Peficitinib, a JAK Inhibitor, in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients With an Inadequate Response to Methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of orally administered once-daily peficitinib in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to MTX. METHODS: In this multinational, phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial, patients with RA (n = 378) were treated with peficitinib 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, or 150 mg plus MTX, or matching placebo plus MTX once daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at week 12. RESULTS: ACR20 response rates at week 12 were 43.9%, 61.5% (P < 0.05 versus placebo), 46.4%, 57.7%, and 44.4% in the peficitinib 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Significant decreases from baseline in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level were seen in the peficitinib 50 mg (P < 0.05) and 150 mg (P < 0.01) groups compared with placebo at week 12. Overall, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between peficitinib and placebo. The most common AEs were urinary tract infection (n = 22 [6%]), upper respiratory tract infection (n = 16 [4%]), and diarrhea (n = 16 [4%]). There were 3 cases of herpes zoster infection (2 in the peficitinib 100 mg group and 1 in the 150 mg group) and 2 cases of serious infection (viral infection in the peficitinib 100 mg group and erysipelas in the 150 mg group). CONCLUSION: The ACR20 response rate in the group receiving peficitinib 50 mg plus MTX was significantly different compared with the rate in patients receiving placebo, but there were no apparent dose-dependent responses, and the placebo response rate was high. Peficitinib plus MTX in patients with moderate-to-severe RA was well tolerated, with limited safety signals emerging.

Tabalumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate and naive to biologic therapy: a phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Tabalumab, a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody, neutralizes soluble and membrane-bound BAFF. The aim of this study was to examine the tolerability and efficacy of tabalumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel, multiple-dose study, patients who were naive to biologic therapy received infusions of tabalumab (30, 60, or 160 mg) or placebo at weeks 0, 3, and 6 in combination with methotrexate and were evaluated for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of patients meeting American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at week 16. RESULTS: At week 16, the percentages of patients achieving an ACR20 response in the 30-mg (57.6%), 60-mg (67.6%), and 160-mg (51.5%) groups were significantly greater than the percentage of patients achieving an ACR20 response in the placebo group (29.4%; P<0.05). There were initial transient increases from baseline in the frequency of CD20+ and IgD+/CD27- B cells, followed by reductions, although B cells were not completely depleted. Also, the frequency of IgD-/CD27+ B cells increased in all tabalumab groups compared with the placebo group and returned toward baseline levels by the end of the study. The incidence of adverse events was similar across all treatment groups; no deaths occurred. Serum IgM levels decreased significantly in all tabalumab groups combined compared with the placebo group. There were no significant decreases in serum IgG or IgA levels in the tabalumab groups compared with the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Tabalumab treatment significantly reduces the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and has a safety profile similar to that seen with placebo treatment.

Safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to at least one tumor necrosis factor inhibitor: results of a forty-eight­week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase III trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab plus methotrexate (MTX) or leflunomide (LEF) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors. METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study that continued over 48 weeks. Patients receiving stable doses of MTX or LEF were randomized to receive 2 infusions of placebo (n = 277), ocrelizumab 200 mg (n = 278), or ocrelizumab 500 mg (n = 285) on days 1 and 15 as well as at weeks 24 and 26. Coprimary end points were the proportion of patients with response according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at weeks 24 and 48. Secondary end points included the change from baseline in the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS) and the ACR50/70 responses. RESULTS: ACR20 responses were 22.0% in the placebo group, 42.2% in the ocrelizumab 200 mg group, and 47.9% in the ocrelizumab 500 mg group at 24 weeks and 19.5%, 48.7%, and 50.7%, respectively, at 48 weeks (P < 0.0001 versus placebo for each comparison at each time point). At 48 weeks, patients receiving both doses of ocrelizumab showed significantly improved ACR50 and ACR70 responses of ~3-fold versus placebo. Only those in the ocrelizumab 500 mg group showed statistically significant (P = 0.0017) inhibition of joint damage progression (mean change in the SHS) relative to placebo (61% inhibition) at 48 weeks. Overall adverse events and infections during the 48 weeks of study were comparable in all treatment groups. Serious infections were observed more frequently in patients taking ocrelizumab (5.1% and 4.3%) than in those taking placebo (2.5%). CONCLUSION: Patients in both of the ocrelizumab groups met the clinical primary efficacy end points. Inhibition of change in the SHS was statistically significant at 48 weeks for those in the ocrelizumab 500 mg group. The rate of serious infections in this trial was higher for both ocrelizumab doses as compared with placebo.

