Rates of serious infections, opportunistic infections, inflammatory bowel disease, and malignancies in subjects receiving etanercept vs. controls from clinical trials in ankylosing spondylitis: a pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Therapies involving anti-tumour necrosis factor are associated with increased risk of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and some types of malignancies in subjects with rheumatic diseases. However, limited data have been collected for subjects with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The aim of this retrospective analysis of all sponsor-conducted trials was to examine the rates of serious infections, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), malignancies, and non-malignant skin cancers during treatment in subjects with AS. METHOD: Data from five randomized controlled trials (one sulfasalazine-controlled, four placebo-controlled) and four open-label studies evaluating etanercept were pooled for analyses. All randomized subjects who received at least one dose of treatment were included in the study. RESULTS: Analyses included 1323 subjects (> 1500 subject-years of treatment). Rate ratios of serious infections and IBD events for etanercept vs. placebo/sulfasalazine during the double-blind studies were 2.19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-107.79] and 1.09 (95% CI 0.06-64.56), respectively. There were no reports of opportunistic infections. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database, the standardized incidence ratio for malignancies was 1.47 (95% CI 0.54-3.21). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that etanercept is well tolerated in subjects with AS. Despite the large number of patients, the 95% CI data all cross 1.0, limiting possible conclusions. No new safety signals were observed.

Efficacy and safety of etanercept in moderate-to-severe asthma: a randomised, controlled trial.

Increased tumour necrosis factor-α levels have been observed in bronchial biopsies and induced sputum from subjects with severe asthma. We investigated etanercept (ETN) as a therapeutic option for treating moderate-to-severe persistent asthma. In this 12-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, subjects (n=132) with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma received subcutaneous injections of 25 mg ETN or placebo twice weekly, and were evaluated at baseline, and at weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12. The primary end-point was the change from baseline to week 12 in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)% predicted. Secondary end-points included morning peak expiratory flow, FEV1% pred, Asthma Control Questionnaire (5-item version), asthma exacerbations, provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% decrease in FEV1, and the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. No significant differences were observed between ETN and placebo for any of the efficacy end-points. ETN treatment was well tolerated, with no unexpected safety findings observed during the study. Clinical efficacy of ETN was not shown in subjects with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma over 12 weeks. However, ETN treatment was a well-tolerated therapy. Studies in specific subsets of patients with asthma with longer-term follow-up may be needed to fully evaluate the clinical efficacy of ETN in this population.

Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept in a 5-year extension study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept (ETN) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) without concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. METHODS: A total of 549 patients enrolled in this 5-year, open-label extension after completing 1 of 2 randomised controlled studies; all patients received ETN 25 mg twice weekly during the extension. Safety assessments included physical exams, adverse events (AEs), vital signs, laboratory tests, and autoantibody evaluations. Key efficacy endpoints included numbers of responders achieving the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, low disease activity scores, and disease remission. RESULTS: Three hundred and eight (56%) patients completed the 5-year extension study. Total ETN exposure, including that received during the double-blind studies was 2212 patient-years. Withdrawals for efficacy- and safety-related reasons were 12% and 19%, respectively. The most common AE was upper respiratory infection (44%). Rates of serious infections decreased over the 5-year period; one case of suspected tuberculosis was reported. Rates of malignancies remained generally consistent during the 5-year period. There were no reports of demyelinating disease, serious blood dyscrasias, or opportunistic infections. The relationship between autoantibody titres and clinical events was not statistically significant. Less than 5% of patients tested positive for anti-etanercept antibodies and all antibodies were non-neutralising. After 5 years, ACR 20, 50, and 70 response rates were 78%, 51%, and 32%, respectively; the mean percentage of patients achieving low disease activity score (DAS ≤ 2.4) and remission (DAS ≤ 1.6) were 44% and 20%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ETN maintained a favourable safety profile and consistent efficacy throughout the 5-year study duration.

Efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes of combination etanercept and sulfasalazine versus etanercept alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind randomised 2-year study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of etanercept and etanercept plus sulfasalazine versus sulfasalazine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite sulfasalazine therapy. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (25 mg twice weekly; sulfasalazine was discontinued at baseline), etanercept plus sulfasalazine (unchanged regimen of 2-3 g/day) or sulfasalazine in a double-blind, randomised, 2-year study in adult patients with active RA despite sulfasalazine therapy. Efficacy was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology criteria, disease activity scores (DAS) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). RESULTS: Demographic variables and baseline disease characteristics were comparable among treatment groups; mean DAS 5.1, 5.2 and 5.1 for etanercept (n = 103), etanercept plus sulfasalazine (n = 101) and sulfasalazine (n = 50), respectively. Withdrawal due to lack of efficacy was highest with sulfasalazine (26 (52%) vs 6 (6%) for either etanercept group, p<0.001). Patients receiving etanercept or etanercept plus sulfasalazine had a more rapid initial response, which was sustained at 2 years, than those receiving sulfasalazine: mean DAS 2.8, 2.5 versus 4.5, respectively (p<0.05); ACR 20 response was achieved by 67%, 77% versus 34% of patients, respectively (p<0.01) Overall, PRO followed a similar pattern; a clinically significant improvement in health assessment questionnaire was achieved by 76%, 78% versus 40% of patients, respectively (p<0.01). Commonly reported adverse events occurring in the etanercept groups were injection site reactions and pharyngitis/laryngitis (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Etanercept and etanercept plus sulfasalazine are efficacious for the long-term management of patients with RA. The addition of etanercept or substitution with etanercept should be considered as treatment options for patients not adequately responding to sulfasalazine.

Once weekly administration of etanercept 50 mg is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: a randomized controlled trial with open-label extension.

BACKGROUND: In previous studies, etanercept 25 mg twice weekly (BIW) or 50 mg BIW significantly reduced disease severity in patients with plaque psoriasis and demonstrated a favourable safety profile. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of etanercept 50 mg administered once weekly (QW) compared with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis over 24 weeks. METHODS: This study was conducted in two parts: (i) a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase, in which patients received etanercept 50 mg QW or placebo QW; and (ii) a 12-week, open-label extension phase, in which all patients received etanercept 50 mg QW. Primary endpoint was a 75% or greater improvement from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at week 12. Secondary endpoints included percentage PASI improvement and Physician's Global Assessment (PGA). RESULTS: One hundred and forty-two patients were analysed in the double-blind phase; 126 patients entered the open-label phase. At week 12, significantly more patients receiving etanercept 50 mg QW (37.5%) achieved PASI 75 response than patients receiving placebo (2.2%; P < 0.0001). At week 24, 71.1% in the etanercept-etanercept group and 44.4% in the placebo-etanercept group achieved PASI 75. Mean percentage of PASI improvement from baseline was 55.4% with etanercept vs. 9.4% worsening with placebo at week 12 (P < 0.0001), with 77.4% and 57.7% improvement in the etanercept-etanercept and placebo-etanercept groups at week 24. A PGA score of 0-1 (clear-almost clear) was achieved by 64% and 42% in the etanercept-etanercept and placebo-etanercept groups at week 24, respectively. Etanercept 50 mg QW was well tolerated. No deaths, serious infections, opportunistic infections (including tuberculosis), demyelinating disorders, malignancies or new safety signals were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly three-quarters of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis receiving etanercept 50 mg QW achieved significant improvement in disease severity over 24 weeks. This study also showed a favourable tolerability and safety profile with etanercept 50 mg QW.

Population-based pharmacokinetics of the soluble TNFr etanercept: a clinical study in 43 patients with ankylosing spondylitis compared with post hoc data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of etanercept in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in a phase 3 study. METHODS: Serum etanercept concentrations were analyzed from samples obtained at weeks 4 and 12 from 43 patients with AS (median age: 45 years; median body weight: 75 kg; white/non-white: 40/3; male/female: 34/9) receiving 25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly for 12 weeks. A population pharmacokinetics analysis using NONMEM was conducted to estimate individual etanercept pharmacokinetic parameters. Initially, appropriate base and covariate population pharmacokinetic models were built based on data from 10 prior clinical studies of etanercept administered subcutaneously or intravenously to healthy subjects (n = 53) and to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (n = 212). The influence of demographic characteristics on the pharmacokinetics of etanercept was thoroughly evaluated. The stability of the final model was evaluated using both internal (bootstrapping) and external (data splitting) validation approaches. Finally, the selected final population covariate model was used to estimate the Bayesian pharmacokinetic parameters for the patients with AS. RESULTS: The data from the 10 prior clinical studies were optimally fitted to a 2-compartment linear population covariate model. Both age (< 17 years) and body weight (< 60 kg) were found to be important covariates on clearance. Both bootstrapping and data splitting validated the population model. The mean Bayesian-predicted etanercept clearance and steady-state trough concentration were 0.072 l/h and 2,004 ng/ml, respectively. The pharmacokinetic parameters of etanercept in the patients with AS were similar to those observed in the patients with RA. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetics of etanercept in patients with AS were similar to those in patients with RA. The AS disease state does not appear to alter the disposition of etanercept.

