Subcutaneous Sarilumab in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis who Previously Received Subcutaneous Sarilumab or Intravenous Tocilizumab: An Open-Label Extension of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of open-label sarilumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who completed the phase III double-blind ASCERTAIN study (NCT01768572) and switched from intravenous (IV) tocilizumab to subcutaneous (SC) sarilumab, or who continued SC sarilumab in the open-label extension (OLE) study EXTEND (NCT01146652). METHODS: Patients who completed ASCERTAIN were eligible to enroll in EXTEND to receive sarilumab 200 mg SC every 2 weeks (Q2W). Safety and efficacy were reported through 96 weeks in the OLE in patients who switched from tocilizumab IV to sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W, who switched from sarilumab 150 mg SC Q2W to sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W, or who continued sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W. RESULTS: Of 175 patients who completed ASCERTAIN, 168 (96%) enrolled in EXTEND, and 38 of these patients (23%) discontinued the OLE. Cumulative sarilumab exposure during follow-up was 273.7 patient-years. No new safety signals were identified, infections occurred at a rate of 59.9/100 patient-years, and there were no cases of grade 4 neutropenia. Efficacy-as assessed by Disease Activity Score (28 joints) based on C-reactive protein, Clinical Disease Activity Index, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores-was sustained over 96 weeks of follow-up when switching to, or continuing, sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W. CONCLUSION: Switching from IV to SC interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor therapy produced no new safety concerns, and clinical efficacy was sustained over 96 weeks of follow-up. These findings alleviate potential concerns over switching route of administration with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor therapy for RA.

Efficacy and safety of sarilumab in combination with csDMARDs or as monotherapy in subpopulations of patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis in three phase III randomized, controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: The interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor sarilumab demonstrated efficacy in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or as monotherapy in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response (IR) or intolerant (INT) to methotrexate (MTX) or tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors. This analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in patient subgroups. METHODS: Data were included from phase III studies: two placebo-controlled studies of subcutaneous sarilumab 150/200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) either + MTX in MTX-IR patients (52 weeks) or + csDMARDs in TNF-IR/INT patients (24 weeks), and a monotherapy study of sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs. adalimumab 40 mg q2w in MTX-IR/INT patients (24 weeks). Prespecified and post hoc subgroups included patient demographics, disease characteristics, and prior treatments. Prespecified and post hoc endpoints included clinical, radiographic, and physical function measures, and p values are considered nominal. Safety was assessed during double-blind treatment. RESULTS: The superiority of sarilumab (either as monotherapy vs. adalimumab or in combination with csDMARDs vs. placebo + csDMARDs) across clinical endpoints was generally consistent across subgroups defined by patient demographics, disease characteristics, and prior treatments, demonstrating the benefit of sarilumab treatment for a wide range of patient types. Interaction p values of < 0.05 were consistently observed across studies only for baseline anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) status for American College of Rheumatology 20% response, but not American College of Rheumatology 50% or 70% response. Adverse events and worsening laboratory parameters occurred more frequently in sarilumab-treated vs. placebo-treated patients and were more frequent in the small number of patients ≥ 65 years (n = 289) vs. patients < 65 years (n = 1819). Serious infections occurred in six patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving sarilumab, although the incidence of serious infections was generally higher in patients aged ≥ 65 years regardless of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from ACPA status, there were no consistent signals indicating differential effects of sarilumab in any of the subpopulations assessed. Sarilumab demonstrated consistent efficacy and safety across a wide range of patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01061736, registered on February 03, 2010; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01709578, registered on October 18, 2012; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02332590, registered on January 07, 2015.

Immunogenicity of Sarilumab Monotherapy in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Were Inadequate Responders or Intolerant to Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs.

