Izokibep for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: a phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-finding multicentre study including long-term treatment.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies to interleukin (IL)-17 have shown strong efficacy in patients with psoriasis. Izokibep is a unique IL-17A inhibitor with a small molecular size and favourable distribution to sites of inflammation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the dose response, efficacy and safety of izokibep in patients with plaque psoriasis. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, phase II dose-finding study (AFFIRM-35) in adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and inadequate response to two or more standard therapies, patients were randomized (1:1:1:1:1) to placebo or izokibep 2, 20, 80 or 160 mg every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. During the remainder of the 52-week core study, patients given placebo were switched to izokibep 80 mg, and dosing intervals were adapted based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores for all patients. The core study was followed by two optional consecutive 1-year extension periods for a total duration of 3 years. The primary endpoint was a 90% reduction in PASI score (PASI 90) at week 12. Additional efficacy outcomes and adverse event (AE) rates were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 109 patients were randomized [safety set, n = 108 (one exclusion criteria failure); full analysis set, n = 106]. At week 12, PASI 90 response rates were 0%, 5%, 19%, 71% and 59% for the placebo, 2-, 20-, 80- and 160-mg izokibep groups, respectively. Rapid dose-dependent improvements were also observed across other efficacy outcomes. During the placebo-controlled period, AEs in the izokibep groups were similar to placebo except for mild injection site reactions. AEs were generally mild to moderate and the drug was well tolerated. Izokibep maintained efficacy at the higher dosage groups for up to 3 years, with no new safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this phase II study indicate that izokibep is well tolerated and efficacious in the treatment of plaque psoriasis. Higher doses or more frequent dosing could be explored to further enhance response rates.

Izokibep: Preclinical development and first-in-human study of a novel IL-17A neutralizing Affibody molecule in patients with plaque psoriasis.

Psoriasis, an immune-mediated inflammatory disease, affects nearly 125 million people globally. The interleukin (IL)-17A homodimer is a key driver of psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases, including psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and uveitis. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against IL-17A provides an improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index compared to conventional systemic agents. In this study, the AffibodyⓇ technology was used to identify and optimize a novel, small, biological molecule comprising three triple helical affinity domains, izokibep (previously ABY-035), for the inhibition of IL-17A signaling. Preclinical studies show that izokibep, a small 18.6 kDa IL-17 ligand trap comprising two IL-17A-specific Affibody domains and one albumin-binding domain, selectively inhibits human IL-17A in vitro and in vivo with superior potency and efficacy relative to anti-IL-17A mAbs. A Phase 1 first-in-human study was conducted to establish the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of izokibep, when administered intravenously and subcutaneously as single doses to healthy subjects, and as single intravenous and multiple subcutaneous doses to patients with psoriasis (NCT02690142; EudraCT No: 2015-004531-13). Izokibep was well tolerated with no meaningful safety concerns identified in healthy volunteers and patients with psoriasis. Rapid efficacy was seen in all psoriasis patients after one dose which further improved in patients receiving multiple doses. A therapeutic decrease in joint pain was also observed in a single patient with concurrent psoriatic arthritis. The study suggests that izokibep has the potential to safely treat IL17A-associated diseases such as psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and uveitis.

