Geographic Variation in Disease Burden and Mismatch in Care of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the factors associated with regional variation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease burden in the US. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort analysis of Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry data, seropositivity, RA disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI], Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data-version 3 [RAPID3]), socioeconomic status (SES), geographic region, health insurance type, and comorbidity burden were recorded. An Area Deprivation Index score of more than 80 defined low SES. Median travel distance to practice sites' zip codes was calculated. Linear regression was used to analyze associations between RA disease activity and comorbidity adjusting for age, sex, geographic region, race, and insurance type. RESULTS: Enrollment data for 184,722 patients with RA from 182 RISE sites were analyzed. Disease activity was higher in African American patients, in those from Southern regions, and in those with Medicaid or Medicare coverage. Greater comorbidity was prevalent in patients in the South and those with Medicare or Medicaid coverage. There was moderate correlation between comorbidity and disease activity (Pearson coefficient: RAPID3 0.28, CDAI 0.15). High-deprivation areas were mainly in the South. Less than 10% of all participating practices cared for more than 50% of all Medicaid recipients. Patients living more than 200 miles away from specialist care were located mainly in Southern and Western regions. CONCLUSION: A disproportionately large portion of socially deprived, high comorbidity, and Medicaid-covered patients with RA were cared for by a minority of rheumatology practices. Studies are needed in high-deprivation areas to establish more equitable distribution of specialty care for patients with RA.

Associations between Patient Global Assessment scores and pain, physical function, and fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of data from phase 3 trials of tofacitinib.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We examined the degree to which Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) was driven by patient-reported assessments of pain (Pain), physical function, and fatigue in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily or placebo, each with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data pooled from three randomized controlled trials in csDMARD-inadequate responder (csDMARD-IR) patients (ORAL Scan: NCT00847613; ORAL Standard: NCT00853385; ORAL Sync: NCT00856544). Using subgroup analysis from 2 × 2 tables, associations between PtGA and Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) at month 3 were evaluated using Pearson's Phi correlation coefficients. To support the main analysis, associations between select patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were also evaluated in csDMARD-naïve (ORAL Start; NCT01039688) and biologic (b)DMARD-IR (ORAL Step; NCT00960440) patients. RESULTS: Across csDMARD-IR treatment groups, low disease activity (defined as PtGA ≤ 20 mm), and moderate (≥ 30%) and substantial (≥ 50%) improvements from baseline in PtGA were associated with mild Pain (Visual Analog Scale score ≤ 20 mm), and moderate (≥ 30%) and substantial (≥ 50%) improvements from baseline in Pain; lack of Pain improvement was associated with little/no improvement in PtGA. In contrast, large proportions of csDMARD-IR patients who reported PtGA improvements did not report HAQ-DI or FACIT-F scores ≥ normative values (≤ 0.25 and ≥ 43.5, respectively) or changes in HAQ-DI or FACIT-F scores ≥ minimum clinically important difference (≥ 0.22 and ≥ 4.0, respectively). Generally, PtGA and Pain outcomes were moderately-to-strongly correlated at month 3 in csDMARD-IR patients, with weaker correlations evident between PtGA and HAQ-DI/FACIT-F outcomes. Similar findings were generally evident in csDMARD-naïve and bDMARD-IR patients. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis supports the role of Pain as a key driver of PtGA in RA; physical function and fatigue play lesser roles in patients' perceptions of disease activity. These findings corroborate the importance of improved PROs and attainment of low symptom states for optimizing patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00847613 (registered: February 19, 2009); NCT00853385 (registered: March 2, 2009); NCT00856544 (registered: March 5, 2009); NCT01039688 (registered: December 25, 2009); NCT00960440 (registered: August 17, 2009).

Understanding differences between men and women with axial spondyloarthritis.