Subcutaneous abatacept versus intravenous abatacept: a phase IIIb noninferiority study in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) abatacept. METHODS: In this phase IIIb double-blind, double-dummy, 6-month study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate responses to methotrexate were randomized to receive 125 mg SC abatacept on days 1 and 8 and weekly thereafter (plus an IV loading dose [∼10 mg/kg] on day 1) or IV abatacept (∼10 mg/kg) on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 4 weeks thereafter. The primary end point for determining the noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept was the proportion of patients in each group meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at month 6. Other efficacy end points, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 1,457 patients, 693 of 736 (94.2%) treated with SC abatacept and 676 of 721 (93.8%) treated with IV abatacept completed 6 months. At month 6, 76.0% (95% confidence interval 72.9, 79.2) of SC abatacept-treated patients versus 75.8% (95% confidence interval 72.6, 79.0) of IV abatacept-treated patients achieved an ACR20 response (estimated difference between groups 0.3% [95% confidence interval -4.2, 4.8]), confirming noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept. Onset and magnitude of ACR responses and disease activity and physical function improvements were comparable between the SC and IV abatacept-treated groups. The proportions of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs over 6 months were 67.0% and 4.2%, respectively, in the SC abatacept-treated group and 65.2% and 4.9%, respectively, in the IV abatacept-treated group, with comparable frequencies of serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events between groups. SC injection site reactions (mostly mild) occurred in 19 SC abatacept (IV placebo)-treated patients (2.6%) and 18 IV abatacept (SC placebo)-treated patients (2.5%). Abatacept-induced antibodies occurred in 1.1% of SC abatacept-treated patients and 2.3% of IV abatacept-treated patients. CONCLUSION: SC abatacept provides efficacy and safety comparable with that of IV abatacept, with low immunogenicity and high retention rates, consistent with the established IV abatacept profile. Rates of injection site reactions were low. SC abatacept will provide additional treatment options, such as an alternative route of administration, for patients with RA.

Atacicept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor antagonist therapy: results of a phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, safety, and biologic activity of atacicept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom the response to treatment with tumor necrosis factor antagonists was inadequate. METHODS: The Atacicept for Reduction of Signs and Symptoms in Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (AUGUST I) was a multicenter, phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding study involving 256 patients randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive atacicept (25 mg, 75 mg, or 150 mg) or placebo twice weekly for 4 weeks, then weekly for 21 weeks, with a 13-week treatment-free followup period (week 38). The primary end point was a response at week 26 according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement in disease severity, using the C-reactive protein level. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in the efficacy end points at week 26 (P = 0.410 for overall treatment effect). However, atacicept significantly reduced immunoglobulin and rheumatoid factor (RF) levels, but not anti-citrullinated protein antibody levels, in a dose-dependent manner, with levels returning toward baseline values during followup. The effects of treatment on IgG-RF and IgA-RF were more pronounced than the effects on total IgG and IgA. Adverse events (AEs), including serious AEs, leading to withdrawal were more common among patients treated with atacicept compared with placebo. AEs were variable in nature, and no dose-dependent trends were observed. The frequency of infection-related AEs was similar across treatments. No notable effect of treatment on immunization status (protective versus nonprotective titer) was observed after initiation of treatment. CONCLUSION: This study did not meet the primary efficacy end point. However, clear biologic activity consistent with the proposed mechanism of action was observed. The results suggest that decreasing the expression of RF may not be sufficient to induce clinical improvement in RA. The safety of atacicept was considered acceptable in this patient population.

LY2439821, a humanized anti-interleukin-17 monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A phase I randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study.

