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.

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 .).

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.

Efficacy and safety of golimumab as add-on therapy to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: results of the GO-MORE study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous golimumab as add-on therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment. To evaluate an intravenous plus subcutaneous (IV+SC) golimumab strategy in patients who had not attained remission. METHODS: GO-MORE was an open-label, multinational, prospective study in patients with active RA in typical clinical practice settings. In part 1, patients received add-on monthly 50-mg subcutaneous golimumab for 6 months. The percentage of patients with good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) response was compared in patient subgroups with various concurrent or previous DMARD treatments. In part 2, patients with EULAR responses but not remission were randomly assigned to receive IV+SC or subcutaneous golimumab to month 12; DAS28-ESR remission was measured. RESULTS: 3366 patients were enrolled. At baseline of part 1, 3280 efficacy-evaluable patients had mean disease duration of 7.6 years and mean DAS28-ESR of 5.97 (SD=1.095). At month 6, 82.1% achieved good/moderate EULAR responses and 23.9% attained remission. When EULAR responses were analysed by the number of previously failed DMARD or the concomitant methotrexate dose, DMARD type, or corticosteroid use, no statistically significant differences were observed. Part 2 patients (N=490) who received IV+SC or subcutaneous golimumab achieved similar remission rates (∼25%). Adverse events were consistent with previous reports of golimumab and other tumour necrosis antagonists in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Add-on monthly subcutaneous golimumab resulted in good/moderate EULAR response in most patients; 25% achieved remission after 6 more months of golimumab, but an IV+SC regimen provided no additional efficacy over the subcutaneous regimen.

Safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab in combination with methotrexate in MTX-naive subjects with rheumatoid arthritis: the phase III FILM trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab (OCR) with methotrexate (MTX) in MTX-naive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial, patients received placebo+MTX (MTX; n=210), OCR 200 mg×2+MTX (OCR 200; n=200) or OCR 500 mg×2+MTX (OCR 500; n=203). OCR/placebo (two intravenous infusions) was given on days 1 and 15, with fixed re-treatment scheduled at weeks 24/26, 52/54 and 76/78. Due to early termination of OCR dosing, there was no formal primary end point analysis (change from baseline in modified total Sharp score (ΔmTSS) at week 104). Analyses are reported for week 52 outcomes. RESULTS: At week 52, treatment with OCR+MTX compared with MTX alone reduced progression of joint damage (mean (SD) change in ΔmTSS: OCR 200, 0.66 (4.51); OCR 500, 0.27 (2.91); MTX alone, 1.59 (4.82); p=0.001 and p=0.003, respectively vs MTX alone) and improved clinical signs and symptoms (American College of Rheumatology 20 response: OCR 200, 73.0%; OCR 500, 71.0%; MTX alone, 57.5%; p<0.005 for each OCR vs MTX alone). Serious infection rates per 100 patient-years were similar with OCR 200 and MTX alone (2.6 (95% CI 0.9 to 6.1) and 3.0 (1.1 to 6.5), respectively), but higher with OCR 500 (7.1 (3.9 to 11.9)). CONCLUSIONS: OCR 200 mg and 500 mg with MTX in MTX-naive patients with RA were effective in inhibiting joint damage progression and improving RA signs and symptoms. OCR 500 mg with MTX was associated with an increased rate of serious infections.

Definition and management of very high fracture risk in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a position statement from the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) and the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism (ABRASSO).