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a chronic inflammatory immune-mediated disease resulting in inflammatory low back pain and other inflammatory manifestations in peripheral joints and entheses. AxSpA encompasses both ankylosing spondylitis (AS), in which patients present with definitive sacroiliitis visible on radiographic imaging, as well as nonradiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA), in which such changes may not be discernable. Emerging evidence suggests that women and men experience axSpA differently. Although the prevalence of AS is approximately 2- to 3- fold higher in men than in women, nr-axSpA occurs with roughly equal frequency in women and men. The goal of this review is to increase awareness of sex differences in axSpA by exploring the distinct manifestations of disease and disease characteristics in women, the overall clinical burden, recommendations for diagnosis, and potential treatment options. We summarize and contextualize the results of recent studies that illuminate sex differences in nr-axSpA and AS, including differences in disease manifestation and progression. It is important that sex differences in axSpA are understood and considered when diagnosing and treating the spectrum of axSpA, including AS and nr-axSpA.

Re-establishment of efficacy of tofacitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor, after temporary discontinuation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This post-hoc analysis evaluated the effect of temporary discontinuation and reinitiation of tofacitinib on disease control in patients with RA in the vaccine sub-study of the long-term extension (LTE) study ORAL Sequel (NCT00413699). METHODS: The sub-study of ORAL Sequel was a randomized, parallel-group, open-label study. Patients who received tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily for ≥ 3 months in ORAL Sequel were randomized to receive continuous (tofacitinib monotherapy/with methotrexate) or interrupted (tofacitinib withdrawn for 2 weeks post-randomization then reinitiated as monotherapy/with methotrexate) treatment. Efficacy assessments included ACR20/50/70 response rates, change from baseline (∆) in C-reactive protein (CRP), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4 [ESR]), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Patient Global Assessment of arthritis (PtGA), Pain (Visual Analog Scale [VAS]), and Physician Global Assessment of arthritis (PGA). Safety was assessed throughout. RESULTS: The sub-study included 99 patients each in the continuous and interrupted treatment groups. ACR20/50 response rates, ∆CRP, ∆HAQ-DI (day 15), ∆DAS28-4 (ESR), ∆CDAI, ∆PtGA, ∆Pain (VAS), and ∆PGA were significantly worse in interrupted vs continuous patients during dose interruption, but were generally similar to pre-interruption/continuous treatment levels 28 days post-reinitiation. A numerically higher proportion of interrupted patients reported adverse events (49.5%) vs continuous patients (35.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib efficacy can be re-established after temporary withdrawal and reinitiation. The safety profile of patients who temporarily discontinued tofacitinib in the sub-study was consistent with previous tofacitinib LTE studies over 9 years. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00413699 Key Points • In this sub-study of the long-term extension (LTE) study, ORAL Sequel, the efficacy of tofacitinib was re-established after temporary withdrawal (2 weeks) and reinitation of treatment in patients with RA. • Patients with RA who temporarily discontinued tofacitinib had similar safety events to those reported in previous LTE studies. • The results of this sub-study were consistent with a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from two LTE studies, ORAL Sequel and A3921041, which assessed the efficacy of tofacitinib following a treatment discontinuation period of 14-30 days.