OBJECTIVE: We undertook this study to evaluate safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of LY2439821, a humanized anti-interleukin-17 (anti-IL-17) monoclonal antibody, in a first in-human trial in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients taking oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study consisted of 2 parts. In part A, 20 patients received 1 intravenous (IV) dose of LY2439821 (0.06, 0.2, 0.6, or 2.0 mg/kg, escalating) or placebo followed by 8 weeks of evaluation. End points included safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics. In part B, 77 patients received 1 IV dose of LY2439821 (0.2, 0.6, or 2.0 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks for a total of 5 doses, with a total evaluation period of 16 weeks. End points included safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, and efficacy (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28] and percentages of patients meeting American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement criteria [achieving an ACR20, ACR50, or ACR70 response]). The primary efficacy end point was the DAS28 at week 10. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar across all groups. Changes in the DAS28 were significantly greater in the 0.2 mg/kg, 2.0 mg/kg, and all-LY2439821-combined groups (-2.3, -2.4, and -2.3, respectively) than in the placebo group (-1.7) at week 10 (P < or = 0.05), and these differences were significant as early as week 1. Percentages of ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses as well as improvements in the ACR core set of measures were greater in LY2439821-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients at multiple time points. There was no apparent dose-response relationship in treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION: LY2439821 added to oral DMARDs improved signs and symptoms of RA, with no strong adverse safety signal noted. This first evaluation of LY2439821 supports neutralization of IL-17 as a potential novel goal for the treatment of RA.

Comparison of tocilizumab monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: the AMBITION study.

BACKGROUND: The anti-interleukin (IL) 6 receptor antibody tocilizumab inhibits signalling of IL6, a key cytokine in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pathogenesis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate through the AMBITION study the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab monotherapy versus methotrexate in patients with active RA for whom previous treatment with methotrexate/biological agents had not failed. METHODS: This 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, randomised 673 patients to either tocilizumab 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, or methotrexate, starting at 7.5 mg/week and titrated to 20 mg/week within 8 weeks, or placebo for 8 weeks followed by tocilizumab 8 mg/kg. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 24. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated that tocilizumab was better than methotrexate treatment with a higher ACR20 response (69.9 vs 52.5%; p<0.001), and 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) <2.6 rate (33.6 vs 12.1%) at week 24. Mean high-sensitivity C-reactive protein was within the normal range from week 12 with tocilizumab, whereas levels remained elevated with methotrexate. The incidence of serious adverse events with tocilizumab was 3.8% versus 2.8% with methotrexate (p = 0.50), and of serious infections, 1.4% versus 0.7%, respectively. There was a higher incidence of reversible grade 3 neutropenia (3.1% vs 0.4%) and increased total cholesterol > or =240 mg/dl (13.2% vs 0.4%), and a lower incidence of alanine aminotransferase elevations >3x-<5x upper limit of normal (1.0% vs 2.5%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab monotherapy is better than methotrexate monotherapy, with rapid improvement in RA signs and symptoms, and a favourable benefit-risk, in patients for whom treatment with methotrexate or biological agents has not previously failed.

Safety of biological therapies following rituximab treatment in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients following rituximab. METHODS: RA patients who participated in an international rituximab clinical trial programme were included. Patients who had received one or more rituximab courses and entered safety follow-up (SFU) were permitted additional biological DMARD. Serious infection events (SIE) were collected. RESULTS: Of 185 of 2578 patients who entered SFU and received another biological DMARD, 88.6% had peripheral B-cell depletion at the time of initiation of another biological agent. Thirteen SIE (6.99 events/100 patient-years) occurred following rituximab but before another biological DMARD and 10 SIE (5.49 events/100 patient-years) occurred following another biological DMARD. SIE were of typical type and severity for RA patients. 153 had received one or more tumour necrosis factor inhibitor(s). No fatal or opportunistic infections occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, treatment with biological DMARD after rituximab was not associated with an increased serious infection rate. Sample size with limited follow-up restricts definitive conclusions.

Golimumab, a human antibody to tumour necrosis factor {alpha} given by monthly subcutaneous injections, in active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy: the GO-FORWARD Study.