Several drugs are available for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Over the last decades, most patients requiring pharmacological intervention were offered antiresorptive drugs as first-line therapy, while anabolic agents were considered a last resource for those with therapeutic failure. However, recent randomized trials in patients with severe osteoporosis have shown that anabolic agents reduce fractures to a greater extent than antiresorptive medications. Additionally, evidence indicates that increases in bone mineral density (BMD) are maximized when patients are treated with anabolic agents first, followed by antiresorptive therapy. This evidence is key, considering that greater increases in BMD during osteoporosis treatment are associated with a more pronounced reduction in fracture risk. Thus, international guidelines have recently proposed an individualized approach to osteoporosis treatment based on fracture risk stratification, in which the stratification risk has been refined to include a category of patients at very high risk of fracture who should be managed with anabolic agents as first-line therapy. In this document, the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism and the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism propose the definition of very high risk of osteoporotic fracture in postmenopausal women, for whom anabolic agents should be considered as first-line therapy. This document also reviews the factors associated with increased fracture risk, trials comparing anabolic versus antiresorptive agents, efficacy of anabolic agents in patients who are treatment naïve versus those previously treated with antiresorptive agents, and safety of anabolic agents.

An updated hip fracture incidence rate for Brazil: the Brazilian Validation Osteoporosis Study (BRAVOS).

Hip fracture incidence rates in three representative geographic areas in Brazil over a period of 2 years (2010-2012) were assessed for the first time. Estimated incidence rates varied regionally, and markedly differed from those previously reported. Thus, national guidelines as well as FRAX Brazil should be revised in light of this new data. PURPOSE: To determine the annual incidence of hip fractures in individuals aged 50 years and over, living in 3 cities located in different regions of the country. To investigate the age, gender, and regional differences in fracture rates. Based on the obtained data, to estimate the national incidence of hip fractures resulting from osteoporosis, in order to improve prevention strategies. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study including all patients aged ≥ 50 years admitted in hospitals because of a hip fracture in three cities (Belem, Joinville, and Vitoria) from representative geographic areas in Brazil from 2010 to 2012. Data were obtained from medical records in those cities. We analyzed incidence rates (crude and age- and gender-standardized rates) for hip fractures. RESULTS: There were 1025 (310 in men and 715 in women) hip fractures in the over 50-year-old merged population from the three cities. The crude incidence rate for hip fracture was 103.3/100,000 (95% confidence interval [CI = 97.0; 109.7), in men 77.4/100,000 (95% CI = 68.8; 86.0), and in women 125.2/100,000 (95% CI = 116.0; 134.4). Incidence standardized for age and gender was 105.9 cases per 100,000 persons per year (95% CI = 99.4; 112.4); 78.5 cases per 100,000 (95% CI = 69.8; 87.3) in men and 130.6 cases 100,000 in women (95% CI = 121.0, 140.2) per year. Belem, located in the equatorial region (latitude 1° 27' S), had significantly lower crude and age-adjusted incidence than Joinville (latitude 26° 18' S) and Vitoria (latitude 20° 19' S), which were no different from each other. The incidence of fractures increased exponentially with age, and women had about twice the risk of fractures than men. CONCLUSIONS: Hip fracture mainly affects elderly women and presents great variability in incidence between the different regions in Brazil. The incidence of hip fractures in Brazil differed markedly from that reported previously, so that national guidelines and the FRAX model for Brazil should be revised.

Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: an update of Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (2020).

The Brazilian guidelines for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis were updated and important topics were included such as assessment of risk fracture using FRAX Brazil, use of denosumab, and also recommendations for the use of glucocorticoid pulse therapy and inhaled glucocortiocoid. INTRODUCTION: Glucocorticoids (GCs) are used in almost all medical specialties and the incidences of vertebral/nonvertebral fractures range from 30 to 50% in individuals treated with GCs for over 3 months. Thus, osteoporosis and frailty fractures should be prevented and treated in patients initiating treatment or already being treated with GCs. The Committee for Osteoporosis and Bone Metabolic Disorders of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (BSR) established in 2012 the Brazilian Guidelines for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO). Herein, we provide a comprehensive update of the original guidelines based on improved available scientific evidence and/or expert experience. METHODS: From March to June 2020, the Osteoporosis Committee of the BRS had meetings to update the questions presented in the first consensus (2012). Thus, twenty-six questions considered essential for the preparation of the recommendations were selected. A systematic literature review based on real-life scenarios was undertaken to answer the proposed questions. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases were searched using specific search keywords. RESULTS: Based on the review and expert opinion, the recommendations were updated for each of the 26 questions. We included 48 new bibliographic references that became available after the date of the publication of the first version of the consensus. CONCLUSION: We updated the Brazilian guidelines for the prevention/treatment of GIO. New topics were added in this update, such as the assessment of risk fracture using FRAX Brazil, the use of denosumab, and approaches for the treatment of children and adolescents. Furthermore, we included recommendations for the use of inhaled GCs and GC pulse therapy in clinical settings.