Higher Incidence Rates of Comorbidities in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis Compared with the General Population Using U.S. Administrative Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is associated with multiple comorbid conditions, including cardiovascular (CV) comorbidities that impose a considerable burden on patients. Effective management of PsA requires an understanding of comorbidity profiles. OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency and incidence rates of comorbidities and hospitalizations among newly diagnosed PsA patients and a matched general population without PsA, using large national claims databases in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used MarketScan databases from January 1, 2008, to September 30, 2015, to identify adult patients with newly diagnosed PsA (i.e., no PsA diagnosis during the 1 year before the first observed PsA diagnosis). The earliest date of PsA diagnosis was defined as the index date. Patients with no PsA diagnosis any time during the study period (controls) were directly matched to PsA patients with demographic characteristics. All patients had ≥ 2 years of medical and pharmacy coverage before the index date and ≥ 1 year of follow-up. Incident rates per 100 person-years for comorbidities of interest were evaluated. The hazard ratios of having various comorbid conditions for PsA patients were estimated by Cox proportional hazards models. All-cause and CV-related hospitalizations during the follow-up period were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 14,898 PsA patients and 35,037 matched controls met the study criteria. Compared with controls, PsA patients had a higher risk of CV disorders (incidence rate = 6.5 vs. 5.8; HR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.37-1.56) and a higher risk of the majority of the specific CV disorders (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease). PsA patients also had a higher risk for any autoimmune disease (incidence rate = 8.4 vs. 1.6; HR = 18.26; 95% CI = 17.18-19.40) and most autoimmune categories (psoriasis, ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and other autoimmune disorders). Rates of other PsA-related comorbidities (diabetes, anxiety, fatigue, smoking, alcohol use, obesity or overweight, depression, osteoporosis, uveitis, eczema, and gout) were also significantly higher for PsA patients. The all-cause hospitalization rate was higher among PsA patients than controls (24.9% vs. 16.2%; P < 0.001). The CV-related hospitalization rate varied depending on whether the CV condition was the primary discharge diagnosis only or was any diagnosis on the inpatient claims. The rates of coronary artery disease hospitalizations were significantly higher in PsA patients than in controls with both methods of analysis (primary diagnosis: 0.8% vs. 0.5%; P < 0.001; nonprimary diagnosis: 3.2% vs. 2.2%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective U.S.-based claims study found that PsA patients had a high comorbidity burden. Compared with the non-PsA population, PsA patients were associated with a higher incidence of CV comorbidities, autoimmune diseases, and other PsA-related comorbidities and a higher rate of all-cause and CV-related hospitalizations. Understanding these comorbidity profiles may provide insight on the effect of comorbid conditions on disease management and health care utilization associated with PsA. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Novartis. Kaine is a paid consultant for Novatis. Hur and Palmer are Novartis employees and stockowners. Song and Kim work for Truven Health Analytics, which received funding from Novartis to conduct this study.

Tofacitinib 5 mg Twice Daily in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Inadequate Response to Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Phase 3 Efficacy and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We performed a comprehensive review of phase 3 studies of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) (approved dose in many countries) in patients with moderate to severe RA and inadequate response to prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. METHODS: A search of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov identified 5 studies: ORAL Solo (NCT00814307), ORAL Sync (NCT00856544), ORAL Standard (included adalimumab 40 mg once every 2 weeks; NCT00853385), ORAL Scan (NCT00847613), and ORAL Step (NCT00960440). Efficacy and safety data for tofacitinib 5 mg BID, placebo, and adalimumab were analyzed. RESULTS: Across the 5 studies, 1216 patients received tofacitinib 5 mg BID, 681 received placebo, and 204 received adalimumab. At month 3, tofacitinib demonstrated significantly higher 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70, respectively) response rates, greater improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, and a higher proportion of Disease Activity Score-defined remission than placebo. Frequencies of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs were similar for tofacitinib and placebo at month 3; serious infection events were more frequent for tofacitinib. In ORAL Standard, although not powered for formal comparisons, tofacitinib and adalimumab had numerically similar efficacy and AEs; serious AEs and serious infection events were more frequent with tofacitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib 5 mg BID reduced RA signs and symptoms and improved physical function versus placebo in patients with inadequate response to prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Tofacitinib 5 mg BID had a consistent, manageable safety profile across studies, with no new safety signals identified.

A pooled analysis of the safety of tofacitinib as monotherapy or in combination with background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in a Phase 3 rheumatoid arthritis population.