INTRODUCTION: This open-label study evaluated the immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of sarilumab monotherapy in patients with active, moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response or intolerance to prior conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. METHODS: Adults with RA (n = 132) were randomized to receive subcutaneous sarilumab (150 [n = 65] or 200 mg [n = 67]) every 2 weeks (q2w) for 24 weeks. Endpoints included incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) at week 24, safety, and efficacy. RESULTS: Persistent ADAs occurred in eight patients (12.3%) receiving sarilumab 150 mg q2w, seven of whom (10.8%) had neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), and in four patients (6.1%) receiving sarilumab 200 mg q2w, two of whom (3.0%) had NAbs; all exhibited low antibody titers. Infections and neutropenia were the most common adverse events (AEs). There were three serious AEs, no reports of anaphylaxis, and few hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash) with no notable differences in hypersensitivity reactions in ADA-positive patients relative to ADA-negative patients. Changes in absolute neutrophil count, alanine aminotransferase level, and platelet count were consistent with interleukin-6 signaling blockade and in agreement with previous observations. At week 24, overall American College of Rheumatology 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria responses were 73.8%/53.8%/29.2%, respectively, with sarilumab 150 mg q2w and 71.6%/50.7%/29.9% with sarilumab 200 mg q2w. No patients with an ADA-positive response showed loss of efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: ADA titers were low and persistent ADAs and NAbs occurred relatively infrequently in both sarilumab dose groups. ADA did not meaningfully impact the safety or efficacy of either dose of sarilumab over 24 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02121210. FUNDING: Sanofi Genzyme and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Plain language summary available for this article.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab Monotherapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to Conventional Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg monotherapy administered every 2 weeks (q2w) versus other monotherapies of biologic, targeted and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs, tsDMARDs, csDMARDs) at recommended doses for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients who are intolerant of or inadequate responders to csDMARDs (csDMARD-IR). METHODS: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted on 24-week efficacy outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria, and European League Against Rheumatism Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28) < 2.6. In addition, serious infections and serious adverse events (SI/SAE) were examined at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Nine trials were selected for the NMA. Sarilumab 200 mg showed superiority versus adalimumab monotherapy on all efficacy outcomes and versus tofacitinib monotherapy on ACR20. Compared with csDMARDs, sarilumab 200 mg showed superiority on ACR 20/50/70 criteria and DAS28 < 2.6 but had similar efficacy on HAQ-DI. Efficacy of sarilumab 200 mg was similar versus certolizumab, etanercept, tofacitinib and tocilizumab 8 mg/kg monotherapy across all efficacy outcomes. SI/SAE appeared similar for sarilumab 200 mg versus all comparators. CONCLUSION: In csDMARD-IR patients, sarilumab 200 mg monotherapy has superior efficacy and similar safety versus csDMARDs, superior efficacy and similar safety versus adalimumab, and similar efficacy and safety versus bDMARDs and tsDMARDs. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of sarilumab combination therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors: systematic literature review and network meta-analyses.

Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg and 150 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (+csDMARDs) versus other targeted DMARDs+csDMARDs and placebo+csDMARDs, in inadequate responders to csDMARDs (csDMARD-IR) or tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFi-IR). Methods: Systematic literature review and network meta-analyses (NMA) conducted on 24 week efficacy and safety outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, modified total sharp score (mTSS, including 52 weeks), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70, European League Against Rheumatism Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28)<2.6; serious infections/serious adverse events (including 52 weeks). Results: 53 trials were selected for NMA. csDMARD-IR: Sarilumab 200 mg+csDMARDs and 150 mg+csDMARDs were superior versus placebo+csDMARDs on all outcomes. Against most targeted DMARDs, sarilumab 200 mg showed no statistically significant differences, except superiority to baricitinib 2 mg, tofacitinib and certolizumab on 24 week mTSS. Sarilumab 150 mg was similar to all targeted DMARDs. TNFi-IR: Sarilumab 200 mg was similar to abatacept, golimumab, tocilizumab 4 mg and 8 mg/kg intravenously and rituximab on ACR20/50/70, superior to baricitinib 2 mg on ACR50 and DAS28<2.6 and to abatacept, golimumab, tocilizumab 4 mg/kg intravenously and rituximab on DAS28<2.6. Sarilumab 150 mg was similar to targeted DMARDs but superior to baricitinib 2 mg and rituximab on DAS28<2.6 and inferior to tocilizumab 8 mg on ACR20 and DAS28<2.6. Serious adverse events, including serious infections, appeared similar for sarilumab versus comparators. Conclusions: Results suggest that in csDMARD-IR and TNFi-IR (a smaller network), sarilumab+csDMARD had superior efficacy and similar safety versus placebo+csDMARDs and at least similar efficacy and safety versus other targeted DMARDs+csDMARDs.

