Comparative effects of raloxifene and alendronate on fracture outcomes in postmenopausal women with low bone mass.

UNLABELLED: The double-blind, randomized raloxifene alendronate comparison trial was the first study designed to compare two osteoporosis therapies head-to-head for fracture risk reduction. The original protocol planned to treat 3000 postmenopausal women with alendronate 10 mg/day (ALN) or raloxifene 60 mg/day (RLX) for 5 years, and to recruit women (50-80 years old) with a femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) T-score between -2.5 and -4.0, inclusive, no prevalent vertebral fractures, and no prior bone-active agent use. The trial was stopped early, due to difficulty in finding treatment-naïve women to meet enrollment goals within the planned timeline, resulting in insufficient power to show non-inferiority between therapies in the primary endpoint (number of women with >or=1 new osteoporotic vertebral or nonvertebral fracture). Except for vertebral fractures, fracture analyses were based upon 1412 of the 1423 women randomized (mean age of 66 years). After 312+/-254 days (mean+/-SD), 22 women in the ALN group and 20 in the RLX group had new vertebral or nonvertebral fractures. Four women in the ALN group and none in the RLX group had moderate/severe vertebral fractures, a pre-specified endpoint (P=0.04). Lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip BMD were increased from baseline at 2 years in each group (P<0.001), with greater increases in the ALN group (each P<0.05). Similar numbers of women in each group had >or=1 adverse event and discontinued due to an adverse event. The only adverse events with an incidence that differed between groups were colonoscopy, diarrhea, and nausea; each was more common with ALN treatment (each P<0.05). One woman in each group had a venous thromboembolic event. One case of breast cancer occurred in each group. In summary, as this trial was terminated early, there was insufficient power to compare the fracture risks between alendronate and raloxifene. Safety profiles were as expected from clinical trial and post-marketing reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00035971.

Hydroxychloroquine concentration-response relationships in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: A dose-response relationship for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in terms of the proportion of patients achieving the Paulus 20% criteria for improvement, had previously been observed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving a 6-week loading regimen of 400, 800, or 1,200 mg HCQ daily. This present retrospective analysis was performed to investigate possible relationships between the blood HCQ and HCQ-metabolite concentrations and measures of efficacy and toxicity. In addition, we sought to ascertain whether further investigation of HCQ/HCQ-metabolite levels might lead to testing of one of these substances as a new antirheumatic drug. METHODS: Patients with active RA (n = 212) began a 6-week, double-blind trial comparing 3 different doses of HCQ at 400, 800, or 1,200 mg/day, followed by 18 weeks of open-label HCQ treatment at 400 mg/day. Patients were repeatedly evaluated for treatment efficacy and toxicity. Blood samples were available from 123 patients for analysis of HCQ, desethylhydroxychloroquine (DHCQ), desethylchloroquine (DCQ), and bisdesethylchloroquine (BDCQ) levels using high-performance liquid chromatography. Achievement of the modified Paulus 20% improvement criteria for response in RA was used as the primary efficacy parameter. Spontaneously reported adverse events were categorized and analyzed as toxicity outcome variables. The relationship between response (efficacy and toxicity) and drug levels was evaluated using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The subset of patients with blood concentration data was equivalent to the larger study population in all demographic and outcome characteristics. The mean HCQ, DHCQ, and DCQ elimination half-lives were 123, 161, and 180 hours, respectively. There was a positive correlation between the Paulus 20% improvement criteria response and blood DHCQ concentrations during weeks 1-6 (P < 0.001). A potential relationship between ocular adverse events and BDCQ levels was found (P = 0.036). Logistic regression analysis of adverse events data showed that adverse gastrointestinal events were associated with higher HCQ levels (P = 0.001-0.021) during weeks 1, 2, and 3. CONCLUSION: There is a weak, but predictable, relationship between blood DHCQ concentrations and efficacy of treatment with HCQ. In addition, there is an association between gastrointestinal adverse events and elevated blood HCQ concentrations. Further investigation of these relationships is warranted to see if DHCQ may be introduced as a new antirheumatic drug.