A multicentre, efficacy and safety study of methotrexate to increase response rates in patients with uncontrolled gout receiving pegloticase (MIRROR): 12-month efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetic findings during long-term extension of an open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Publications suggest immunomodulation co-therapy improves responder rates in uncontrolled/refractory gout patients undergoing pegloticase treatment. The MIRROR open-label trial showed a 6-month pegloticase + methotrexate co-therapy responder rate of 79%, compared to an established 42% pegloticase monotherapy responder rate. Longer-term efficacy/safety data are presented here. METHODS: Uncontrolled gout patients (serum urate [SU] ≥ 6 mg/dL and SU ≥ 6 mg/dL despite urate-lowering therapy [ULT], ULT intolerance, or functionally-limiting tophi) were included. Patients with immunocompromised status, G6PD deficiency, severe kidney disease, or methotrexate contraindication were excluded. Oral methotrexate (15 mg/week) and folic acid (1 mg/day) were administered 4 weeks before and during pegloticase therapy. Twelve-month responder rate (SU < 6 mg/dL for ≥ 80% during month 12), 52-week change from baseline in SU, and extended safety were examined. Efficacy analyses were performed for patients receiving ≥ 1 pegloticase infusion. Pharmacokinetics (PK)/anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) were examined and related to efficacy/safety findings. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were included (all male, 49.3 ± 8.7 years, 13.8 ± 7.4-year gout history, pre-therapy SU 9.2 ± 2.5 mg/dL). Three patients were non-responders and discontinued study treatment before 24 weeks, one patient exited the study per protocol at 24 weeks (enrolled prior to treatment extension amendment), and 10 remained in the study through week 52. Of the 10, 8 completed 52 weeks of pegloticase + methotrexate and were 12-month responders. The remaining two discontinued pegloticase + methotrexate at week 24 (met treatment goals) and stayed in the study under observation (allopurinol prescribed at physicians' discretion); one remained a responder at 12 months. At 52 weeks, change from baseline in SU was - 8.2 ± 4.1 mg/dL (SU 1.1 ± 2.4 mg/dL, n = 10). Gout flares were common early in treatment but progressively decreased while on therapy (weeks 1-12, 13/14 [92.9%]; weeks 36-52, 2/8 [25.0%]). One patient recovered from sepsis (serious AE). Two non-responders developed high ADA titers; fewer patients had trough concentrations (Cmin) below the quantitation limit (BQL), and the median Cmin was higher (1.03 µg/mL vs. BQL) than pegloticase monotherapy trials. CONCLUSIONS: Pegloticase + methotrexate co-therapy was well-tolerated over 12 months, with sustained SU lowering, progressive gout flare reduction, and no new safety concerns. Antibody/PK findings suggest methotrexate attenuates ADA formation, coincident with higher treatment response rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03635957 . Registered on 17 August 2018.

Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Has Additional Prognostic Value Over Clinical Measures in Gout Including Tophi: A Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review determined whether there is clinical utility for dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to inform on prognosis for patients with gout. With DECT, individualized treatment plans could be developed based on the patient's unique urate burden, with DECT being used as a clinical outcome measure in gout management. METHODS: To evaluate DECT as a reliable, valid, and sensitive prognostic instrument, a librarian-assisted search was undertaken in PubMed and Embase for articles on gout and DECT informing on reliability; content, construct, and criterion validity; sensitivity to change; and minimum clinically important changes. RESULTS: This systematic literature review showed that DECT has high intra- and interrater reliability. Tophus burden correlates with functional loss to show content validity. DECT volume is positively correlated with death, cardiovascular risk factors, and the risk for future gout flares. DECT has excellent sensitivity to change with effective urate-lowering therapies. CONCLUSION: DECT is a promising prognostic tool based on its high reliability, sensitivity to change, and emerging validity. Additional large, well-designed, prospective cohort studies are needed to fully evaluate its prognostic utility. This systematic review suggests that DECT very likely has additional prognostic information beyond clinical tophi assessment alone.

Reducing Immunogenicity of Pegloticase With Concomitant Use of Mycophenolate Mofetil in Patients With Refractory Gout: A Phase II, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Pegloticase is used for the treatment of severe gout, but its use is limited by immunogenicity. This study was undertaken to evaluate whether mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) prolongs the efficacy of pegloticase. METHODS: Participants were randomized 3:1 to receive 1,000 mg MMF twice daily or placebo for 14 weeks, starting 2 weeks before receiving pegloticase and continuing while receiving intravenous pegloticase 8 mg biweekly for 12 weeks. Participants then received pegloticase alone from week 12 to week 24. The primary end points were the proportion of patients who sustained a serum urate level of ≤6 mg/dl at 12 weeks and the rate of adverse events (AEs). Secondary end points included 24-week durability of serum urate level ≤6 mg/dl. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's 2-sample test were used for analyses, along with Kaplan-Meier estimates and log rank tests. RESULTS: A total of 32 participants received ≥1 dose of pegloticase. Participants were predominantly men (88%), with a mean age of 55.2 years, mean gout duration of 13.4 years, and mean baseline serum urate level of 9.2 mg/dl. At 12 weeks, a serum urate level of ≤6 mg/dl was achieved in 19 (86%) of 22 participants in the MMF arm compared to 4 (40%) of 10 in the placebo arm (P = 0.01). At week 24, the serum urate level was ≤6 mg/dl in 68% of MMF-treated patients versus 30% of placebo-treated patients (P = 0.06), and rates of AEs were similar between groups, with more infusion reactions occurring in the placebo arm (30% versus 0%). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that MMF therapy with pegloticase is well tolerated and shows a clinically meaningful improvement in targeted serum urate level of ≤6 mg/dl at 12 and 24 weeks. This study suggests an innovative approach to pegloticase therapy in gout.