OBJECTIVE: This post-hoc, pooled analysis of Phase 3 studies of tofacitinib examined the safety of tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily (BID) when used as monotherapy versus combination therapy with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Pooled data from six double-blind, randomized controlled Phase 3 studies of tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID in patients with RA were analyzed for safety and stratified by administration as monotherapy (ORAL Solo: NCT00814307 and ORAL Start: NCT01039688) or in combination with csDMARDs (ORAL Sync: NCT00856544, ORAL Standard: NCT00853385, ORAL Scan: NCT00847613, and ORAL Step: NCT00960440), and by glucocorticoid use at baseline. Safety assessments included incidence rates (IRs) for serious adverse events (SAEs), discontinuations due to AEs, serious infection events, and herpes zoster (HZ), and were evaluated throughout the duration of the Phase 3 studies. RESULTS: In total, 3881 patients were included in the safety analysis (monotherapy studies: n = 1380; combination therapy studies: n = 2501). IRs for selected AEs of interest were generally numerically lower in patients who received tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID as monotherapy than as combination therapy (SAEs: IR [range] 6.21-6.72 versus IR 10.17-13.46; discontinuations due to AEs: IR 5.53-6.18 versus IR 10.80-11.01; serious infections: IR 1.57-1.66 versus IR 3.39-3.56; HZ: IR 1.95-2.93 versus IR 4.37-4.99, respectively), irrespective of tofacitinib dose or glucocorticoid use. There were too few patients and events within the placebo group to fully evaluate effect between combination therapy and monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Safety profiles were generally similar between patients receiving monotherapy and combination therapy; however, selected safety events of interest, including HZ and serious infections, showed lower IRs with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals for tofacitinib all monotherapy versus combination therapy. Tofacitinib monotherapy may, therefore, have fewer safety events compared with combination therapy, and have a favorable risk-benefit profile in patients with active RA who are intolerant to csDMARDs.

Long-term safety of subcutaneous abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis: integrated analysis of clinical trial data representing more than four years of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety of long-term subcutaneous (SC) abatacept treatment using integrated clinical trial data obtained in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. METHODS: Data from the double-blind and open-label phases of 5 clinical trials of SC abatacept were pooled. The overall and 6-month incidence rates were calculated as events per 100 patient-years of exposure. RESULTS: This analysis included 1,879 patients with 4,214.6 patient-years of exposure to SC abatacept. The mean ± SD length of exposure was 27.3 ± 9.1 months. The reported incidence rate of serious infections was 1.79 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.42-2.24); the most frequent infections were pneumonia (incidence rate 0.36 [95% CI 0.22-0.59]), urinary tract infection (incidence rate 0.14 [95% CI 0.06-0.32]), and gastroenteritis (incidence rate 0.10 [95% CI 0.04-0.25]). Tuberculosis occurred rarely (incidence rate 0.09 [95% CI 0.04-0.25]). The reported incidence rate of malignancies was 1.32 (95% CI 1.01-1.72), and the most common was solid organ malignancy (incidence rate 0.69 [95% CI 0.48-0.99]). The incidence rate of autoimmune events was 1.37 (95% CI 1.06-1.78), and the most frequent events were psoriasis (incidence rate 0.33 [95% CI 0.20-0.56]) and Sjögren's syndrome (incidence rate 0.24 [95% CI 0.13-0.44]). The reported incidence rate of local injection site reactions was 1.72 (95% CI 1.36-2.17); these events occurred primarily during the first 6 months of treatment, and almost all were of mild or moderate intensity. The incidence rates of serious infections, malignancies, autoimmune events, and injection site reactions did not increase over time. CONCLUSION: Long-term treatment with SC abatacept was associated with low incidence rates of serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events and was well tolerated, with infrequent injection site reactions. These findings are consistent with those related to treatment with intravenous abatacept. Long-term treatment with SC abatacept did not lead to new safety signals over time.

