Therapeutic benefit of apremilast on enthesitis and dactylitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis: a pooled analysis of the PALACE 1-3 studies.

OBJECTIVE: The Psoriatic Arthritis Long-term Assessment of Clinical Efficacy (PALACE) clinical trial programme findings demonstrated that apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, is effective for treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Enthesitis and dactylitis are difficult-to-treat features of PsA leading to disability and affecting quality of life. PALACE 1, 2 and 3 data were pooled to assess the efficacy of apremilast on enthesitis and dactylitis outcomes in patients with these conditions at baseline. METHODS: Patients with enthesitis (n=945) or dactylitis (n=633) at baseline were analysed after receiving double-blind treatment with placebo, apremilast 30 mg two times per day or apremilast 20 mg two times per day up to 52 weeks and continuing up to 5 years. Data were analysed through 156 weeks. Enthesitis was evaluated by Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score (MASES) and dactylitis via dactylitis count. RESULTS: At week 24, patients receiving apremilast 30 mg two times per day demonstrated a significantly greater mean change in enthesitis (-1.3 vs -0.9; p<0.05) and dactylitis (-1.8 vs -1.3; p<0.01) vs placebo. Patients in the 30 mg dose group showed significantly greater mean (-23.6% vs -7.0%; p<0.05) and median (-50.0% vs -21.1%; p<0.05) per cent changes in MASES; mean and median per cent changes in dactylitis count were numerically, but not significantly, different for either apremilast dose in patients with dactylitis. In the patient population remaining on apremilast, observed mean and median improvements in both conditions were sustained through 156 weeks. CONCLUSION: Apremilast is effective for the treatment of active PsA, including improvements in enthesitis and dactylitis up to 3 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01172938, NCT01212757 and NCT01212770.

Safety and efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) tanezumab administration in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study 1027 (NCT01089725), a placebo-controlled trial, evaluated the efficacy of SC tanezumab (ie, 2.5, 5, and 10 mg) and the therapeutic equivalence of 10 mg tanezumab given subcutaneously versus intravenously every 8 weeks in the symptomatic treatment of OA. Coprimary endpoints were: change from baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function indices, and Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of OA. Study 1043 (NCT00994890) was a long-term, noncontrolled safety study of tanezumab (ie, 2.5, 5, and 10 mg) subcutaneously administered every 8 weeks. Both studies were discontinued prematurely due to a US Food and Drug Administration partial clinical hold. RESULTS: Due to the clinical hold, Study 1027 was underpowered, and no statistical analyses were performed. Mean (standard error [SE]) change from baseline to week 8 in WOMAC Pain in tanezumab groups ranged from -3.59 (0.26) to -3.89 (0.32), versus -2.74 (0.25) with placebo. Mean (SE) change from baseline to week 8 in WOMAC Physical Function ranged from -3.13 (0.25) to -3.51 (0.28) with tanezumab and was -2.26 (0.24) with placebo. PGA mean (SE) change from baseline to week 8 ranged from -0.90 (0.11) to -1.08 (0.12) with tanezumab and was -0.78 (0.10) with placebo. Similar effectiveness was associated with tanezumab in Study 1043. Few patients in either study (1.4%-5.2%) discontinued due to adverse events. Five patients required total joint replacements in Study 1027 (placebo, n=2 [2.8%]; tanezumab 2.5 mg, n=3 [4.1%]) and 34 patients in Study 1043 (tanezumab 2.5 mg, n=11 [4.8%]; tanezumab 5 mg, n=8 [3.6%]; tanezumab 10 mg, n=15 [6.6%]). CONCLUSION: Preliminary results show similar efficacy and safety for both SC and IV administration of tanezumab based on the direct comparisons reported here and indirect comparisons with published results, confirming pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling predictions.

Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, in patients with psoriatic arthritis and current skin involvement: a phase III, randomised, controlled trial (PALACE 3).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate apremilast treatment in patients with active psoriatic arthritis, including current skin involvement, despite prior therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and/or biologic agents. METHODS: Patients (N=505) were randomised (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice daily, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily. Rescue therapy with apremilast was designated at week 16 for placebo patients not achieving 20% improvement in swollen and tender joint counts. At week 24, the remaining placebo patients were then randomised to apremilast 20 mg twice daily or 30 mg twice daily. The efficacy and safety of apremilast were assessed over 52 weeks. RESULTS: At week 16, significantly more patients receiving apremilast 20 mg twice daily (28%) and 30 mg twice daily (41%) achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria versus placebo (18%; p=0.0295 and p<0.0001, respectively), and mean decrease in the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score was significantly greater with apremilast 30 mg twice daily (-0.20) versus placebo (-0.07; p=0.0073). In patients with baseline psoriasis body surface area involvement ≥3%, significantly more apremilast 30 mg twice daily patients achieved 50% reduction from baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (41%) versus placebo (24%; p=0.0098) at week 16. At week 52, observed improvements in these measures demonstrated sustained response with continued apremilast treatment. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity; the most common were diarrhoea, nausea, headache and upper respiratory tract infection. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis at week 16; sustained improvements were seen with continued treatment through 52 weeks. Apremilast was generally well tolerated and demonstrated an acceptable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01212770.

Final 10-year effectiveness and safety results from study DE020: adalimumab treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to standard therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of 10 years of adalimumab (ADA) treatment in DMARD-refractory RA patients and to analyse efficacy based on RF status and baseline disease duration. METHODS: DE020 was a multicentre, phase 3, open-label continuation study. Adult RA patients who received s.c. ADA (40 mg every other week or monthly) in one of four early assessment studies could receive ADA for ≤10 years in DE020. Assessments included the 28-joint DAS with CRP (DAS28-CRP), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and safety as events per 100 patient-years. RESULTS: Of 846 enrolled patients, mean age at baseline was 55.6 years, 78.1% were women, mean disease duration was 11.7 years and 27.0% were RF(-). Among 286 (33.8%) patients who completed 10 years of ADA, 168/236 (71.2%) achieved DAS28-CRP ≤3.2, 101/238 (42.4%) achieved HAQ-DI <0.5 and 90/241 (37.3%) achieved DAS28-CRP ≤3.2 plus HAQ-DI <0.5. DAS28-CRP- or SDAI-based remission was observed in 135/236 (57.2%) and 70/236 (29.7%) patients, respectively. Effectiveness outcomes were similar regardless of RF status. Higher proportions of patients with shorter vs longer baseline disease duration (≤2 vs >2 years) achieved HAQ-DI <0.5 (60.6% vs 39.5%; P = 0.023) and DAS28-CRP ≤3.2 plus HAQ-DI <0.5 (58.1% vs 32.5%; P = 0.006). Adverse events (317.2 events per 100 patient-years) during ADA exposure were consistent with the expected safety profile for TNF inhibitors. CONCLUSION: ADA led to sustained clinical and functional responses in the 33.8% of treatment-refractory RA patients who completed 10 years of treatment. Patients with shorter disease duration achieved better outcomes, highlighting the need for early treatment. No unexpected safety findings were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00195650.

Intra-articular hylastan versus steroid for knee osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of one and two intra-articular (IA) injections of the new viscosupplement, hylastan, compared with a single IA corticosteroid injection for pain due to knee osteoarthritis (OA). Hylastan is a high-molecular-weight hyaluronan derivative prepared from bacterial fermented sodium hyaluronate that was developed to remain in the joint for longer than most other viscosupplements. METHODS: This 6-month, double-blind, randomized, parallel group, multicenter trial enrolled patients aged ≥40 years who met American College of Rheumatology criteria for knee OA and had continued pain despite conservative treatment. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three arms: 2 × 4 mL hylastan (n = 129; arthrocentesis then IA hylastan Day 0, same treatment Week 2); 1 × 4 mL hylastan (n = 130; arthrocentesis then IA hylastan Day 0, arthrocentesis only Week 2); steroid (n = 132; arthrocentesis then IA methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg Day 0, arthrocentesis only Week 2). Participants and evaluators were blinded to treatment. The primary clinical outcome measure was change from baseline in WOMAC A pain score over all postbaseline visits to Week 26. RESULTS: Statistically significant pain reduction was observed in all three arms, with similar mean (95 % CI) changes in WOMAC A: 2 × 4 mL hylastan -0.9 (-1.0, -0.7); 1 × 4 mL hylastan -0.8 (-0.9, -0.7); steroid -0.9 (-1.0, -0.8); all P < 0.0001 versus baseline. Changes in secondary outcomes (OMERACT-OARSI and WOMAC A responder rates, patient/clinical observer global assessments, and WOMAC A1 walking pain) were similar in all three arms. Target knee adverse events were comparable for all treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Both IA hylastan injection regimens were effective in relieving pain with an acceptable safety profile. IA hylastan did not show a difference versus IA corticosteroid; therefore, the hypothesis of superior pain relief was not met. Further research is needed to compare the efficacy and safety of hylastan with other viscosupplements.