Pegloticase in Combination With Methotrexate in Patients With Uncontrolled Gout: A Multicenter, Open-label Study (MIRROR).

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of pegloticase in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with uncontrolled gout in an exploratory, open-label clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03635957) prior to a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: A multicenter, open-label efficacy and safety study of pegloticase with MTX co-treatment was conducted in patients with uncontrolled gout. Patients were administered oral MTX (15 mg/week) and folic acid (1 mg/day) 4 weeks prior to and throughout pegloticase treatment. The primary study outcome was the proportion of responders, defined as serum uric acid (sUA) < 6 mg/dL for ≥ 80% of the time during Month 6 (Weeks 20, 22, and 24). All analyses were performed on a modified intent-to-treat population, defined as patients who received ≥ 1 pegloticase infusion. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were screened and 14 patients (all men, average age 49.3 ± 8.7 years) were enrolled. On Day 1, mean sUA was 9.2 ± 2.5 mg/dL, and 12 of the 14 patients had visible tophi. At the 6-month timepoint, 11/14 (78.6%, 95% CI 49.2-95.3%) met the responder definition, with 3 patients discontinuing after meeting protocol-defined treatment discontinuation rules (preinfusion sUA values > 6 mg/dL at 2 consecutive scheduled visits). All patients tolerated MTX. No new safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSION: In this study, an increased proportion of patients maintained therapeutic response at 6 months when treated concomitantly with MTX and pegloticase as compared to the previously reported 42% using pegloticase alone. These results support the need for a randomized study of MTX or placebo with pegloticase to validate these open-label findings.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of the Dual Inhibitor of Tumor Necrosis Factor-α and Interleukin 17A, ABBV-257, in Healthy Volunteers and Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

The dual-variable domain immunoglobulin ABBV-257 binds tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin 17A. Following single ascending doses ( 0.3, 1.0, and 3.0 mg/kg intravenously; 0.3 and 3.0 mg/kg subcutaneously) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in healthy subjects (n = 40; n = 29 evaluated for pharmacokinetics), maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax ) increased dose-proportionally, whereas area under the serum concentration-versus-time curve trended to more than dose-proportional increase. Absolute subcutaneous bioavailability was ∼80%, and the time to Cmax (tmax ) occurred 6 to 8 days after subcutaneous administration. The terminal-phase harmonic mean elimination half-life (t½ ) ranged from 5.5 to 11 days following intravenous and subcutaneous administration. In another randomized, placebo-controlled study, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients (n = 8) received ABBV-257 30 mg/kg subcutaneously every other week for 8 weeks. Following the fourth dose, Cmax was 7.69 µg/mL, and tmax occurred ∼4 days after dosing; t½ was ∼16 days. Most individuals (single-dose study, 97%; multiple-dose study, 83%) developed antidrug antibodies (ADAs). Generally, subjects with higher ADA titers had shorter ABBV-257 t½ and lower exposure. One serious adverse event (cerebral ischemia, considered unrelated to treatment, resolved with interventions) occurred in an RA patient who received ABBV-257. Because of the high incidence of ADA-mediated drug clearance, ABBV-257 is no longer being developed.

Exposure-response analyses demonstrate no evidence of interleukin 17A contribution to efficacy of ABT-122 in rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis.