Effects of Sarilumab on Rheumatoid Arthritis as Reported by Patients Using the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease Scale.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effect of sarilumab on patient-perceived impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the 7-domain RA Impact of Disease (RAID) scale. METHODS: Two phase III, randomized, controlled trials of sarilumab in patients with active, longstanding RA were analyzed: (1) sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (+csDMARD) versus placebo + csDMARD [TARGET (NCT01709578)]; and (2) sarilumab 200 mg versus adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg monotherapy [MONARCH (NCT02332590)]. Least-squares mean (LSM) differences in RAID total score (range 0-10) and 7 key RA symptoms, including pain and fatigue (baseline to Weeks 12 and 24), were compared. "Responders" by RAID total score were defined by improvements from baseline ≥ minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and ≥ patient-acceptable symptom-state (PASS) at endpoint. RESULTS: Sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg + csDMARD were nominally superior (p < 0.05) versus placebo + csDMARD and 200 mg sarilumab versus ADA 40 mg in LSM differences for RAID total score at weeks 12 (-0.93 and -1.13; -0.49, respectively) and 24 (-0.75 and -1.01; -0.78), and all effects of RA (except functional impairment in MONARCH Week 12). Effects were greater in physical domains (e.g., pain) than mental domains (e.g., emotional well-being). More patients receiving sarilumab versus placebo or ADA reported improvements ≥ MCID and PASS in total RAID scores at both assessments. CONCLUSION: Based on the RAID, sarilumab + csDMARD or as monotherapy reduced the effect of RA on patients' lives to a greater extent than placebo + csDMARD or ADA monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01709578 and NCT02332590).

Do patient characteristics predict which patients with overactive bladder benefit from a higher fesoterodine dose?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We sought to determine whether baseline characteristics predict which overactive bladder (OAB) patients benefit from fesoterodine 8 mg versus 4 mg. METHODS: In double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose trials, baseline characteristics of OAB patients with ≥ 1 urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) episodes/24 h who escalated from fesoterodine 4 mg to 8 mg were evaluated. Possible dose-escalation predictors (age; sex; previous antimuscarinic use; UUI, micturitions, and urgency episodes/24 h; race; body mass index; time to dose escalation; OAB duration) were compared in escalators versus non-escalators. Patients from fixed-dose trials with dose-escalator characteristics were identified (matched dose-escalator sample) to assess changes from baseline with fesoterodine 4 mg, 8 mg, and placebo. RESULTS: In flexible-dose trials, significant predictors of fesoterodine dose escalation were younger age (≤ 65.8 years), greater number of baseline micturitions (≥ 13.1) and urgency episodes/24 h (≥ 10.9), greater OAB duration (≥ 9.1 years), and more frequent previous antimuscarinic use (58.3%), but not baseline UUI episodes/24 h. In the matched dose-escalator sample (fesoterodine 4 mg: n = 215; 8 mg: n = 198; placebo: n = 217), change from baseline in UUI episodes significantly improved with fesoterodine 8 mg versus 4 mg (P = 0.043) and with both doses versus placebo (P < 0.001). Dry mouth and constipation rates were higher with fesoterodine 8 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-escalator patients had a significantly greater UUI response with fesoterodine 8 mg versus 4 mg. Given the potential for adverse events, fesoterodine 4 mg is recommended to start; however, patients with UUI and identified predictors may benefit from initial treatment with fesoterodine 8 mg or rapid dose escalation.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized phase III trial of sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The phase III MONARCH randomized controlled trial (NCT02332590) demonstrated that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), sarilumab (anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody) monotherapy is superior to adalimumab monotherapy in reducing disease activity and signs and symptoms of RA, as well as in improving physical function, with similar rates of adverse and serious adverse events. We report the effects of sarilumab versus adalimumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Patients with active RA intolerant of, or inadequate responders to, methotrexate were randomized to sarilumab 200 mg plus placebo every 2 weeks (q2w; n = 184) or adalimumab 40 mg plus placebo q2w (n = 185). Dose escalation to weekly administration of adalimumab or matching placebo was permitted at week 16. PROs assessed at baseline and weeks 12 and 24 included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain and morning stiffness visual analogue scales (VASs), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID), and rheumatoid arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (WPS-RA). Between-group differences in least-squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline were analyzed. p < 0.05 was considered significant for PROs in a predefined hierarchy. For PROs not in the hierarchy, nominal p values are provided. Proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and achieving normative values were assessed. RESULTS: At week 24, sarilumab treatment resulted in significantly greater LSM changes from baseline than adalimumab monotherapy in HAQ-DI (p < 0.005), PtGA (p < 0.001), pain VAS (p < 0.001), and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (p < 0.001). Greater LSM changes were reported for sarilumab than for adalimumab in RAID (nominal p < 0.001), morning stiffness VAS (nominal p < 0.05), and WPS-RA (nominal p < 0.005). Between-group differences in FACIT-F and SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) were not significant. More patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the MCID in HAQ-DI (nominal p < 0.01), RAID (nominal p < 0.01), SF-36 PCS (nominal p < 0.005), and morning stiffness (nominal p < 0.05), as well as greater than or equal to the normative values in HAQ-DI (p < 0.05), with sarilumab versus adalimumab. CONCLUSIONS: In parallel with the clinical efficacy profile previously reported, sarilumab monotherapy resulted in greater improvements across multiple PROs than adalimumab monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02332590 . Registered on 5 January 2015.