Effects of subcutaneous and intravenous golimumab on inflammatory biomarkers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a phase 1, randomized, open-label trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the anti-TNF-α monoclonal antibody golimumab, administered by s.c. injection or i.v. infusion, on markers of inflammation in patients with RA. METHODS: In this phase 1, open-label study, patients with active RA were randomized to receive s.c. golimumab 100 mg at baseline and every 4 weeks through week 20 (n = 33; group 1) or i.v. golimumab 2 mg/kg at baseline and week 12 (n = 16; group 2). Serum levels of CRP, IL-6, serum amyloid A (SAA), TNF receptor II (TNFRII), MMP-3, hyaluronic acid, haptoglobin, ferritin and haemoglobin and serum/urine hepcidin were measured at various time points. Associations between the biomarkers were assessed with Spearman's correlations. RESULTS: In both groups 1 and 2, decreases in mean serum levels of CRP, IL-6, SAA, TNFRII, MMP-3, haptoglobin, ferritin and hepcidin, and mean urine levels of hepcidin occurred within 1 week and were sustained through week 8. Decreases in concentrations of serum CRP, IL-6, SAA, MMP-3, hepcidin, ferritin and haptoglobin and urine hepcidin were maintained through week 24 in group 1, but began to reverse after week 8 in group 2. Among all patients, decreases in serum hepcidin correlated significantly with decreases in serum CRP and ferritin. CONCLUSION: Decreases in serum and urine concentrations of markers of inflammation occurred as early as 24 h after treatment with golimumab, and most of these improvements were sustained through week 24 in group 1.

Efficacy and safety of tanezumab in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

Increased nerve growth factor levels are associated with chronic pain conditions, including chronic low back pain (LBP). This study examined safety and analgesic efficacy of tanezumab, a humanized anti-nerve growth factor antibody, in adults with chronic LBP. Patients received intravenous tanezumab 200 µg/kg plus oral placebo (n=88), intravenous placebo plus oral naproxen 500 mg twice a day (n=88), or intravenous placebo plus oral placebo (n=41). Primary outcome was average LBP intensity (aLBPI) at Week 6. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients with ≥30% or ≥50% reduction in aLBPI, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Brief Pain Inventory-short form scores, Patients' Global Assessment of LBP, Patients' Global Evaluation of study medication, and rescue medication use. Mean aLBPI change from baseline to Week 6 was greater with tanezumab vs naproxen (P=0.004) and placebo (P<0.001). Greater proportions of patients reported ≥30% and ≥50% reduction in aLBPI with tanezumab vs naproxen (P≤0.013) and placebo (P<0.001), and greater improvements in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (P<0.001) and other secondary outcomes except rescue medication use. Tanezumab was associated with adverse events (AEs) of abnormal peripheral sensation that were generally mild and resolved before study completion; however, there were no serious AEs. Nine patients (4 of whom were tanezumab-treated) discontinued due to AEs. In conclusion, tanezumab resulted in analgesic efficacy that was clinically and statistically superior to placebo and naproxen in patients with chronic LBP. Tanezumab clinical development is on regulatory hold due to AEs in osteoarthritis patients.

Tanezumab for the treatment of pain from osteoarthritis of the knee.

BACKGROUND: Increased expression of nerve growth factor in injured or inflamed tissue is associated with increased pain. This proof-of-concept study was designed to investigate the safety and analgesic efficacy of tanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits nerve growth factor. METHODS: We randomly assigned 450 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee to receive tanezumab (administered at a dose of 10, 25, 50, 100, or 200 µg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo on days 1 and 56. The primary efficacy measures were knee pain while walking and the patient's global assessment of response to therapy. We also assessed pain, stiffness, and physical function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC); the rate of response using the criteria of the Outcome Measures for Rheumatology Committee and Osteoarthritis Research Society International Standing Committee for Clinical Trials Response Criteria Initiative (OMERACT-OARSI); and safety. RESULTS: When averaged over weeks 1 through 16, the mean reductions from baseline in knee pain while walking ranged from 45 to 62% with various doses of tanezumab, as compared with 22% with placebo (P<0.001). Tanezumab, as compared with placebo, was also associated with significantly greater improvements in the response to therapy as assessed with the use of the patients' global assessment measure (mean increases in score of 29 to 47% with various doses of tanezumab, as compared with 19% with placebo; P≤0.001). The rate of response according to the OMERACT-OARSI criteria ranged from 74 to 93% with tanezumab treatment, as compared with 44% with placebo (P<0.001). The rates of adverse events were 68% and 55% in the tanezumab and placebo groups, respectively. The most common adverse events among tanezumab-treated patients were headache (9% of the patients), upper respiratory tract infection (7%), and paresthesia (7%). CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept study, treatment with tanezumab was associated with a reduction in joint pain and improvement in function, with mild and moderate adverse events, among patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis of the knee. (Funded by Rinat Neuroscience; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00394563.).