OBJECTIVE: The phase III GO-FORWARD study examined the efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 3 : 3 : 2 : 2 ratio to receive placebo injections plus methotrexate capsules (group 1, n = 133), golimumab 100 mg injections plus placebo capsules (group 2, n = 133), golimumab 50 mg injections plus methotrexate capsules (group 3, n = 89), or golimumab 100 mg injections plus methotrexate capsules (group 4, n = 89). Injections were administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with 20% or greater improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 14 and the change from baseline in the health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI) score at week 24. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who achieved an ACR20 response at week 14 was 33.1% in the placebo plus methotrexate group, 44.4% (p = 0.059) in the golimumab 100 mg plus placebo group, 55.1% (p = 0.001) in the golimumab 50 mg plus methotrexate group and 56.2% (p<0.001) in the golimumab 100 mg plus methotrexate group. At week 24, median improvements from baseline in HAQ-DI scores were 0.13, 0.13 (p = 0.240), 0.38 (p<0.001) and 0.50 (p<0.001), respectively. During the placebo-controlled portion of the study (to week 16), serious adverse events occurred in 2.3%, 3.8%, 5.6% and 9.0% of patients and serious infections occurred in 0.8%, 0.8%, 2.2% and 5.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The addition of golimumab to methotrexate in patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy significantly reduced the signs and symptoms of RA and improved physical function.

Rituximab inhibits structural joint damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if treatment with a B cell-targeted therapy can inhibit the progression of structural joint damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), exhibiting an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. METHODS: In this phase III study, patients with an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor and receiving methotrexate were randomised to rituximab or placebo. Radiographs were obtained at baseline, week 24 and week 56 after randomisation. Patients with an inadequate response to their randomised therapy could receive rescue medication from week 16. From week 24, eligible patients from both treatment arms could receive open-label rituximab. Patients were analysed according to their original treatment group. Radiographs were scored using the Genant-modified Sharp method. The primary radiographic endpoint was change in total Genant-modified Sharp score at week 56. RESULTS: Rituximab treatment caused significant reduction in joint damage progression compared with placebo. The mean change from baseline in the total Genant-modified Sharp score at week 56 was significantly lower for patients treated with rituximab than for patients treated with placebo (1.00 vs 2.31; p = 0.005), and was supported by changes in erosion score (0.59 and 1.32 for rituximab plus methotrexate vs placebo plus methotrexate, respectively; p = 0.011) and joint space narrowing score (0.41 and 0.99, respectively; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first evidence that a B cell-targeted therapy-rituximab-can significantly inhibit the progression of structural joint damage in patients with RA with long-standing, active and treatment-resistant disease.

The 6-month safety and efficacy of abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who underwent a washout after anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy or were directly switched to abatacept: the ARRIVE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, tolerability and efficacy of abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had failed anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy and were switched to abatacept directly or after completing washout. METHODS: In this international, 6-month, open-label trial, patients had active RA, an inadequate response to anti-TNF therapy for 3 months or longer and a disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28 (C-reactive protein; CRP) of 5.1 or greater. "Washout" patients discontinued anti-TNF therapy 2 months or longer pre-screening; "direct-switch" patients began abatacept ( approximately 10 mg/kg) at their next scheduled anti-TNF therapy dose. RESULTS: 1046 patients were treated (449 washout, 597 direct-switch; baseline characteristics were similar between groups). At 6 months, adverse events (AE; 78.0% vs 79.2%), serious AE (11.1% vs 9.9%) and discontinuations due to AE (3.8% vs 4.0%) and serious AE (2.0% vs 1.3%) were comparable in washout versus direct-switch patients. There were no opportunistic infections. At 6 months, in washout versus direct-switch patients, similar clinically meaningful improvements were seen in DAS28 (CRP) (> or =1.2 unit improvement, 59.5% vs 53.6%, respectively; low disease activity state, 22.5% vs 22.3%; DAS28-defined remission, 12.0% vs 13.7%), physical function (health assessment questionnaire disability index > or =0.22 improvement; 46.3% vs 47.1%) and health-related quality of life (mean change in short-form 36 scores: physical component summary, 5.5 vs 6.1; mental component summary, 4.8 vs 5.4). CONCLUSION: Abatacept demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability and clinically meaningful efficacy over 6 months in patients with inadequate response to anti-TNF therapy. Results were comparable with or without a washout, supporting direct switching from anti-TNF therapy to abatacept as an option in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00124982.