Objectives: ABT-122 is a dual-variable-domain immunoglobulin that neutralizes both TNF-α and IL-17A. The objective of this work was to characterize exposure-response relationships for ABT-122 relative to adalimumab (TNF-α inhibitor) using ABT-122 phase 2 trials in patients with RA or PsA. Methods: Patients received subcutaneous doses of ABT-122 ranging from 60 mg every other week (EOW) to 240 mg every week, adalimumab 40 mg EOW, or placebo (PsA patients only) for 12 weeks. Relationships between ABT-122 or adalimumab serum concentrations and time course of ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 and PASI50, PASI75 and PASI90 responses were characterized using a non-linear mixed-effects Markov modelling approach. Results: A total of 221 RA patients and 240 PsA patients were included in the analyses. At comparable molar exposures, there was no differentiation of efficacy between ABT-122 and adalimumab and there were no consistent differences between ABT-122 and adalimumab in the potency estimates for different efficacy endpoints based on the Markov models. Plateau of ABT-122 efficacy was achieved at exposures associated with the 120 mg EOW dose in patients with RA, which were comparable to molar exposures of adalimumab 40 mg EOW, and at the lowest dose of 120 mg every week in patients with PsA. Conclusion: The exposure-response relationships for ABT-122 were not distinguishably different from those of adalimumab in patients with RA or PsA. Overall, there was no clear evidence that inhibition of the IL-17 pathway provided incremental benefit in the presence of TNF-α inhibition. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02433340, NCT02349451.

Dual inhibition of tumour necrosis factor and interleukin-17A with ABT-122: open-label long-term extension studies in rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Objectives: To evaluate the safety and maintenance of efficacy with ABT-122, a bi-specific monoclonal antibody targeting TNF and IL-17A, in patients with RA or PsA in open-label, 24-week extensions [open-label extensions (OLEs)] of 12-week, randomized, double-blind studies. Methods: All patients received ABT-122 (RA, 120 mg; PsA, 240 mg) subcutaneously every other week on background MTX. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory parameters. Efficacy was evaluated with ACR responses, 28-joint DAS using high-sensitivity CRP [DAS28 (hsCRP)], and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PsA study). Results: The RA OLE study enrolled 158 patients; the PsA OLE study enrolled 168 patients. In the RA OLE study, the incidence of treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs; 41%) appeared similar to the double-blind study (36-43%). In the PsA OLE study, 57% of patients reported ⩾1 TEAE (double-blind study, 42-53%). Most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. There were no neutrophil abnormalities greater than grade 2. Grade 3 and/or 4 laboratory abnormalities were reported for lymphocytes, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, bilirubin and haemoglobin; the number of these severe laboratory values was low (0.6-3.0%), except grade 3 lymphocyte count decreased (11.5%) in the RA study. In both OLE studies, efficacy assessed by ACR responses and other disease activity scores was maintained over the 24 weeks. Conclusion: ABT-122 demonstrated acceptable tolerability and maintenance of efficacy for up to 36 weeks in patients with RA or PsA receiving background MTX. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02433340 and NCT02429895.

ABT-122, a Bispecific Dual Variable Domain Immunoglobulin Targeting Tumor Necrosis Factor and Interleukin-17A, in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis With an Inadequate Response to Methotrexate: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study.

OBJECTIVE: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin-17A (IL-17A) may independently contribute to the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ABT-122, a novel dual variable domain immunoglobulin targeting human TNF and IL-17A, in patients with RA who have experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate. METHODS: Patients with active RA who were receiving treatment with methotrexate and had no prior exposure to biologic agents (n = 222) were enrolled in a 12-week phase II randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized to receive either ABT-122 at dosages of 60 mg every other week, 120 mg every other week, or 120 mg every week or adalimumab at 40 mg every other week, administered subcutaneously. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥20% improvement response based on the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across all treatment groups, with no serious infections or systemic hypersensitivity reactions reported with ABT-122. ACR20 response rates at week 12 were 62%, 75%, and 80% with ABT-122 60 mg every other week, 120 mg every other week, and 120 mg every week, respectively, compared with an ACR20 response rate of 68% with 40 mg adalimumab every other week. The corresponding response rates for ACR50 and ACR70 improvement in the ABT-122 dose groups and adalimumab group were 35%, 46%, 47%, and 48%, respectively, and 22%, 18%, 36%, and 21%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Over the 12-week study period, dual inhibition of TNF and IL-17A with ABT-122 produced a safety profile consistent with that of adalimumb used for inhibition of TNF alone. The efficacy of ABT-122 over 12 weeks at dosages of 120 mg every other week or 120 mg every week was not meaningfully differentiated from that of adalimumab at a dosage of 40 mg every other week in patients with RA receiving concomitant methotrexate.