Immune responses following administration of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines to patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving adalimumab.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving adalimumab or placebo. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, multicenter study, patients received adalimumab or placebo on Days 1, 15, and 29. Pneumococcal and influenza vaccines were administered on Day 8 (vaccine baseline). Vaccine response (> or = 2-fold titer increase from baseline in > or = 3 of 5 pneumococcal antigens and > or = 4-fold titer increase from baseline in > or = 2 of 3 influenza antigens) and protective antibody titers (> or = 1.6 microg/ml pneumococcal antibody concentration to > or = 3 of 5 antigens and > or = 1:40 influenza antibody titer to > or = 2 of 3 antigens) were analyzed 4 weeks' postvaccination. RESULTS: Following pneumococcal vaccination, percentages of patients achieving a vaccine response were similar in the adalimumab and placebo groups [37.4% and 40.4%, respectively; 95% CI (confidence interval) -16.2%, 10.3%]. Percentages of patients with protective antibody titers were similar in both treatment groups (adalimumab: 85.9%, placebo: 81.7%). Following influenza vaccination, percentages of patients achieving a vaccine response were lower with adalimumab than placebo (51.5% and 63.3%, respectively; 95% CI -25.2%, 1.6%)--a result explained by the subgroup of patients with preexisting protective antibody titers at baseline. For patients without protective antibody titers at baseline, response rates were similar in the 2 groups (adalimumab: 73.3%, placebo: 73.9%). Percentages of patients with protective antibody titers were similar in both treatment groups (adalimumab: 98%, placebo: 94.5%). CONCLUSION: Patients with RA treated with adalimumab can be effectively and safely immunized with pneumococcal and influenza vaccines.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis patients with abatacept and methotrexate significantly improved health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effect of abatacept, a costimulation modulator, on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Three hundred thirty-nine patients with RA on a background of methotrexate (MTX), who participated in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, were randomized to abatacept 2 mg/kg, abatacept 10 mg/kg, or placebo. HRQOL was assessed at pretreatment, and at 3, 6, and 12 months posttreatment using the SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36). Changes in SF-36 scores from baseline to 12 months were compared across treatment and placebo groups to examine HRQOL benefits of abatacept. A link between American College of Rheumatology improvement and changes in SF-36 scores was established to demonstrate the association between HRQOL outcomes and clinical response. RESULTS: After 12 months of treatment, patients randomized to abatacept 10 mg/kg showed significantly better HRQOL outcomes overall versus patients randomized to placebo (MANOVA F = 4.71, p < 0.001) or to abatacept 2 mg/kg (MANOVA F = 1.97, p = 0.05). Differences in SF-36 change scores between abatacept 10 mg/kg and placebo groups reached statistical significance on all 8 domain scales, the 2 summary measures, and the SF-36 utility index (SF-6D). Differences in SF-36 change scores between abatacept 10 mg/kg and abatacept 2 mg/kg reached statistical significance on 5 of the 8 domain scales, the physical summary measure, and the SF-6D. Improvement in HRQOL was highly related to clinical response. CONCLUSION Abatacept 10 mg/kg plus MTX demonstrated a stronger HRQOL response than placebo plus MTX. The abatacept 2 mg/kg arm showed a very weak and transient response.

Abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibition.