The effects of tocilizumab on osteitis, synovitis and erosion progression in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the ACT-RAY MRI substudy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the imaging-detected mechanism of reduction of structural joint damage progression by tocilizumab (TCZ) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using MRI. METHODS: In a substudy of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3b study (ACT-RAY) of biologic-naïve patients with RA who were methotrexate (MTX)-inadequate responders, 63 patients were randomised to continue MTX or receive placebo (PBO), both in combination with TCZ 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, with optional additional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at week 24 if Disease Activity Score of 28 joints < 3.2. The most symptomatic hand was imaged with 0.2 Tesla extremity MRI at weeks 0, 2, 12 and 52. MR images were scored using Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score. Predictors of week 52 erosion progression were determined by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: TCZ + PBO (n=32) demonstrated mean improvements in synovitis from baseline to weeks 2 (-0.92; p=0.0011), 12 (-1.86; p<0.0001) and 52 (-3.35; p<0.0001), while TCZ + MTX (n=31) had mean improvements in synovitis at week 12 (-0.88; p=0.0074), but not week 52 (-1.00; p=0.0711). TCZ+PBO demonstrated mean reductions in osteitis at weeks 12 (-5.10; p=0.0022) and 52 (-8.56; p=0.0006), while TCZ+MTX had mean reductions at weeks 2 (-0.21; p<0.05) and 12 (-3.63; p=0.0008), but not week 52 (-2.31; p=0.9749). Mean erosion scores did not worsen in either group. MRI erosion scores at weeks 12 and 52 correlated strongly with radiography erosion scores at week 52 (r>0.80). Baseline synovitis and worsening of osteitis predicted erosion progression. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid suppression of synovitis and osteitis with reduction in structural joint damage progression occurred with TCZ, as monotherapy or in combination with MTX, through week 52.

A phase Ib multiple ascending dose study evaluating safety, pharmacokinetics, and early clinical response of brodalumab, a human anti-IL-17R antibody, in methotrexate-resistant rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical response of brodalumab (AMG 827), a human, anti-IL-17 receptor A (IL-17RA) monoclonal antibody in subjects with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This phase Ib, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind multiple ascending dose study enrolled subjects with moderate to severe RA (≥ 6/66 swollen and ≥ 8/68 tender joints). Subjects were randomized 3:1 to receive brodalumab (50 mg, 140 mg, or 210 mg subcutaneously every two weeks for 6 doses per group; or 420 mg or 700 mg intravenously every 4 weeks for two doses per group) or placebo. Endpoints included incidence of adverse events (AEs) and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints included pharmacodynamics, and improvements in RA clinical metrics. RESULTS: Forty subjects were randomized to investigational product; one subject discontinued due to worsening of RA (placebo). The study was not designed to assess efficacy. AEs were reported by 70% (7/10) of placebo subjects and 77% (22/30) of brodalumab subjects. Three serious AEs were reported in two subjects; there were no opportunistic infections. Brodalumab treatment resulted in inhibition of IL-17 receptor signaling and receptor occupancy on circulating leukocytes. No treatment effects were observed with individual measures of RA disease activity. On day 85 (week 13) 37% (11/30) of brodalumab subjects and 22% (2/9) of placebo subjects achieved ACR20; 7% (2/30) brodalumab subjects and 11% (1/9) of placebo subjects achieved ACR50; and 0% (0/30) brodalumab subjects and 0% (0/9) of placebo subjects achieved ACR70. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple dose administration of brodalumab was tolerated in subjects with active RA. There was no evidence of a clinical response to brodalumab in subjects with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00771030.

Evaluation of abatacept administered subcutaneously in adults with active rheumatoid arthritis: impact of withdrawal and reintroduction on immunogenicity, efficacy and safety (phase Iiib ALLOW study).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a temporary interruption in subcutaneous (SC) abatacept on immunogenicity, safety and efficacy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate in a phase III trial. METHODS: Following a 12-week open-label introduction (period I; intravenous abatacept loading dose and weekly fixed-dose SC abatacept 125 mg), patients were randomised 2:1 to double-blind SC placebo or SC abatacept for 12 weeks (period II). At the end of period II, patients receiving SC abatacept continued treatment and patients on placebo were reintroduced to SC abatacept (12-week open-label period III). The co-primary end points were ELISA-detected immunogenicity rate and safety at the end of period II. Efficacy was also monitored. RESULTS: Of 167 patients entering period I, 72% qualified for period II; during periods II and III, three patients discontinued treatment. Mean (SD) disease duration was 6.6 (6.5) years and Disease Activity Score 28 was 4.8 (0.8). The primary end point was met, with a non-significant increase in immunogenicity upon withdrawal (7/73 placebo vs 0/38 abatacept in period II; p=0.119) which was reversed upon reintroduction of SC abatacept (2/73 vs 1/38, end period III). Safety was comparable regardless of withdrawal, with no unexpected events upon reintroduction. Two patients experienced reactions at the SC injection site. On withdrawal, patients experienced slight worsening in efficacy which improved following reintroduction. CONCLUSIONS: Overall immunogenicity to SC abatacept is low, consistent with intravenous abatacept, and is not significantly affected by a 3-month interruption and reintroduction. This stop-start schedule was well tolerated, with little impact on safety and efficacy. These are important considerations for the clinical use of SC abatacept. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier NCT00533897.