Romosozumab improves lumbar spine bone mass and bone strength parameters relative to alendronate in postmenopausal women: results from the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH) trial.

The Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH) trial (NCT01631214; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01631214) showed that romosozumab for 1 year followed by alendronate led to larger areal bone mineral density (aBMD) gains and superior fracture risk reduction versus alendronate alone. aBMD correlates with bone strength but does not capture all determinants of bone strength that might be differentially affected by various osteoporosis therapeutic agents. We therefore used quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and finite element analysis (FEA) to assess changes in lumbar spine volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), bone volume, bone mineral content (BMC), and bone strength with romosozumab versus alendronate in a subset of ARCH patients. In ARCH, 4093 postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis received monthly romosozumab 210 mg sc or weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for 12 months, followed by open-label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for ≥12 months. Of these, 90 (49 romosozumab, 41 alendronate) enrolled in the QCT/FEA imaging substudy. QCT scans at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 24 were assessed to determine changes in integral (total), cortical, and trabecular lumbar spine vBMD and corresponding bone strength by FEA. Additional outcomes assessed include changes in aBMD, bone volume, and BMC. Romosozumab caused greater gains in lumbar spine integral, cortical, and trabecular vBMD and BMC than alendronate at months 6 and 12, with the greater gains maintained upon transition to alendronate through month 24. These improvements were accompanied by significantly greater increases in FEA bone strength (p < 0.001 at all time points). Most newly formed bone was accrued in the cortical compartment, with romosozumab showing larger absolute BMC gains than alendronate (p < 0.001 at all time points). In conclusion, romosozumab significantly improved bone mass and bone strength parameters at the lumbar spine compared with alendronate. These results are consistent with greater vertebral fracture risk reduction observed with romosozumab versus alendronate in ARCH and provide insights into structural determinants of this differential treatment effect. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, phase III study of baricitinib versus placebo in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate therapy: results from the RA-BALANCE study.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: This was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, phase III study in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX. Patients (n = 290) receiving stable background MTX were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive placebo or baricitinib 4 mg once daily with a primary endpoint at week 12. PROs assessed included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, patient's assessment of pain, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Level index scores and visual analogue scale, and measures collected in electronic patient daily diaries: duration of morning joint stiffness, Worst Tiredness, and Worst Joint Pain. Treatment comparisons were made with logistic regression and analysis of covariance models for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Statistically significant (p ⩽ 0.05) improvements in all PROs were observed in the baricitinib 4 mg group compared to placebo as early as week 1 to week 4; and were sustained to week 24. These improvements were maintained until week 52 for the baricitinib group. A significantly larger proportion of patients met or exceeded the minimum clinically important difference for HAQ-DI (⩾0.22) and FACIT-F (3.56) profiles in the baricitinib group. CONCLUSION: Baricitinib provided significant improvements in PROs compared to placebo to 52 weeks of treatment in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02265705; NCT02265705; RA-BALANCE. Registered 13 October 2014.

