiculopathy, the validity of most commonly used objective tests is lacking. There is support for subjective self-report assessment in monitoring patients' course, response to treatment, and in clinical research.

Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders.

STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To identify, critically appraise, and synthesize literature from 1980 through 2006 on noninvasive interventions for neck pain and its associated disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No comprehensive systematic literature reviews have been published on interventions for neck pain and its associated disorders in the past decade. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline and screened for relevance literature published from 1980 through 2006 on the use, effectiveness, and safety of noninvasive interventions for neck pain and associated disorders. Consensus decisions were made about the scientific merit of each article; those judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 359 invasive and noninvasive intervention articles deemed relevant, 170 (47%) were accepted as scientifically admissible, and 139 of these related to noninvasive interventions (including health care utilization, costs, and safety). For whiplash-associated disorders, there is evidence that educational videos, mobilization, and exercises appear more beneficial than usual care or physical modalities. For other neck pain, the evidence suggests that manual and supervised exercise interventions, low-level laser therapy, and perhaps acupuncture are more effective than no treatment, sham, or alternative interventions; however, none of the active treatments was clearly superior to any other in either the short- or long-term. For both whiplash-associated disorders and other neck pain without radicular symptoms, interventions that focused on regaining function as soon as possible are relatively more effective than interventions that do not have such a focus. CONCLUSION: Our best evidence synthesis suggests that therapies involving manual therapy and exercise are more effective than alternative strategies for patients with neck pain; this was also true of therapies which include educational interventions addressing self-efficacy. Future efforts should focus on the study of noninvasive interventions for patients with radicular symptoms and on the design and evaluation of neck pain prevention strategies.

A new conceptual model of neck pain: linking onset, course, and care: the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders.

STUDY DESIGN: Iterative discussion and consensus by a multidisciplinary task force scientific secretariat reviewing scientific evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. OBJECTIVE: To provide an integrated model for linking the epidemiology of neck pain with its management and consequences, and to help organize and interpret existing knowledge, and to highlight gaps in the current literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The wide variability of scientific and clinical approaches to neck pain described in the literature requires a unified conceptual model for appropriate interpretation of the research evidence. METHODS: The 12-member Scientific Secretariat of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders critically reviewed and eventually accepted as scientifically admissible a total of 552 scientific papers. The group met face-to-face on 18 occasions and had frequent additional telephone conference meetings over a 6-year period to discuss and interpret this literature and to agree on a conceptual model, which would accommodate findings. Models and definitions published in the scientific literature were discussed and repeatedly modified until the model and case definitions presented here were finally approved by the group. RESULTS: Our new conceptual model is centered on the person with neck pain or who is at risk for neck pain. Neck pain is viewed as an episodic occurrence over a lifetime with variable recovery between episodes. The model outlines the options available to individuals who are dealing with neck pain, along with factors that determine options, choices, and consequences. The short- and long-term impacts of neck pain are also considered. Finally, the model includes a 5-axis classification of neck pain studies based on how subjects were recruited into each study. CONCLUSION: The Scientific Secretariat found the conceptual model helpful in interpreting the available scientific evidence. We believe it can assist people with neck pain, researchers, clinicians, and policy makers in framing their questions and decisions.

Research priorities and methodological implications: the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders.

STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To report on gaps in the literature and make methodologic recommendations based on our review of the literature on frequency and risk factors, assessment, intervention, and course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The scientific literature on neck pain is large and of variable quality. We reviewed 1203 studies and judged 46% to be of sufficient scientific validity to be included in the best evidence synthesis. Scientific quality varied across study topics, and fundamental questions remain about important issues. METHODS: The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: We outline a large number of gaps in the current literature. For example, we found important gaps in our knowledge about neck pain in children (risk factors, screening criteria to rule out serious injury, management, course and prognosis); and in the prevention of neck pain-related activity limitations. Few studies addressed the impact of culture or social policies (such as governmental health policies or insurance compensation policies) on neck pain. A number of important questions remain about the effectiveness of commonly used interventions for neck pain. CONCLUSION: The Neck Pain Task Force undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the course and prognosis for whiplash-associated disorders. We identify a number of gaps in the current knowledge, and provide recommendations for the conduct of future studies.