A dose-ranging study of bromfenac sodium in oral surgery pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of five graded doses of bromfenac sodium in patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after the surgical removal of impacted third molar teeth. STUDY DESIGN: The study employed a randomized, double-blind, single-dose, 8-hour, inpatient evaluation period. The treatment groups included placebo (n = 21) and bromfenac (n = 102) at dosage strengths of 5 mg (n = 21), 25 mg (n = 20), 50 mg (n = 20), 100 mg (n = 20), and 200 mg (n = 21). Patients ingested a dose of study medication when their postsurgical pain reached a moderate or severe intensity. Pain intensity and pain relief were rated at 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes and then hourly for the remaining 6 hours. Efficacy and safety variables were analyzed by means of analysis of variance and chi-squared tests where appropriate. RESULTS: At all doses, bromfenac exhibited statistical superiority (p < 0.05) to placebo, with all but the 5-mg dose being significantly more efficacious for every summary analgesic measure (3- and 8-hour sum pain intensity difference and sum pain analog intensity difference, total pain relief, peak effects, sum of pain half gone, and global evaluation). Peak analgesic effects did not increase beyond those provided by the 25-mg dose of bromfenac, although both the 100- and 200-mg bromfenac doses provided a more rapid onset and a longer duration of analgesia than either the 25- or 50-mg dosage strengths. The most common side effects reported were headache, nausea, dizziness, and drowsiness; the incidence in the bromfenac group was no different from that in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Bromfenac is a safe and efficacious analgesic, with a threshold dose of 5 mg and a positive dose-response up to 25 mg for peak effects and 100 mg for total analgesic activity.

Improvement in patient-reported outcomes for patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with etanercept 50 mg once-weekly and 25 mg twice-weekly.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the humanistic impact of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and compare the effect of etanercept 50 mg once-weekly (QW), etanercept 25 mg twice-weekly (BIW) and placebo on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: In a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study, 356 patients with active AS received etanercept 50 mg QW, etanercept 25 mg BIW or placebo (3:3:1 randomization, respectively). PROs were assessed using Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Activity Index fatigue item, EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D) utility, EQ-5D visual analog scale and the Medical Outcomes Short Form Questionnaire (SF-36) scores at baseline and at regular intervals. Mean changes from baseline in PROs were analysed using analysis of covariance to assess differences between etanercept and placebo, or between the two etanercept groups. RESULTS: Consistent with earlier reports, AS was associated with quality of life (QOL) impairment and functional limitations, similar to or worse than cancer, congestive heart failure, diabetes or depression. Treatment with etanercept 50 mg QW or 25 mg BIW significantly improved QOL and functional status compared with placebo. High proportions of patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements in all PRO measures, including physical function, fatigue, pain, psychosocial domains and general health status. Improvements were similar with the two etanercept dose regimens. CONCLUSIONS: The more convenient etanercept 50 mg QW dose regimen significantly improves function and QOL in patients with AS, similarly to the standard dosing of 25 mg BIW, supporting its use for AS therapy.

Disease remission and sustained halting of radiographic progression with combination etanercept and methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate with Radiographic Patient Outcomes (TEMPO) is a 3-year, double-blind, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy and safety of etanercept, methotrexate, and the combination of etanercept plus methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The results after 1 and 2 years of the study have been previously reported. Here we provide the 3-year clinical and radiographic outcomes and safety of etanercept, methotrexate, and the combination in patients with RA. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter TEMPO study, 682 patients received etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, methotrexate < or =20 mg weekly, or the combination. Key efficacy assessments included the Disease Activity Score (DAS) and the DAS in 28 joints. RESULTS: Combination therapy resulted in significantly greater improvement in the DAS and in more patients with disease in remission than either monotherapy. This finding was confirmed by longitudinal analysis; patients receiving combination therapy were more than twice as likely to have disease in remission than those receiving either monotherapy. Independent predictors of remission included male sex, lower disease activity, lower level of joint destruction, and/or better physical function. Combination and etanercept therapy both resulted in significantly less radiographic progression than did methotrexate (P < 0.05). Etanercept and combination treatment were well tolerated, with no new safety findings. CONCLUSION: Etanercept plus methotrexate showed sustained efficacy through 3 years and remained more effective than either monotherapy, even after adjustment for patient withdrawal. Combination therapy for 3 years led to disease remission and inhibition of radiographic progression, 2 key goals for treatment of patients with RA.