Phase II Study of ABT-122, a Tumor Necrosis Factor- and Interleukin-17A-Targeted Dual Variable Domain Immunoglobulin, in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis With an Inadequate Response to Methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of ABT-122, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)- and interleukin-17A (IL-17A)-targeted dual variable domain immunoglobulin, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate. METHODS: Patients (n = 240) were randomized to receive ABT-122 (120 or 240 mg every week), adalimumab (40 mg every other week), or placebo in a 12-week double-blind, parallel-group study. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients achieving ≥20% improvement in disease activity according to the American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary and exploratory 12-week end points included 50% improvement (ACR50) and 70% improvement (ACR70) response rates, and proportion of patients meeting the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response criteria for ≥75% (PASI75) and ≥90% (PASI90) improvement in skin scores among those with ≥3% of their body surface area affected by psoriasis. RESULTS: In both ABT-122 dose groups, ACR20 response rates at week 12 (64.8-75.3%) were superior to that in patients receiving placebo (25.0%) (P < 0.001) but similar to that in patients receiving adalimumab (68.1%). ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were also superior in both ABT-122 dose groups (36.6-53.4% and 22.5-31.5%, respectively) compared to the placebo group (12.5% and 4.2%, respectively) (P < 0.05). Among eligible patients in the placebo, adalimumab, ABT-122 120 mg every week, and ABT-122 240 mg every week treatment groups, PASI75 responses were achieved in 27.3%, 57.6%, 74.4%, and 77.6% of patients, respectively, whereas PASI90 responses were achieved in 18.2%, 45.5%, 48.8%, and 46.9% of patients, respectively. Frequencies of treatment-emergent adverse events, including infections, were similar across all treatment groups, causing no discontinuations. No serious infections or systemic hypersensitivity reactions were reported with ABT-122. CONCLUSION: Dual neutralization of TNF and IL-17A with ABT-122 had efficacy and safety that was similar to, and not broadly differentiated from, that of adalimumab over a 12-week treatment course in patients with PsA.

Long-Term Outcomes of Elagolix in Women With Endometriosis: Results From Two Extension Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of elagolix, an oral, nonpeptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, over 12 months in women with endometriosis-associated pain. METHODS: Elaris Endometriosis (EM)-III and -IV were extension studies that evaluated an additional 6 months of treatment after two 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials (12 continuous treatment months) with two elagolix doses (150 mg once daily and 200 mg twice daily). Coprimary efficacy endpoints were the proportion of responders (clinically meaningful pain reduction and stable or decreased rescue analgesic use) based on average monthly dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain scores. Safety assessments included adverse events, clinical laboratory tests, and endometrial and bone mineral density assessments. The power of Elaris EM-III and -IV was based on the comparison to placebo in Elaris EM-I and -II with an expected 25% dropout rate. RESULTS: Between December 28, 2012, and October 31, 2014 (Elaris EM-III), and between May 27, 2014, and January 6, 2016 (Elaris EM-IV), 569 participants were enrolled. After 12 months of treatment, Elaris EM-III responder rates for dysmenorrhea were 52.1% at 150 mg once daily (Elaris EM-IV 550.8%) and 78.2% at 200 mg twice daily (Elaris EMIV 575.9%). Elaris EM-III nonmenstrual pelvic pain responder rates were 67.5% at 150 mg once daily (Elaris EM-IV 566.4%) and 69.1% at 200 mg twice daily (Elaris EM-IV 567.2%)."After 12 months of treatment, Elaris EM-III dyspareunia responder rates were 45.2% at 150 mg once daily (Elaris EM-IV=45.9%) and 60.0% at 200 mg twice daily (Elaris EM-IV=58.1%). Hot flush was the most common adverse event. Decreases from baseline in bone mineral density and increases from baseline in lipids were observed after 12 months of treatment. There were no adverse endometrial findings. CONCLUSION: Long-term elagolix treatment provided sustained reductions in dysmenorrhea, nonmenstrual pelvic pain, and dyspareunia. The safety was consistent with reduced estrogen levels and no new safety concerns were associated with long-term elagolix use. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01760954 and NCT02143713.