Efficacy and safety of the selective co-stimulation modulator abatacept following 2 years of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of abatacept during 2 years of the ATTAIN (Abatacept Trial in Treatment of Anti-TNF INadequate responders) trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Patients completing the 6-month, double-blind period were eligible to enter the long-term extension; patients received abatacept approximately 10 mg/kg, plus disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Safety and efficacy (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria responses, DAS28 (C-reactive protein), HAQ-DI, SF-36, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Problems Index, fatigue VAS) were assessed through 2 years. RESULTS: 317 patients (218 from the abatacept and 99 from the placebo group) entered and 222 (70%) completed 18 months of long-term extension treatment. The incidence and type of adverse events were consistent between the double-blind and cumulative (double-blind plus long-term extension) periods. Rates of serious adverse events were 25.6 and 23.4 per 100 patient-years in the double-blind versus cumulative period. At 6 months and 2 years, using non-responder analyses, ACR responses in abatacept-treated patients were: ACR 20, 59.4% and 56.2%; ACR 50, 23.5% and 33.2%; ACR 70, 11.5% and 16.1%; HAQ-DI responses were 54.4% and 47.9%. At 6 months and 2 years, using post-hoc as-observed analyses, the percentage of patients (95% confidence interval) achieving DAS28 (C-reactive protein) low disease activity score (< or = 3.2) and DAS28 (C-reactive protein)-defined remission (< 2.6) increased from 18.3% (13.0, 23.5) to 32.0% (24.6, 39.4) and 11.1% (6.8, 15.3) to 20.3% (13.9, 26.6). Clinically meaningful improvements in SF-36, pain, fatigue and sleep problems were also maintained throughout the 2 years of abatacept treatment. CONCLUSION: No unique safety observations were reported during open-label exposure. Improvements in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, physical function and health-related quality of life observed after 6 months, were maintained throughout the 2 years in this population with difficult-to-treat disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00124982.

Efficacy results from pivotal clinical trials with abatacept.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a prevalent systemic disease that causes significant joint dysfunction and disability. Dramatic improvements in the management of RA have been achieved with the use of biologic therapies aimed at cytokines, and B and T lymphocytes. Abatacept, a soluble receptor-IgG fusion protein that interferes with T-cell co-stimulation, has now been shown to improve symptoms, signs and function in RA, while also slowing radiographic progression. The degree of improvement in these measures is comparable to that seen with other biologic agents.Abatacept is effective in a range of RA patients that are encountered in clinical practice, namely methotrexate-inadequate responders, as well patients with inadequate responses to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and patients with co-morbidities common in an aging population. When used for up to 2 years, abatacept appears to be safe and remains efficacious, although there is a trend toward increased infection rates when used in combination with other biologic therapies, as well as a trend toward more adverse events when used in a background of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Backed by these data, ongoing extensions of these trials, and additional new studies, abatacept represents the first co-stimulation modulator approved for RA, and is a welcome addition to the biologic therapies available for the management of this disease.

Demyelination and inhibition of tumor necrosis factor (TNF).

The development of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) inhibitor therapy is arguably the most significant achievement in the treatment of rheumatic diseases to date. One serious potential side effect associated with these agents is the onset of neurologic signs and symptoms. In this paper we will examine the relationship of TNFalpha antagonism and demyelinating disease. Reviewing early laboratory and animal models, we discuss the mechanism of TNFalpha in central nervous system (CNS) injury and repair. Two negative studies of TNFa inhibitor therapy in the treatment of refractory multiple sclerosis (MS) are considered. From the manufacturers' clinical development programs and post-marketing adverse event reporting data, we report the current incidence of demyelinating symptoms associated with each of the commercially available anti-TNFa agents. Comparing these reports to the incidence of MS in society as a whole, we find the rate of new cases of neurologic disease in exposed patients is not different from the rate of expected cases. Finally we explore arguments that support and refute a potential biologic relationship between TNFa neutralization and demyelinating disease.

The Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (ERA) trial comparing the efficacy and safety of etanercept and methotrexate.

The Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (ERA) trial compared monotherapy with etanercept or methotrexate in patients with early erosive rheumatoid arthritis. Over the initial period of 12, and subsequently 24, months both treatments were associated with a profound reduction in radiographic progression of joint damage, as well as a reduction in signs and symptoms of disease. Etanercept showed slight superiority to methotrexate in reducing subsequent radiographic erosions and in the rapidity of the clinical response. Both therapies proved to be safe and well tolerated and, importantly, the relative safety and tolerance of a rapidly escalated dosing regimen for methotrexate was demonstrated. In summary, early aggressive treatment of RA is associated with clinical and radiographic benefit that can be demonstrated after a relatively short period of treatment.