Two years of sarilumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to MTX: safety, efficacy and radiographic outcomes.

Objectives: To examine 2-year safety, efficacy and radiographic outcomes of sarilumab in adults with RA and inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR). Methods: In the randomized, placebo-controlled MOBILITY trial, MTX-IR patients received subcutaneous sarilumab (150 or 200 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks (q2w) plus MTX for up to 1 year. Upon study completion, patients could enrol in the open-label, long-term extension study (EXTEND, NCT011046652), in which all patients received sarilumab 200 mg q2w plus MTX. Dose reduction to 150 mg q2w was allowed for abnormal laboratory findings and per investigator's discretion. Results: Of 1197 patients participating in MOBILITY, 901 entered EXTEND. Over the 2-year period, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious AEs occurred at rates of 279.6 events per 100 patient-years and 16.6 events per 100 patient-years, respectively. The most common TEAEs were neutropenia, injection site erythema, increased alanine aminotransferase and upper respiratory tract infections. After 1 year in the open-label, long-term extension, disease activity reached similar levels regardless of initial treatment. Modified total Sharp scores at year 1 were maintained through year 2. Best radiographic outcomes were observed in patients initially randomized to sarilumab 200 mg q2w. After dose reduction, 89.4% of patients continued the study through 2 years. Conclusion: Sarilumab safety through year 2 was consistent with IL-6 receptor blockade. Clinical response was similar irrespective of initial treatment, and radiographic progression stabilized. Patients initiated on sarilumab 200 mg q2w had the best radiographic outcomes. Dose reduction allowed most patients to continue with the study.

Fesoterodine for the Treatment of Nocturnal Urgency in Patients with Overactive Bladder Syndrome: An Analysis of Responders and Nonresponders.

PURPOSE: A recent study demonstrated improvement in nocturnal urgency in patients with overactive bladder when treated with fesoterodine. In the current study we aimed to determine which bladder diary parameters predict the response to fesoterodine in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with nocturnal urgency completed a 2-week, single-blind placebo run-in followed by 1:1 double-blind randomization to 12 weeks of fesoterodine or placebo. We analyzed bladder diary parameter changes from baseline to week 12, including the actual number of night voids (total number of nocturia episodes), maximum voided volume, nocturnal bladder capacity, Nocturnal Bladder Capacity Index (NBCi) (actual number of night voids - nocturnal urine volume/maximum voided volume - 1), nocturnal urine volume, the nocturia index (nocturnal urine volume/maximum voided volume) and the nocturnal polyuria index (nocturnal urine volume/24-hour volume). Additionally, we analyzed OAB-q (Overactive Bladder Questionnaire) changes. RESULTS: There was a linear relationship between the likelihood of being a responder for NBCi and the nocturia index. Responders had a significant decrease in nocturnal urine volume relative to baseline (-181.7 ml, p <0.01). Neither group showed a significant change in maximum voided volume relative to baseline. There was a significant decrease in NBCi and the nocturia index in responders (-0.82 and -0.61, respectively, each p <0.01). Responders demonstrated improvement in the OAB-q concern, coping, sleep, bother and total score metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with nocturnal urgency secondary to overactive bladder syndrome and low nocturnal bladder capacity with a mismatch between nocturnal urine production and bladder capacity may benefit from fesoterodine. Symptom improvement appears to be mediated by increases in typical rather than maximum nocturnal voided volumes. Symptom improvement was associated with improved quality of life.