A randomized, clinical trial to assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of two doses of etoricoxib versus naproxen in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated two doses of etoricoxib (60 and 90 mg) vs. naproxen 1000 mg in subjects with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: This was a 2-part, double-blind, active comparator-controlled non-inferiority study in subjects ≥18 years of age with AS. In Part I, subjects were randomized to naproxen 1000 mg; etoricoxib 60 mg, and 90 mg. In Part II, naproxen and etoricoxib 90 mg subjects continued on the same treatment; subjects on etoricoxib 60 mg either continued on 60 mg or escalated to 90 mg. Part I (6 weeks) assessed the efficacy of A) etoricoxib 60 mg vs. naproxen and B) 90 mg vs. naproxen according to the time-weighted average change from baseline in Spinal Pain Intensity (SPI; 0-100 mm VAS) (primary endpoint). The non-inferiority margin was set at 8 mm for SPI. In Part II (20 weeks) we evaluated the potential benefit of increasing from 60 to 90 mg (predefined minimum clinically important difference = 6 mm in SPI) for inadequate responders (<50 % improvement from baseline in SPI) on etoricoxib 60 mg in Part I. RESULTS: In total, 1015 subjects were randomized to receive etoricoxib 60 mg (N = 702), etoricoxib 90 mg (N = 156), and naproxen 1000 mg (N = 157); 70.9 % were male and the mean age was 45.2 years. There were 919 subjects who completed Part I and all continued to Part II. In Part I, SPI change was non-inferior for both etoricoxib doses vs. naproxen. In both Part I and II, the incidence of adverse events (AEs), drug-related AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs) were similar between the 3 treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Both doses of etoricoxib were non-inferior to naproxen. All treatments were well tolerated. Etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg effectively control pain in patients with AS, with 60 mg once daily as the lowest effective dose for most patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry # NCT01208207 . Registered on 22 September 2010.

Evaluation of two doses of etoricoxib, a COX-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) is a common component of treatment regimens for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Etoricoxib is a COX-2 selective NSAID that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of RA at a dose of 90 mg. The current study further evaluated the efficacy of etoricoxib 60 mg and 90 mg in RA patients with active disease. METHODS: This was a 2-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in RA (NCT01208181). Patients were required to have a diagnosis of RA (according to ARA 1987 revised classification criteria) and were to demonstrate symptom flare upon discontinuation of previous NSAID treatment prior to randomization. Part I was a 6-week, placebo-controlled period to assess the efficacy of etoricoxib 90 mg and etoricoxib 60 mg, each compared to placebo, as well as to each other. Part II was a 6-week period to evaluate the potential benefit of dose escalation from etoricoxib 60 mg to etoricoxib 90 mg after 6 weeks exposure to etoricoxib 60 mg in Part I compared to maintaining a steady dose of etoricoxib 60 mg throughout Parts I and II. Primary endpoints were Disease Activity Score evaluating 28 joints and C reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) index and Patient Global Assessment of Pain (Pain) score (0-100 mm VAS) after 6 weeks of treatment in Part I. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: In total, 1404 patients were randomized in a 2:7:7:8 ratio; 1228 patients completed Part I and 713 patients continued to Part II. Both etoricoxib doses were superior to placebo on both primary efficacy endpoints (p = 0.004 for 60 mg and p = 0.034 for 90 mg for DAS28-CRP; p < 0.001 for both doses for PGAP) in Part I. Further in Part I, etoricoxib 90 mg was not significantly different from 60 mg for DAS28-CRP, but did demonstrate a small, but statistically significant decrease in baseline PGAP score vs. 60 mg (p = 0.019). In Part II, there was no significant decrease in PGAP score after increasing to 90 mg in subjects with inadequate pain relief on 60 mg as compared to subjects who stayed on 60 mg. The incidence of AEs and SAEs were similar between etoricoxib 60 mg and 90 mg in both Part I and II. CONCLUSION: Both etoricoxib 90 mg and 60 mg are superior to placebo in relieving the symptoms of RA. Etoricoxib 90 mg vs 60 mg resulted in a statistically significant, though small, improvement in PGAP score, but not DAS28-CRP. Dose escalation from 60 mg to 90 mg in pain inadequate responders did not significantly improve efficacy. These results confirm the efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib 90mg in patients with RA. In addition, this study demonstrated that etoricoxib 60 mg is also efficacious and well-tolerated in RA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01208181 (registered September 22, 2010).