Evaluation of the safety of rituximab in combination with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor and methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of rituximab in combination with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Adult patients with active RA (≥ 5 swollen and ≥ 5 tender joints) receiving a stable dose of MTX (10-25 mg/week) and stable dose of TNF inhibitor (etanercept or adalimumab) for ≥ 12 weeks were randomized 2:1 to receive one course of rituximab or placebo, given intravenously at a dose of 2 × 500 mg. The primary end point was the proportion of patients developing ≥ 1 serious infection through week 24. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were treated with either rituximab or placebo in combination with background MTX and a TNF inhibitor. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between groups, except for corticosteroid usage (36% in the rituximab arm versus 17% in the placebo arm). A serious infection (pneumonia) was observed in 1 patient (3%) in the rituximab group after 14.4 patient-years of exposure (6.95 events per 100 patient-years, 95% confidence interval 0.98-49.35), compared with none in the placebo group at week 24. Infections were reported in 18 patients (55%) and 11 patients (61%) in the rituximab and placebo groups, respectively. Grade 3 infections were reported in 3 patients (9%) receiving rituximab and in none of the patients receiving placebo. No grade 4 infections were observed, nor were there any opportunistic, fungal, or tuberculosis infections. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 2 rituximab-treated patients (pneumonia and coronary artery occlusion), whereas there were no SAEs reported in placebo-treated patients. At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response was 30% in the rituximab group compared with 17% in the placebo group, and ACR50 responses were achieved by 12% and 6% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The preliminary safety profile of rituximab in combination with a TNF inhibitor and MTX was consistent with the safety profile of rituximab in combination with MTX in other RA trials without a TNF inhibitor, with no new safety signals observed. SAEs were numerically more frequent in the rituximab group, and there was no clear evidence of an efficacy advantage in patients receiving rituximab in combination with a TNF inhibitor and MTX.

Ocrelizumab, a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a phase I/II randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study.

OBJECTIVE: Ocrelizumab, a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, was studied in a first-in-human trial in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients receiving concomitant methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: The ACTION trial was a combined phase I/II study of placebo plus MTX versus ocrelizumab plus MTX in 237 RA patients (intent-to-treat population). During phase I, 45 patients were treated with 1 of 5 escalating doses of study drug (infusions on days 1 and 15, 10-1,000 mg per each infusion). An additional 192 patients were randomized during phase II. Eligible patients had active disease, an inadequate response to treatment with at least MTX, rheumatoid factor positivity, and elevated levels of acute-phase reactants. The total study duration was 72 weeks. B cell pharmacodynamics over time was investigated. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar among the treatment groups. Based on the entire 72-week data set, the incidence of serious adverse events in the ocrelizumab-treated patients was 17.9%, as compared with 14.6% in placebo-treated patients. The incidence of serious infections was 2.0% in all ocrelizumab-treated patients and 4.9% in placebo-treated patients. Infusion-associated adverse events were mostly grade 1 or grade 2 and were more frequent around the time of the first infusion. No serious infusion-associated adverse events were reported in the ocrelizumab group. Evidence of clinical activity was observed at all doses evaluated. Peripheral B cell depletion after infusion was rapid at all doses, with earlier repletion of B cells at doses of 10 mg and 50 mg. Human anti-human antibodies were detected in 19% and 10%, respectively, of those receiving 10 mg and 50 mg of ocrelizumab, compared with 0-5% of those receiving 200, 500, and 1,000 mg. CONCLUSION: Ocrelizumab therapy in combination with MTX was well tolerated. Doses of 200 mg (2 infusions) and higher showed better clinical responses, better reduction of C-reactive protein levels, and very low immunogenicity.