Sarilumab improves patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response/intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of the anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody sarilumab administered with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the TARGET trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNF-IR). METHODS: 546 patients (81.9% female, mean age 52.9 years) were randomised to placebo, sarilumab 150 or 200 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks + csDMARDs. PROs included patient global assessment (PtGA); pain and morning stiffness visual analogue scales; Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI); Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36); FACIT-Fatigue (FACIT-F); Work Productivity Survey-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPS-RA) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID). Changes from baseline at weeks 12 and 24 were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures; post hoc analyses included percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores ≥ normative values. RESULTS: Sarilumab + csDMARDs doses resulted in improvements from baseline at week 12 vs placebo + csDMARDs in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 and FACIT-F that were maintained at week 24. Sarilumab improved morning stiffness and reduced the impact of RA on work, family, social/leisure activities participation (WPS-RA) and on patients' lives (RAID). Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥MCID and ≥ normative scores were greater with sarilumab than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with TNF-IR RA, 150 and 200 mg sarilumab + csDMARDs resulted in clinically meaningful patient-reported benefits on pain, fatigue, function, participation and health status at 12 and 24 weeks that exceeded placebo + csDMARDs, and were consistent with the clinical profile previously reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01709578; Results.

Efficacy and safety of sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (MONARCH): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group phase III trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare efficacy and safety of sarilumab monotherapy with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who should not continue treatment with methotrexate (MTX) due to intolerance or inadequate response. METHODS: MONARCH was a randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, phase III superiority trial. Patients received sarilumab (200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w)) or adalimumab (40 mg q2w) monotherapy for 24 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in 28-joint disease activity score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) at week 24. RESULTS: Sarilumab was superior to adalimumab in the primary end point of change from baseline in DAS28-ESR (-3.28 vs -2.20; p<0.0001). Sarilumab-treated patients achieved significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response rates (sarilumab: 71.7%/45.7%/23.4%; adalimumab: 58.4%/29.7%/11.9%; all p≤0.0074) and had significantly greater improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (p=0.0037). Importantly, at week 24, more patients receiving sarilumab compared with adalimumab achieved Clinical Disease Activity Index remission (7.1% vs 2.7%; nominal p=0.0468) and low disease activity (41.8% vs 24.9%; nominal p=0.0005, supplemental analysis). Adverse events occurred in 63.6% (adalimumab) and 64.1% (sarilumab) of patients, the most common being neutropenia and injection site reactions (sarilumab) and headache and worsening RA (adalimumab). Incidences of infections (sarilumab: 28.8%; adalimumab: 27.7%) and serious infections (1.1%, both groups) were similar, despite neutropenia differences. CONCLUSIONS: Sarilumab monotherapy demonstrated superiority to adalimumab monotherapy by improving the signs and symptoms and physical functions in patients with RA who were unable to continue MTX treatment. The safety profiles of both therapies were consistent with anticipated class effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02332590.

Development of a predictive model for urgency urinary incontinence.

The ability to set realistic expectations of treatment response in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) can have an impact on patient engagement and adherence to study medication. In order to help set treatment expectations for OAB, a Physician Predictive Tool has been developed based on predictive modelling. Models have been developed utilizing data from eight Phase 3 and 4 fesoterodine clinical trials and these models enable the prediction of individual treatment response in subjects with OAB, based on various baseline characteristics. The data utilized and covariates that were hypothesized to influence treatment response are described. The model selection and development process are also outlined, and the final model and some example results utilizing this model are presented. Finally, we discuss the potential benefits and limitations of such a predictive tool.