Osteoarthritis patients with pain improvement are highly likely to also have improved quality of life and functioning. A post hoc analysis of a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This analysis evaluated whether osteoarthritis patients achieving the greatest pain control and lowest pain states also have the greatest improvement in functioning and quality of life. METHODS: Patients (n=419) who failed prior therapies and who were switched to etoricoxib 60mg were categorized as pain responders or non-responders at 4 weeks based on responder definitions established by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain (IMMPACT) criteria, including changes from baseline of ≥15%, ≥30%, ≥50%, ≥70% and a final pain status of ≤3/10 (no worse than mild pain). Pain was assessed at baseline and 4 weeks using 4 questions from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (worst pain, least pain, average pain, and pain right now), and also using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. We examined the relationship between pain responses with changes from baseline in two functional measures (the BPI Pain Interference questions and the WOMAC Function Subscale) as well as changes from baseline in quality of life (assessed on the SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Summaries). We also sought to understand whether these relationships were influenced by the choice of the pain instrument used to assess response. We contrast the mean difference in improvements in the functional and quality of life instruments based on pain responder status (responder versus non-responder) and the associated 95% confidence limits around this difference. RESULTS: Patients with better pain responses were much more likely to have improved functional responses and improved quality of life, with higher mean changes in these outcomes versus pain non-responders, regardless of the choice of IMMPACT pain response definition (e.g., using any of 15%, 30%, 50%, 70% change from baseline) or the final pain state of ≤3/10. There was an evident gradient, where higher levels of pain response were associated with greater mean improvements in function and quality of life. The finding that greater pain responses led to greater functional improvements and quality of life gains was not dependent on the manner in which pain was evaluated. Five different pain instruments (e.g., the 4 questions on pain from the BPI pain questionnaire and the WOMAC pain subscale) consistently demonstrated that pain responders had statistically significantly greater improvements in function and quality of life compared to pain non-responders. This suggests these results are likely to be generalizable to any validated pain measure for osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is an efficient outcome measure for predicting broader patient response in osteoarthritis. Patients who do not achieve timely, acceptable pain states over 4 weeks were less likely to experience functional or quality of life improvements. IMPLICATIONS: Good pain improvements in osteoarthritis with a valid pain instrument are a proxy for good improvements in both function and quality of life. Therefore proper osteoarthritis pain assessment can lead to efficient evaluations in the clinic.

Systematic review of enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal trial designs in chronic pain: a new framework for design and reporting.

Enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal (EERW) pain trials select, before randomisation, patients who respond by demonstrating a predetermined degree of pain relief and acceptance of adverse events. There is uncertainty over the value of this design. We report a systematic review of EERW trials in chronic noncancer pain together with a critical appraisal of methods and potential biases in the methods used and recommendations for the design and reporting of future EERW trials. Electronic and other searches found 25 EERW trials published between 1995 and June 2014, involving 5669 patients in a randomised withdrawal phase comparing drug with placebo; 13 (median, 107 patients) had a randomised withdrawal phase of 6 weeks or less, and 12 (median, 334) lasted 12 to 26 weeks. Risks of bias included short duration, inadequate outcome definition, incomplete outcome data reporting, small size, and inadequate dose tapering on randomisation to placebo. Active treatment was usually better than placebo (22/25 trials). This review reduces the uncertainty around the value of EERW trials in pain. If properly designed, conducted, and reported, they are feasible and useful for making decisions about pain therapies. Shorter, small studies can be explanatory; longer, larger studies can inform practice. Current evidence is inadequate for valid comparisons in outcome between EERW and classical trials, although no gross differences were found. This systematic review provides a framework for assessing potential biases and the value of the EERW trials, and for the design of future studies by making recommendations for the conduct and reporting of EERW trials.

Do COX-2 inhibitors provide additional pain relief and anti-inflammatory effects in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are on biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and/or corticosteroids? Post-hoc analyses from a randomized clinical trial with etoricoxib.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate the effect of background biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and/or corticosteroids (CS) on response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: The following efficacy endpoints were evaluated using time-weighted change from baseline in a 12-week, randomized controlled clinical trial with etoricoxib: Patient Global Assessment of Pain, Swollen Joint Count, Tender Joint Count, Health Assessment Questionnaire. The following three treatment groups were evaluated: placebo, pooled etoricoxib 10/30/60 mg, and etoricoxib 90 mg. Screening values, values post flare, as well as changes after treatment were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 1014 patients screened, 761 were randomized; 50% were on no background bDMARDs and/or CS therapy, 23% used bDMARDs, 34% used CS, and 8% used both bDMARDs and CS. It was demonstrated that RA patients on bDMARDs or CS had similar pain levels at screening as patients without this co-medication. They experienced flare upon NSAID withdrawal and demonstrated dose-dependent pain improvement with etoricoxib. CONCLUSION: These results support that RA patients receiving bDMARDs or CS may still require the use of concomitant analgesics to treat pain. Clinicians should continue to monitor and treat pain even after initiating a bDMARD and/or CS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: [clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00264147].