Efficacy and Safety of Long-Term Baricitinib With and Without Methotrexate for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Experience With Baricitinib Monotherapy Continuation or After Switching From Methotrexate Monotherapy or Baricitinib Plus Methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of maintaining baricitinib monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) originally treated with baricitinib monotherapy or switched from methotrexate (MTX) or the combination of baricitinib plus MTX to baricitinib monotherapy. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of patients from the RA-BEGIN study who entered a long-term extension, RA-BEYOND, and were assessed for up to 24 weeks. In RA-BEGIN, MTX-naive patients with early active RA were randomized to MTX monotherapy, baricitinib 4 mg monotherapy, or baricitinib 4 mg plus MTX. At week 52, all patients entering RA-BEYOND received baricitinib 4 mg monotherapy. MTX could be prescribed during RA-BEYOND at the investigator's discretion. RESULTS: Patients in RA-BEYOND who were not rescued in RA-BEGIN (n = 423) were evaluated. Of these, 47% continued baricitinib monotherapy and 53% added MTX, with similar proportions from the 3 original arms. Patients with lower disease activity at the RA-BEYOND baseline generally continued to do well with baricitinib monotherapy as assessed by the Simplified Disease Activity Index, the Clinical Disease Activity Index, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index scores. Patients prescribed MTX had higher disease activity at the RA-BEYOND baseline and had improved disease activity after the addition of MTX. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Many patients responded well to continued baricitinib monotherapy or to switching to baricitinib monotherapy from MTX monotherapy or baricitinib plus MTX, showing sustained or improved disease control. The groups of patients who had less disease control on their original therapies showed sustained or improved disease control with the addition of MTX to baricitinib.

Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib in Chinese Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients and the Subgroup Analyses: Results from Study RA-BALANCE.

INTRODUCTION: Baricitinib is an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK 2, which has demonstrated significant efficacy in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis aims to describe the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in Chinese RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR), and to analyze the effects of baseline characteristics on the efficacy of baricitinib treatment. METHODS: In this 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 231 Chinese patients with moderately to severely active RA who had MTX-IR were randomly assigned to placebo (n = 115) or baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n = 116). The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 12. Other efficacy measures included ACR50, ACR70, Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, patient's assessment of pain, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, remission and low disease activity rates according to Simplified Disease Activity Index or Clinical Disease Activity Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, and mean duration and severity of morning joint stiffness, worst tiredness and worst joint pain were analyzed. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed across baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvement in ACR20 response was achieved with baricitinib at week 12 (53.4 vs. 22.6%, p = 0.001) in Chinese patients, compared to placebo. Most of the secondary objectives were met with statistically significant improvements. Efficacy of baricitinib was irrespective of patient demographics and baseline characteristics. Safety events were similar between the baricitinib and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of baricitinib 4 mg in Chinese patients with moderately to severely active RA and prior MTX-IR was clinically significant compared to placebo regardless of baseline characteristics. Baricitinib was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile during the full study period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02265705.

Serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D and the risk of fractures in the teriparatide versus risedronate VERO clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Using data from the 2-year, randomized, double-dummy VERO trial, we examined the changes in 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations over time, and whether the fracture risk reduction of teriparatide versus risedronate varies by baseline 25(OH)D sufficiency category. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis received subcutaneous daily teriparatide 20 µg or oral weekly risedronate 35 mg, with concomitant 500-1000 mg of elemental calcium and 400-800 IU/day of vitamin D supplements. Fracture endpoints were analyzed by predefined subgroups of 25(OH)D insufficient and sufficient patients. Heterogeneity of the treatment effect on fractures was investigated by logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: At baseline, mean serum 25(OH)D was 31.9 ng/mL in the teriparatide group and 31.5 ng/mL in the risedronate group, and 16.8% and 17.9% of patients, respectively, were 25(OH)D insufficient. At month 6, the mean serum 25(OH)D concentration decreased in teriparatide-treated patients to 24.5 ng/mL (by approximately 23%) but remained relatively constant in risedronate-treated patients (32.2 ng/mL) (p < 0.001). Proportions of 25(OH)D insufficient patients at month 6 were 26.7% and 5.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). The risk reduction with teriparatide versus risedronate for any of the fracture endpoints did not significantly differ between subgroups by 25(OH)D sufficiency status at baseline, with nonsignificant (p > 0.1) treatment-by-25(OH)D interactions in all fracture analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Serum 25(OH)D concentration decreases during teriparatide treatment. Fracture risk reduction with teriparatide versus risedronate did not significantly differ between the two groups of patients defined by baseline 25(OH)D. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110 EudraCT Number: 2012-000123-41.