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

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

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

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

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.

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)

ABSTRACT 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with a new formulation of a fixed-dose combination of glucosamine sulfate and bovine chondroitin: a multicenter, randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of a new formulation of a fixed dose combination of glucosamine sulfate (GS; 1500 mg) and bovine chondroitin sulfate (CS; 1200 mg) versus the reference product (RP) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, single-blind trial, 627 patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA)-Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3 and mean score ≥ 40 mm in the WOMAC pain subscale-were randomized to receive GS/CS or the RP for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in WOMAC pain subscale score. The secondary endpoints included the following: WOMAC total and subscale scores, overall assessment of the disease by the patient and the investigator, SF-12 score, OMERACT-OARSI response rate to the treatment, and rescue medication use. RESULTS: Mean reductions of WOMAC pain score were - 35.1 (sd = 23.2) mm in the GS/CS group and - 36.5 (sd = 24.9) mm in the RP group. The difference between the adjusted means of both treatments confirmed the non-inferiority of GS/CS versus the RP. Improvement was observed in pain, stiffness, physical function and total WOMAC score, as well as in overall OA assessment by the patient and the investigator for both groups. No improvement was observed in SF-12. The rate of OMERACT-OARSI responders was 89.4% in GS/CS group and 87.9% in the RP group. Headache and changes in glucose tolerance were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The new formulation of a fixed-dose combination of glucosamine sulfate and bovine chondroitin sulfate was non-inferior to the RP in symptomatic treatment of knee OA, with a high responder rate and good tolerability profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; Registration number NCT02830919 ; Date of registration: July 13, 2016; First randomization date: December 05, 2016).

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

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

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

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

Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with a new formulation of a fixed-dose combination of glucosamine sulfate and bovine chondroitin: a multicenter, randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial

Abstract Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of a new formulation of a fixed dose combination of glucosamine sulfate (GS; 1500 mg) and bovine chondroitin sulfate (CS; 1200 mg) versus the reference product (RP) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, single-blind trial, 627 patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA)—Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3 and mean score ≥ 40 mm in the WOMAC pain subscale—were randomized to receive GS/ CS or the RP for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in WOMAC pain subscale score. The secondary endpoints included the following: WOMAC total and subscale scores, overall assessment of the disease by the patient and the investigator, SF-12 score, OMERACT-OARSI response rate to the treatment, and rescue medication use. Results: Mean reductions of WOMAC pain score were - 35.1 (sd = 23.2) mm in the GS/CS group and - 36.5 (sd = 24.9) mm in the RP group. The difference between the adjusted means of both treatments confirmed the noninferiority of GS/CS versus the RP. Improvement was observed in pain, stiffness, physical function and total WOMAC score, as well as in overall OA assessment by the patient and the investigator for both groups. No improvement was observed in SF-12. The rate of OMERACT-OARSI responders was 89.4% in GS/CS group and 87.9% in the RP group. Headache and changes in glucose tolerance were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events. Conclusions: The new formulation of a fixed-dose combination of glucosamine sulfate and bovine chondroitin sulfate was non-inferior to the RP in symptomatic treatment of knee OA, with a high responder rate and good tolerability profile. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; Registration number NCT02830919; Date of registration: July 13, 2016; First randomization date: December 05, 2016).(AU)

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

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

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.

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.

Effects of Odanacatib on Bone Structure and Quality in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis: 5-Year Data From the Phase 3 Long-Term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) and its Extension.

Odanacatib (ODN), a selective oral inhibitor of cathepsin K, was an investigational agent previously in development for the treatment of osteoporosis. In this analysis, the effects of ODN on bone remodeling/modeling and structure were examined in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven, Phase 3, Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT; NCT00529373) and planned double-blind extension in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. A total of 386 transilial bone biopsies, obtained from consenting patients at baseline (ODN n = 17, placebo n = 23), month 24 (ODN n = 112, placebo n = 104), month 36 (ODN n = 42, placebo n = 41), and month 60 (ODN n = 27, placebo n = 20) were assessed by dynamic and static bone histomorphometry. Patient characteristics at baseline and BMD changes over 5 years for this subset were comparable to the overall LOFT population. Qualitative assessment of biopsies revealed no abnormalities. Consistent with the mechanism of ODN, osteoclast number was higher with ODN versus placebo over time. Regarding bone remodeling, dynamic bone formation indices in trabecular, intracortical, and endocortical surfaces were generally similar in ODN-treated versus placebo-treated patients after 2 years of treatment. Regarding periosteal modeling, the proportion of patients with periosteal double labels and the bone formation indices increased over time in the ODN-treated patients compared with placebo. This finding supported the observed numerical increase in cortical thickness at month 60 versus placebo. In conclusion, ODN treatment for 5 years did not reduce bone remodeling and increased the proportion of patients with periosteal bone formation. These results are consistent with the mechanism of action of ODN, and are associated with continued BMD increases and reduced risk of fractures compared with placebo in the LOFT Phase 3 fracture trial. © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.