Inadequate pain relief and large functional loss among patients with knee osteoarthritis: evidence from a prospective multinational longitudinal study of osteoarthritis real-world therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of inadequate pain relief (IPR) among patients with symptomatic knee OA prescribed analgesic therapy and to characterize patients with IPR. METHODS: Patients ≥50 years old with physician-diagnosed knee OA who had taken topical or oral pain medication for at least 14 days were recruited for this prospective non-interventional study in six European countries. Pain and function were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the WOMAC; quality of life (QoL) was assessed using the 12-item short form. IPR was defined as an average pain score of >4 out of 10 on BPI question 5. RESULTS: Of 1187 patients enrolled, 68% were female and the mean age was 68 years (s.d. 9); 639 (54%) met the definition of IPR. Patient responses for the BPI average pain question were well correlated with responses on the WOMAC pain subscale (Spearman r = 0.64, P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression, patients with IPR had greater odds of being female [adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) 1.90 (95% CI 1.46, 2.48)] and having OA in both knees [adjOR 1.48 (95% CI 1.15, 1.90)], higher BMI, longer OA duration, depression or diabetes. Patients with IPR (vs non-IPR) were more likely to have worse QoL, greater function loss and greater pain interference. CONCLUSION: IPR is common among patients with knee OA requiring analgesics and is associated with large functional loss and impaired QoL. Patients at particular risk of IPR, as characterized in this study, may require greater attention towards their analgesic treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT01294696).

Evaluation of etoricoxib in patients undergoing total knee replacement surgery in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal postoperative pain management is important to ensure patient comfort and early mobilization. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated postoperative pain following knee replacement in patients receiving placebo, etoricoxib (90 or 120 mg), or ibuprofen 1800 mg daily for 7 days. Patients ≥18 years of age who had pain at rest ≥5 (0-10 Numerical Rating Scale [NRS]) after unilateral total knee replacement were randomly assigned to placebo (N = 98), etoricoxib 90 mg (N = 224), etoricoxib 120 mg (N = 230), or ibuprofen 1800 mg (N = 224) postoperatively. Co-primary endpoints included Average Pain Intensity Difference at Rest over Days 1-3 (0- to 10-point NRS) and Average Total Daily Dose of Morphine over Days 1-3. Pain upon movement was evaluated using Average Pain Intensity Difference upon Knee Flexion (0- to 10-point NRS). The primary objective was to demonstrate analgesic superiority for the etoricoxib doses vs. placebo; the secondary objective was to demonstrate that the analgesic effect of the etoricoxib doses was non-inferior to ibuprofen. Adverse experiences (AEs) including opioid-related AEs were evaluated. RESULTS: The least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) differences from placebo for Pain Intensity Difference at Rest over Days 1-3 were -0.54 (-0.95, -0.14); -0.49 (-0.89, -0.08); and -0.45 (-0.85, -0.04) for etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, and ibuprofen, respectively (p < 0.05 for etoricoxib vs. placebo). Differences in LS Geometric Mean Ratio morphine use over Days 1-3 from placebo were 0.66 (0.54, 0.82); 0.69 (0.56, 0.85); and 0.66 (0.53, 0.81) for etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, and ibuprofen, respectively (p < 0.001 for etoricoxib vs. placebo). Differences in LS Mean Pain Intensity upon Knee Flexion were -0.37 (-0.85, 0.11); -0.46 (-0.94, 0.01); and -0.42 (-0.90, 0.06) for etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, and ibuprofen, respectively. Opioid-related AEs occurred in 41.8%, 34.7%, 36.5%, and 36.3% of patients on placebo, etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, and ibuprofen, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative use of etoricoxib 90 and 120 mg in patients undergoing total knee replacement is both superior to placebo and non-inferior to ibuprofen in reducing pain at rest and also reduces opioid (morphine) consumption. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00820027.