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.

Abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: A review.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory disease affecting synovial joints. Patients with persistent, active disease have traditionally been treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (eg, methotrexate) or biologic agents (eg, tumor necrosis factor [TNF] antagonists). However, patients may discontinue these treatments due to toxicity, infection, or lack of efficacy. Two additional biologic therapies-rituximab and abatacept-are currently available for TNF-antagonist inadequate responders. Abatacept is also indicated for inadequate responders to traditional DMARDs. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review was to provide an overview of the issues surrounding the treatment of RA patients experiencing inadequate responses to current treatment and to discuss the current and future impact of abatacept on the RA treatment armamentarium. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and BIOSIS databases were searched (search dates: January 1, 2000-September 19, 2007) using the terms abatacept or CTLA-4 or Orencia with rheumatoid arthritis. Full text articles in English were selected for relevance, and only articles presenting primary clinical trial data from randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials of abatacept were included. This review focused on the Phase III trials of abatacept in methotrexate and/or TNF-antagonist inadequate responders, as these trials had the largest number of patients and the longest study durations. RESULTS: The literature search initially yielded 848 papers. A total of 12 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Abatacept is a novel agent that has been reported to reduce the signs and symptoms of RA in patients with active RA with an inadequate response to DMARDs and/or TNF-antagonist treatment. In both of these patient populations, treatment with abatacept was found to provide clinically meaningful health-related quality-of-life benefits, such as improvements in physical function, activity limitation, sleep, and fatigue. Abatacept was reported to have a consistent safety and tolerability profile, with a low rate (3.5%-4.2%) of discontinuation due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and tolerability data from Phase III clinical trials suggest that abatacept is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment option for RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate and/or TNF antagonists.

Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus as monotherapy in controlling the signs and symptoms of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This was a 6-month, phase III, double-blind, multicenter study. Patients with active RA who had discontinued all disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for an appropriate washout period (at least 1 month) and who, after the washout period, had a stable joint count (at least 10 tender/painful joints and 7 swollen joints) were stratified according to DMARD intolerance or DMARD resistance, and randomized to receive a single daily oral dose of placebo, tacrolimus 2 mg, or tacrolimus 3 mg. RESULTS: A total of 464 patients received at least 1 dose of study drug. Baseline characteristics were similar among the 3 treatment groups. American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) success (defined as completion of 6 months of treatment and an ACR20 response at the month 6 visit) for the placebo, tacrolimus 2 mg, and tacrolimus 3 mg groups was 10.2%, 18.8% (P < 0.05 versus placebo), and 26.8% (P < 0.0005 versus placebo), respectively. At the end of treatment, the ACR20 and ACR50 response rates in the 3-mg group were 32.0% (P < 0.005 versus placebo) and 11.8% (P < 0.05 versus placebo), respectively. DMARD-intolerant patients had better ACR response rates than did DMARD-resistant patients. Although serum creatinine levels increased by >/=40% from baseline at some time during the trial in 20% and 29% of patients receiving tacrolimus 2 mg/day and 3 mg/day, respectively, the serum creatinine level remained within the normal range throughout the trial in approximately 90% of patients. CONCLUSION: Tacrolimus, at dosages of both 2 mg/day and 3 mg/day, is efficacious and safe as monotherapy for patients with active RA, but treatment with the 3-mg dose of tacrolimus resulted in generally better ACR response rates.