Central nervous system lupus and pregnancy: 11-year experience at a single center.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the pregnancy outcomes in women with central nervous system (CNS) manifestations of lupus. METHODS: Between 1991 and 2002, the outcome of five pregnancies in four patients with CNS lupus were retrospectively reviewed. All patients had an established history of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and either a history of CNS lupus or active CNS lupus. Pregnancy outcomes assessed included term and preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction, abnormal antepartum testing, perinatal mortality, pre-eclampsia and other maternal morbidities. RESULTS: Evidence of active CNS lupus symptoms developed in three of the five pregnancies. Two pregnancies were complicated by early onset pre-eclampsia, abnormal antepartum testing and extreme prematurity, with one subsequent neonatal death. The remaining three pregnancies had good neonatal outcomes, but were complicated by severe maternal post-pregnancy exacerbations, and the eventual death of one patient. CONCLUSIONS: CNS lupus in pregnancy represents an especially severe manifestation of SLE, and may involve great maternal and fetal risks.

Rules of chemokine receptor association with T cell polarization in vivo.

Current concepts of chemokine receptor (CKR) association with Th1 and Th2 cell polarization and effector function have largely ignored the diverse nature of effector and memory T cells in vivo. Here, we systematically investigated the association of 11 CKRs, singly or in combination, with CD4 T cell polarization. We show that Th1, Th2, Th0, and nonpolarized T cells in blood and tissue can express any of the CKRs studied but that each CKR defines a characteristic pool of polarized and nonpolarized CD4 T cells. Certain combinations of CKRs define populations that are markedly enriched in major subsets of Th1 versus Th2 cells. For example, although Th0, Th1, and Th2 cells are each found among blood CD4 T cells coordinately expressing CXCR3 and CCR4, Th1 but not Th2 cells can be CXCR3(+)CCR4(-), and Th2 but only rare Th1 cells are CCR4(+)CXCR3(-). Contrary to recent reports, although CCR7(-) cells contain a higher frequency of polarized CD4 T cells, most Th1 and Th2 effector cells are CCR7(+) and thus may be capable of lymphoid organ homing. Interestingly, Th1-associated CKRs show little or no preference for Th1 cells except when they are coexpressed with CXCR3. We conclude that the combinatorial expression of CKRs, which allow tissue- and subset-dependent targeting of effector cells during chemotactic navigation, defines physiologically significant subsets of polarized and nonpolarized T cells.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with total lymphoid irradiation: long-term survival.

OBJECTIVE: Total lymphoid irradiation (TLI) has been used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) since the 1970s. This study reviews long-term (15-20-year) mortality outcomes of patients treated with TLI for RA at Stanford University Medical Center and compares these outcomes with those in patients treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: Fifty-three patients with RA were treated with full-dose TLI at Stanford University Medical Center. All had failed previous therapy with gold salts and penicillamine. One hundred six control patients were selected from the Arthritis, Rheumatism, and Aging Medical Information Systems database and were matched with the patients for age, sex, disease duration, and mean Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: No significant difference in age and sex was found between TLI-treated patients and controls. TLI-treated patients had more education (mean 13.4 years versus 11.8 years; P = 0.016) and received more DMARDs prior to TLI (mean 2.1 versus 1.3; P = 0.0001). TLI-treated patients had lower mean HAQ scores at the time of TLI (2.0 versus 2.4; P = 0.0002). TLI had no significant overall effect on survival in treated patients compared with controls (P = 0.62). The survival curves appeared to cross over at approximately 11 years of followup, with better early survival in the TLI group and better late survival in the control group. There was a total of 25 deaths in the TLI group. There were 45 deaths in the control group, with causes of death available for 20 patients. There were 3 patients with lymphoma and 2 with myelodysplastic syndrome in the TLI group, and none in the control group. The most common cause of death in both groups was infection. CONCLUSION: TLI had no significant effect on overall survival, with trends toward higher early mortality in controls and trends toward higher late mortality in TLI-treated patients. Overall, there was no difference in mortality, but it appears that there may have been more lymphoproliferative malignancies in the TLI cohort. We would recommend that TLI be used cautiously for patients with refractory RA in whom the benefits outweigh the risks.