Superiority of fesoterodine 8 mg vs 4 mg in reducing urgency urinary incontinence episodes in patients with overactive bladder: results of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled EIGHT trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the superiority of fesoterodine 8 mg vs 4 mg for improvement in urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) episodes and other diary variables, diary-dry rate (proportion of patients with >0 UUI episodes on baseline diary and 0 UUI episodes on post-baseline diary), and improvements in measures of symptom bother, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a 12-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational trial of men and women aged ≥18 years with overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms including UUI (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01302067). Patients were randomised (2:2:1) to receive fesoterodine 8 mg, fesoterodine 4 mg, or placebo once daily; those randomised to fesoterodine 8 mg started with fesoterodine 4 mg once daily for 1 week, then 8 mg once daily for the remaining 11 weeks. Patients completed bladder diaries at baseline and weeks 4 and 12 and the Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC), Urgency Perception Scale (UPS), and Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at baseline and week 12. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 12 in UUI episodes per 24 h. RESULTS: At week 12, patients receiving fesoterodine 8 mg (779 patients) had significantly greater reductions from baseline in UUI episodes, micturitions, and urgency episodes than patients receiving fesoterodine 4 mg (790) or placebo (386); diary-dry rate was significantly higher in the fesoterodine 8-mg group vs the fesoterodine 4-mg and placebo groups (all P < 0.05). At week 12, patients receiving fesoterodine 8 mg also had significantly greater improvements in scores on the PPBC, UPS, and all OAB-q scales and domains than patients receiving fesoterodine 4 mg or placebo (all P < 0.01). Patients receiving fesoterodine 4 mg had significantly greater improvements in UUI episodes, urgency episodes, and micturitions; significantly higher diary-dry rates; and significantly greater improvement in PPBC scores and OAB-q scores than patients receiving placebo (all P < 0.05). Dry mouth was the most commonly reported adverse event (AE) in the fesoterodine groups (placebo group, 3.4%; fesoterodine 4-mg group, 12.9%; fesoterodine 8-mg group, 26.1%); most cases were mild or moderate in all treatment groups. Rates of serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were low in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a 12-week, prospectively designed, superiority trial, fesoterodine 8 mg showed statistically significantly superior efficacy vs fesoterodine 4 mg and placebo, as measured by reductions in UUI episodes and other diary variables, diary-dry dry rate, and improvements in measures of symptom bother, HRQL, and other PROs; clear evidence of dose-dependent efficacy is unique to fesoterodine among antimuscarinics and other oral agents for the treatment of OAB. Fesoterodine 4 mg was significantly more effective than placebo on all outcomes except for improvements in UPS scores. These data support the benefit of having two doses of fesoterodine in clinical practice, with the recommended starting dose of 4 mg for all patients and the fesoterodine 8-mg dose available for patients who require a higher dose to achieve optimal symptom relief.

The unique cytoplasmic domain of human FcγRIIIA regulates receptor-mediated function.

Ligand specificity characterizes receptors for Abs and many other immune receptors, but the common use of the FcR γ-chain as their signaling subunit challenges the concept that these receptors are functionally distinct. We hypothesized that elements for specificity might be determined by the unique cytoplasmic domain (CY) sequences of the ligand-binding α-chains of γ-chain-associated receptors. Among Fcγ receptors, a protein kinase C (PKC) phosphorylation consensus motif [RSSTR], identified within the FcγRIIIa (CD16A) CY by in silico analysis, is specifically phosphorylated by PKCs, unlike other FcRs. Phosphorylated CD16A mediates a more robust calcium flux, tyrosine phosphorylation of Syk, and proinflammatory cytokine production, whereas nonphosphorylatable CD16A is more effective at activation of the Gab2/PI3K pathway, leading to enhanced degranulation. S100A4, a specific protein-binding partner for CD16A-CY newly identified by yeast two-hybrid analysis, inhibits phosphorylation of CD16A-CY by PKC in vitro, and reduction of S100A4 levels in vivo enhances receptor phosphorylation upon cross-linking. Taken together, PKC-mediated phosphorylation of CD16A modulates distinct signaling pathways engaged by the receptor. Calcium-activated binding of S100A4 to CD16A, promoted by the initial calcium flux, attenuates the phosphorylation of CY, and, acting as a molecular switch, may both serve as a negative feedback on cytokine production pathways during sustained receptor engagement and favor a shift to degranulation, consistent with the importance of granule release following conjugate formation between CD16A(+) effector cells and target cells. This switch mechanism points to new therapeutic targets and provides a framework for understanding novel receptor polymorphisms.