Tacrolimus in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving concomitant methotrexate: a six-month, open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of tacrolimus used in combination with oral methotrexate (MTX) to control the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients whose disease remains active despite treatment with MTX. METHODS: This was a multicenter open-label study conducted at 13 US sites. Eighty patients who at baseline had active RA (mean tender/painful joint count 29.4, mean swollen joint count 17.4, mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate 25.1 mm/hour) despite treatment for >/=1 month with a stable, maximally tolerated dosage of oral MTX (/=30% maximum increase in the Cr level from baseline during the study, with the Cr level in 3 patients (3.8%) exceeding the range considered normal for their age and sex. The maximum Cr level during the study was 1.8 mg/dl. The ACR20 clinical response rate at the end of treatment was 52.5% (95% confidence interval 41.6-63.4%). CONCLUSION: In patients whose active RA persists despite treatment with MTX, tacrolimus in combination with MTX is safe and well-tolerated and provides clinical benefit.

Concomitant leflunomide therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable doses of methotrexate. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs may confer greater benefits when combined with the antimetabolite methotrexate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of leflunomide versus placebo when added to ongoing, stable-dose methotrexate therapy in patients with persistently active rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN: 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: 20 centers in the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: Patients with persistent rheumatoid arthritis, as defined by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, despite receiving methotrexate for at least 6 months. INTERVENTION: Leflunomide or matching placebo added to existing methotrexate therapy. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy variable was the rate of achievement of 20% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR20) at the end of the study. The Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index was assessed at each visit, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form was completed as an end point analysis. RESULTS: In the leflunomide and placebo groups, 46.2% and 19.5% of patients, respectively, met ACR20 criteria at 24 weeks (P < 0.001). Clinical improvement was demonstrated by statistically significant mean changes in individual components of the ACR20 response criteria. Discontinuation rates were similar in both treatment groups (23.1% in the leflunomide group and 24.8% in the placebo group), as were the overall incidences of adverse events (89.2% vs. 89.5%, respectively). Adverse events were predominantly mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with leflunomide and methotrexate provides statistically significant clinical benefit in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who are receiving methotrexate therapy. Leflunomide plus methotrexate is generally well tolerated and can be used safely with appropriate liver enzyme and hematologic monitoring.

Efficacy of tacrolimus in rheumatoid arthritis patients who have been treated unsuccessfully with methotrexate: a six-month, double-blind, randomized, dose-ranging study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, safety, and optimal dose of tacrolimus monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled monotherapy study was set in 12 community sites and 9 university-based sites. Two hundred sixty-eight patients with RA who were resistant to or intolerant of methotrexate (mean dose 15.2 mg/week) and had active disease for at least 6 months (mean tender joint count 28.2, mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate 46.5 mm/hour) were randomized to receive treatment after discontinuation of methotrexate. Those who received at least 1 dose of tacrolimus were analyzed; 141 completed the study. Stable dosages of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and low-dose prednisone were allowed during treatment. All patients were given 1, 3, or 5 mg of tacrolimus or placebo once daily for 24 weeks. The American College of Rheumatology definition of 20% improvement (ACR20) and the tender and swollen joint counts at the end of treatment were the primary outcomes. RESULTS: ACR20 response rates demonstrated a clear dose response. The ACR20 response was observed in 15.5% of patients receiving placebo (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 7.1-23.9%), 29% of the 1 mg tacrolimus group (95% CI 18.3-39.7%) (P < 0.058); 34.4% of the 3 mg group (95% CI 22.7-46.0%) (P < 0.013), and 50% of the 5 mg group (95% CI 37.8-62.3%) (P < or = 0.001). The tender joint count improved statistically significantly in all tacrolimus groups. The swollen joint count, physical function, and patient-assessed pain improved statistically significantly in the 3 mg and 5 mg groups. The incidence of creatinine elevation > or =40% above baseline levels increased in a dose-dependent manner. Dropout rates were high (41-59%) and were more common for inefficacy in the placebo patients (71.4%), whereas they were more common for toxicity in the high-dose tacrolimus groups (31-33%). Discontinuation for creatinine elevation occurred in the 3 mg (3.1%) and 5 mg (10.9%) tacrolimus groups. CONCLUSION: Tacrolimus improved disease activity in methotrexate-resistant or -intolerant patients with RA. A dose response was observed when efficacy and toxicity were assessed at different doses. The optimal dose of tacrolimus appears to be >1 mg but < or=3 mg daily.