Ozanimod Induction and Maintenance Treatment for Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod (RPC1063) is an oral agonist of the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor subtypes 1 and 5 that induces peripheral lymphocyte sequestration, potentially decreasing the number of activated lymphocytes circulating to the gastrointestinal tract. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of ozanimod in 197 adults with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive ozanimod at a dose of 0.5 mg or 1 mg or placebo daily for up to 32 weeks. The Mayo Clinic score was used to measure disease activity on a scale from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more severe disease; subscores range from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. The primary outcome was clinical remission (Mayo Clinic score ≤2, with no subscore >1) at 8 weeks. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 16% of the patients who received 1 mg of ozanimod and in 14% of those who received 0.5 mg of ozanimod, as compared with 6% of those who received placebo (P=0.048 and P=0.14, respectively, for the comparison of the two doses of ozanimod with placebo). Differences in the primary outcome between the group that received 0.5 mg of ozanimod and the placebo group were not significant; therefore, the hierarchical testing plan deemed the analyses of secondary outcomes exploratory. Clinical response (decrease in Mayo Clinic score of ≥3 points and ≥30% and decrease in rectal-bleeding subscore of ≥1 point or a subscore ≤1) at 8 weeks occurred in 57% of those receiving 1 mg of ozanimod and 54% of those receiving 0.5 mg, as compared with 37% of those receiving placebo. At week 32, the rate of clinical remission was 21% in the group that received 1 mg of ozanimod, 26% in the group that received 0.5 mg of ozanimod, and 6% in the group that received placebo; the rate of clinical response was 51%, 35%, and 20%, respectively. At week 8, absolute lymphocyte counts declined 49% from baseline in the group that received 1 mg of ozanimod and 32% from baseline in the group that received 0.5 mg. The most common adverse events overall were anemia and headache. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary trial, ozanimod at a daily dose of 1 mg resulted in a slightly higher rate of clinical remission of ulcerative colitis than placebo. The trial was not large enough or of sufficiently long duration to establish clinical efficacy or assess safety. (Funded by Receptos; TOUCHSTONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01647516.).

Lesinurad in combination with allopurinol: results of a phase 2, randomised, double-blind study in patients with gout with an inadequate response to allopurinol.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of lesinurad, an oral selective uric acid reabsorption inhibitor, in combination with allopurinol versus allopurinol alone in patients with gout and an inadequate response to allopurinol. METHODS: Patients (N=227) with an inadequate response to allopurinol, defined as serum urate (sUA) ≥6 mg/dL on ≥2 occasions ≥2 weeks apart despite ≥6 weeks of allopurinol, were randomised 2:1 to 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with lesinurad (200, 400 or 600 mg/day) or matching placebo in combination with their prestudy allopurinol dose (200-600 mg/day). Colchicine prophylaxis for gout flares was required. The primary end point was percent reduction from baseline sUA levels at 4 weeks. A pharmacokinetic substudy was also conducted. Safety was assessed throughout. RESULTS: Patients (n=208) received ≥1 dose of blinded medication. Lesinurad 200, 400 and 600 mg in combination with allopurinol produced significant mean percent reductions from baseline sUA of 16%, 22% and 30%, respectively, versus a mean 3% increase with placebo (p<0.0001, all doses vs placebo). Similar results were observed in patients with mild or moderate renal insufficiency (estimated creatinine clearance 30 to <90 mL/min). The incidence of ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event was 46%, 48% and 54% with lesinurad 200, 400 and 600 mg, respectively, and 46% with placebo (most frequent, gout flares, arthralgia, headache and nasopharyngitis), with no deaths or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Lesinurad achieves clinically relevant and statistically significant reductions in sUA in combination with allopurinol in patients who warrant additional therapy on allopurinol alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01001338.

Safety and efficacy of additional courses of rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: an open-label extension analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of additional courses of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An open-label extension analysis of RA patients previously treated with rituximab was conducted. Patients who had participated in any of 3 double-blind trials were eligible for additional courses (2 infusions of 1,000 mg given 2 weeks apart) if they exhibited a swollen joint count and tender joint count of > or =8 with > or =16 weeks elapsing after the previous course. Safety was assessed in patients receiving all or a portion of a rituximab course. Efficacy was assessed 24 weeks after each course, using the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20), ACR50, ACR70, European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, the disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire, and Short Form 36 scores, stratified according to prior tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure. RESULTS: A total of 1,039 patients received > or =1 course of rituximab. Of these, 570 received 2 courses, 191 received 3 courses, and 40 received 4 courses, for a total of 1,669 patient-years. Irrespective of prior TNF inhibitor exposure, ACR20 responses were comparable at week 24 after course 1 and at week 24 after course 2 (65% versus 72%), as were ACR50 and ACR70 responses. EULAR moderate/good responses were also comparable in course 2 relative to course 1 (88% versus 79%), with EULAR remission occurring in a 2-fold higher proportion of patients after course 2 than after course 1 (13% versus 6%). The most common adverse events, which were mild-to-moderate acute infusion-related events, decreased with each course. The serious infection rate after course 1 (5.1 per 100 patient-years) remained stable through additional courses. The proportion of patients with circulating IgM and IgG levels below the lower limit of normal (LLN) increased with subsequent courses; however, serious infection rates in these patients (5.6 per 100 patient-years in patients with low IgM levels and 4.8 per 100 patient-years in patients with low IgG levels were comparable with those in patients with immunoglobulin levels above the LLN (4.7 per 100 patient-years). Patients with human antichimeric antibody (9.2%) did not exhibit decreasing efficacy or present additional safety concerns. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that patients treated with repeated courses of rituximab have sustained clinical responses with no new adverse events.

Rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: Results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating primary efficacy and safety at twenty-four weeks.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies and to explore the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rituximab in this population. METHODS: We evaluated primary efficacy and safety at 24 weeks in patients enrolled in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA (REFLEX) Trial, a 2-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of rituximab therapy. Patients with active RA and an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF agents were randomized to receive intravenous rituximab (1 course, consisting of 2 infusions of 1,000 mg each) or placebo, both with background MTX. The primary efficacy end point was a response on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks. Secondary end points were responses on the ACR50 and ACR70 improvement criteria, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria at 24 weeks. Additional end points included scores on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index (DI), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) instruments, as well as Genant-modified Sharp radiographic scores at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Patients assigned to placebo (n = 209) and rituximab (n = 311) had active, longstanding RA. At week 24, significantly more (P < 0.0001) rituximab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients demonstrated ACR20 (51% versus 18%), ACR50 (27% versus 5%), and ACR70 (12% versus 1%) responses and moderate-to-good EULAR responses (65% versus 22%). All ACR response parameters were significantly improved in rituximab-treated patients, who also had clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, disability, and health-related quality of life (demonstrated by FACIT-F, HAQ DI, and SF-36 scores, respectively) and showed a trend toward less progression in radiographic end points. Rituximab depleted peripheral CD20+ B cells, but the mean immunoglobulin levels (IgG, IgM, and IgA) remained within normal ranges. Most adverse events occurred with the first rituximab infusion and were of mild-to-moderate severity. The rate of serious infections was 5.2 per 100 patient-years in the rituximab group and 3.7 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: At 24 weeks, a single course of rituximab with concomitant MTX therapy provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in disease activity in patients with active, longstanding RA who had an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF therapies.