BACKGROUND: A substantial number of patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an inadequate or unsustained response to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to at least three months of anti-TNF-alpha therapy. METHODS: Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to anti-TNF-alpha therapy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive abatacept or placebo on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 28 days thereafter for 6 months, in addition to at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Patients discontinued anti-TNF-alpha therapy before randomization. The rates of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses (indicating a clinical improvement of 20 percent or greater) and improvement in functional disability, as reflected by scores for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index, were assessed. RESULTS: After six months, the rates of ACR 20 responses were 50.4 percent in the abatacept group and 19.5 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001); the respective rates of ACR 50 and ACR 70 responses were also significantly higher in the abatacept group than in the placebo group (20.3 percent vs. 3.8 percent, P<0.001; and 10.2 percent vs. 1.5 percent, P=0.003). At six months, significantly more patients in the abatacept group than in the placebo group had a clinically meaningful improvement in physical function, as reflected by an improvement from baseline of at least 0.3 in the HAQ disability index (47.3 percent vs. 23.3 percent, P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events and peri-infusional adverse events was 79.5 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively, in the abatacept group and 71.4 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively, in the placebo group. The incidence of serious infections was 2.3 percent in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept produced significant clinical and functional benefits in patients who had had an inadequate response to anti-TNF-alpha therapy.

Frequency, predictors, and economic impact of upward dose adjustment of infliximab in managed care patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine dosing patterns and costs among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients newly treated with infliximab in a large national health care claims database. METHODS: Using data from a proprietary database of pharmacy and medical claims for 75 U.S. health plans, RA patients newly treated with infliximab between June 2000 and June 2002 were selected and assigned an .index date. based on the first infusion. A pretreatment period of 6 months was created; patients were also followed for a minimum of 6 months after the initial infusion. Follow-up was allowed to vary beyond this minimum 6 months in order to preserve all available patient data. A maintenance number of infliximab vials was determined as of the second infusion; patients with 1 subsequent increase in vials used or 2 intervals between infusions of <49 days were considered to have had an upward dose adjustment. Differences (i.e., between those with upward dose adjustment and those with no upward dose) in patient characteristics were examined using descriptive statistics. In addition, time to upward dose adjustment and factors influencing its likelihood were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards techniques. Finally, differences in RA-related and unrelated costs (medication, outpatient, inpatient, and total, expressed in 2003 dollars) were examined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and were also stratified by a number of patient characteristics found to differ between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 1,236 patients met all study entry criteria and were included in these analyses. One or more upward dose adjustments were experienced by 61.7% (N=762) of patients during an average of 15 months of follow-up (median =13 months, range=6 to 31 months). The majority (63.3%) of upward dose adjustments were due to increases in the number of billed vials. Median time to upward dose adjustment was 254 days and declined steadily based on year of initiation (from 330 days in 2000 to 224 days in 2002). Factors significantly influencing upward dose adjustment included pretreatment use of leflunomide, comorbid Crohn.s disease, and pretreatment liver function testing. During followup, patients in the upward dose adjustment group used a mean (SD) of 30.28 (20.90) vials of infliximab, compared with 15.90 (14.28) among those not adjusting dose (P<0.001). Annualized (i.e., standardized to a 365-day rate) RA-related costs were higher by more than 50% among patients with upward dose adjustment (SD $22,283 [$20,517] versus $14,425 [$10,828] for those without upward dose adjustment; P<0.001); differences were driven almost entirely by the costs of infliximab itself ($16,336 [$9,490] versus $9,573 [$6,790], P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of managed care members with RA, upward dose adjustment with infliximab was frequent and appeared to occur earlier in the drug therapy in 2002 compared with 2000. Upward dose adjustment was associated with significant increases in drug treatment costs; therefore, payers and providers should consider the impact of current dosing trends when monitoring the use of biologics for autoimmune diseases.

Treatment of chronic low back pain with etoricoxib, a new cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitor: improvement in pain and disability--a randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-month trial.

We evaluated etoricoxib, a novel COX-2-specific inhibitor, in 319 patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) in this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomized to a 60 mg dose (n = 103) or 90 mg dose (n = 107) of etoricoxib, or placebo (n = 109), daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was low back pain intensity scale (Visual Analog Scale of 0- to 100-mm) time-weighted average change from baseline over 4 weeks. Other endpoints included evaluation over 3 months of low back pain intensity scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), low back pain bothersomeness scale, patient- and investigator-global assessments, Patient Health Survey (MOS SF-12), rescue acetaminophen use, and discontinuation due to lack of efficacy. Etoricoxib provided significant improvement from baseline versus placebo in pain intensity (4 weeks: 12.9 mm and 10.3 mm for 60-mg and 90-mg doses, P <.001 for each; 12 weeks: 10.5 mm and 7.5 mm for 60-mg and 90-mg doses, P =.001 and.018, respectively). Etoricoxib at either dose led to significant improvement in other endpoints, including RMDQ scores, bothersomeness scores and global assessments. Etoricoxib given once daily provided significant relief of symptoms, and disability associated with chronic LBP that was observed 1 week after initiating therapy, was maximal at 4 weeks, and was maintained over 3 months.