A long-term, open-label trial of the safety and efficacy of etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis not treated with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: 549 patients entered this 5-year, open-label extension study and received etanercept 25 mg twice weekly. All patients showed inadequate responses to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs before entry into the double-blind studies. Safety assessments were carried out at regular intervals. Primary efficacy end points were the numbers of painful and swollen joints; secondary variables included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rate, Disease Activity Score and acute-phase reactants. Efficacy was analysed using the last-observation-carried-forward approach. RESULTS: Of the 549 patients enrolled in the open-label trial, 467 (85%), 414 (75%) and 371 (68%) completed 1, 2 and 3 years, respectively; 363 (66%) remained in the study at the time of this analysis. A total exposure of 1498 patient-years, including the double-blind study, was accrued. In the open-label trial, withdrawals for efficacy-related and safety-related reasons were 11% and 13%, respectively. Frequent adverse events included upper respiratory infections, flu syndrome, rash and injection-site reactions. Rates of serious infections and malignancies remained unchanged over the course of the study; there were no reports of patients with central demyelinating disease or serious blood dyscrasias. After 3 years, ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were 78%, 51% and 27%, respectively. The Disease Activity Score score was reduced to 3.0 at 3 months and 2.6 at 3 years from 5.1. A sustained improvement was found in Health Assessment Questionnaire scores throughout the 3-year time period. CONCLUSION: After 3 years of treatment, etanercept showed sustained efficacy and a favourable safety profile.

Etanercept and sulfasalazine, alone and combined, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite receiving sulfasalazine: a double-blind comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of etanercept and sulfasalazine, alone and in combination, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite sulfasalazine treatment. METHODS: A double-blind, randomised study in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable sulfasalazine (2-3 g/day) treatment. The primary end point was a 20% response by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria at 24 weeks. RESULTS: At baseline, the three treatment groups (sulfasalazine, n = 50; etanercept, n = 103; etanercept and sulfasalazine, n = 101) were comparable for demographic variables and disease activity. Lack of efficacy was the primary reason for discontinuation (sulfasalazine, n = 12; etanercept, n = 1; etanercept and sulfasalazine, n = 4; p<0.001). Significantly more patients receiving etanercept, alone or in combination (74% for each), achieved ACR 20 responses at 24 weeks than those receiving sulfasalazine (28%; p<0.01). Similarly, more patients in the etanercept groups achieved ACR 50 and ACR 70 responses than those in the sulfasalazine group (p<0.01). In the groups receiving etanercept, significant differences in the ACR core components were observed by week 2 compared with those receiving sulfasalazine alone (p<0.01). The incidences of several common adverse events (headache, nausea, asthenia) were lower with etanercept alone than with the combination (p<0.05), but infections and injection site reactions were higher with etanercept alone (p<0.05). The safety profiles of both etanercept treatment groups were comparable with previous experience of etanercept. CONCLUSIONS: For all efficacy variables assessed, etanercept alone or in combination with sulfasalazine resulted in substantial and similar improvement in disease activity from baseline to week 24 compared with sulfasalazine alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite their sulfasalazine treatment. All three treatments were generally well tolerated.

Etanercept 50 mg once weekly is as effective as 25 mg twice weekly in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, pharmacokinetics and safety of etanercept 50 mg once weekly with 25 mg twice weekly and placebo in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. METHODS: A 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the effects of etanercept 50 mg once weekly, etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and placebo in 356 patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (3:3:1 randomisation, respectively). The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a response at week 12 based on the Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group criteria (ASAS 20). The pharmacokinetics of etanercept 50 mg once weekly and 25 mg twice weekly were analysed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and disease activity were similar among the three groups: etanercept 50 mg once weekly, etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and placebo. The percentage of patients discontinuing therapy was 9.0%, 9.3% and 13.7% for the three respective groups. ASAS 20 response at 12 weeks was achieved by 74.2% of patients with etanercept 50 mg once weekly and 71.3% of those with etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, both significantly higher than the percentage of patients taking placebo (37.3%, p<0.001). Percentages of patients with ASAS 5/6 response (70.3%, 72.0% and 27.5%, respectively; p<0.001) and those with ASAS 40 response (58.1%, 53.3% and 21.6%, respectively; p<0.001) followed a similar pattern. Significant improvement (p<0.05) was seen in measures of disease activity, back pain, morning stiffness and C reactive protein levels as early as 2 weeks. Serum etanercept exposure was similar between the etanercept groups. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, including infections, was similar among all three groups, and no unexpected safety issues were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ankylosing spondylitis can expect a comparable significant improvement in clinical outcomes with similar safety when treated with etanercept 50 mg once weekly or with 25 mg twice weekly.