Adalimumab, a fully human anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients taking concomitant methotrexate: the ARMADA trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab (D2E7), a fully human monoclonal tumor necrosis factor alpha antibody, in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with MTX. METHODS: In a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 271 patients with active RA were randomly assigned to receive injections of adalimumab (20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg subcutaneously) or placebo every other week while continuing to take their long-term stable dosage of MTX. The primary efficacy end point was the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at 24 weeks. RESULTS: An ACR20 response at week 24 was achieved by a significantly greater proportion of patients in the 20-mg, 40-mg, and 80-mg adalimumab plus MTX groups (47.8%, 67.2%, and 65.8%, respectively) than in the placebo plus MTX group (14.5%) (P < 0.001). ACR50 response rates with the 20-mg, 40-mg, and 80-mg adalimumab dosages (31.9%, 55.2%, and 42.5%, respectively) were significantly greater than that with placebo (8.1%) (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively). The 40-mg and 80-mg doses of adalimumab were associated with an ACR70 response (26.9% and 19.2%, respectively) that was statistically significantly greater than that with placebo (4.8%) (P < 0.001 and P = 0.020). Responses were rapid, with the greatest proportion of adalimumab-treated patients achieving an ACR20 response at the first scheduled visit (week 1). Adalimumab was safe and well tolerated; comparable numbers of adalimumab-treated patients and placebo-treated patients reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: The addition of adalimumab at a dosage of 20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg administered subcutaneously every other week to long-term MTX therapy in patients with active RA provided significant, rapid, and sustained improvement in disease activity over 24 weeks compared with MTX plus placebo.

Adalimumab, a fully human anti tumor necrosis factor-alpha monoclonal antibody, and concomitant standard antirheumatic therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: results of STAR (Safety Trial of Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis).

OBJECTIVE: This study, known as STAR (Safety Trial of Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis), evaluated the safety and efficacy of adalimumab (Humira), a fully human monoclonal tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) antibody, when given with standard antirheumatic therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not adequately responding to such therapies. Standard antirheumatic therapy included traditional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), low dose corticosteroids, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), and/or analgesics. METHODS: In this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 636 patients with RA were randomly assigned to receive adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously (sc) every other week (n = 318) or placebo (n = 318) while continuing standard antirheumatic therapy. The frequencies of adverse events, serious adverse events, severe or life-threatening adverse events, adverse events leading to withdrawal, infection, or serious infection were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were determined by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria. RESULTS: During the study, the majority of patients received concomitant traditional DMARD (83.5%) and/or corticosteroids, NSAID, and/or analgesics (97.3%). Overall, 56.0% of patients continued treatment with one, 23.6% with 2, and 3.9% with > or = 3 traditional DMARD. At 24 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences between the adalimumab and placebo groups in their respective rates of adverse events (86.5% vs 82.7%), serious adverse events (5.3% vs 6.9%), severe or life-threatening adverse events (11.9% vs 15.4%), or those leading to withdrawal (2.8% vs 2.2%). There were also no statistically significant differences in the rates of infections (52.2% vs 49.4%) or serious infections (1.3% vs 1.9%) between the groups. The incidence and types of adverse events did not vary between adalimumab- and placebo-treated patients by the number of concomitant traditional DMARD (0, 1, or 2). Adalimumab-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients achieved statistically superior ACR20 (52.8% vs 34.9%), ACR50 (28.9% vs 11.3%), and ACR70 (14.8% vs 3.5%) response rates at Week 24 (p < or = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that addition of adalimumab 40 mg given sc every other week to concomitant standard antirheumatic therapy is well tolerated and provides significant improvements in signs and symptoms of RA. The data indicate that adalimumab is a safe and effective therapeutic option in patients with active RA who have an inadequate response to standard antirheumatic therapy, including one or more traditional DMARD, corticosteroids, NSAID, and analgesics.