Increasing uptake through collaboration in the development of core outcome sets: Lessons learned at OMERACT 2023.

OBJECTIVE: This manuscript highlights the importance of enhancing the uptake of Core Outcome Sets (COS) by building partnerships with Collaborators and addressing their needs in COS development. METHODS AND SETTING: This session was structured as a simulation, resembling a format akin to a classic television game show. The moderator posed a series of questions to eight different Collaborator groups who briefly described the importance of COS within their areas of interest. Previous studies examining the uptake of individual core outcomes revealed disparities in uptake rates. The Identified barriers to the uptake of COS include the lack of recommendations for validated instruments for each domain, insufficient involvement of patients and key Collaborator groups in COS development, and a lack of awareness regarding the existence of COS. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis underscores the need for COS development approaches that prioritize the inclusion of patients and diverse Collaborator groups at every stage. While current studies on COS uptake are limited, future research should explore the broader implementation of COS across diverse disease categories and delve into the factors that hinder or facilitate their uptake such as, the importance of COS developers extending their work to recommending domains with well validated instruments. Embracing patient leadership and multifaceted engagement is essential for advancing the relevance and impact of COS in clinical research.

Stakeholder endorsement advancing the implementation of a patient-reported domain for harms in rheumatology clinical trials: Outcome of the OMERACT Safety Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an understanding of the concept of safety/harms experienced by patients involved in clinical trials for their rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to seek input from the OMERACT community before moving forward to developing or selecting an outcome measurement instrument. METHODS: OMERACT 2023 presented and discussed interview results from 34 patients indicating that up to 171 items might be important for patients' harm-reporting. RESULTS: Domain was defined in detail and supported by qualitative work. Participants in the Special-Interest-Group endorsed (96 %) that enough qualitative data are available to start Delphi survey(s). CONCLUSION: We present a definition of safety/harms that represents the patient voice (i.e., patients' perception of safety) evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related adverse events for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

Injectable Capsaicin for the Management of Pain Due to Osteoarthritis.

Capsaicin is a potent agonist of the TRPV1 channel, a transduction channel that is highly expressed in nociceptive fibers (pain fibers) throughout the peripheral nervous system. Given the importance of TRPV1 as one of several transduction channels in nociceptive fibers, much research has been focused on the potential therapeutic benefits of using TRPV1 antagonists for the management of pain. However, an antagonist has two limitations. First, an antagonist in principle generally only affects one receptor. Secondly, most antagonists must have an ongoing presence on the receptor to have an effect. Capsaicin overcomes both liabilities by disrupting peripheral terminals of nociceptive fibers that express TRPV1, and thereby affects all of the potential means of activating that pain fiber (not just TRPV1 function). This disruptive effect is dependent on the dose and can occur within minutes. Thus, unlike a typical receptor antagonist, continued bioavailability at the level of the receptor is not necessary. By disrupting the entire terminal of the TRPV1-expressing nociceptive fiber, capsaicin blocks all the activation mechanisms within that fiber, and not just TRPV1 function. Topical capsaicin, an FDA approved treatment for neuropathic pain, addresses pain from abnormal nociceptor activity in the superficial layers of the skin. Effects after a single administration are evident over a period of weeks to months, but in time are fully reversible. This review focuses on the rationale for using capsaicin by injection for painful conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA) and provides an update on studies completed to date.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Intraarticular Trans-Capsaicin for Pain Associated With Osteoarthritis of the Knee.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of high-purity synthetic trans-capsaicin (CNTX-4975) in patients with chronic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA)-associated knee pain. METHODS: In this phase II multicenter double-blind study, patients ages 45-80 years who had stable knee OA were randomized in a 2:1:2 ratio to receive a single intraarticular injection of placebo, CNTX-4975 0.5 mg, or CNTX-4975 1.0 mg. The primary efficacy end point was area under the curve (AUC) for change from baseline in daily Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain with walking score (range 0-10, 0 = none and 10 = extreme) through week 12. Secondary efficacy end points included a similar AUC analysis of outcomes in patients treated with CNTX-4975 0.5 mg, and evaluations extending to 24 weeks. RESULTS: Efficacy was evaluated in 172 patients (placebo group, n = 69; CNTX-4975 0.5 mg group, n = 33; CNTX-4975 1.0 mg group, n = 70). At week 12, greater decreases in the AUC for the pain score were observed with CNTX-4975 in the 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg groups versus placebo (0.5 mg group least squares mean difference [LSMD] -0.79, P = 0.0740; 1.0 mg group LSMD -1.6, P < 0.0001). Significant improvements were maintained at week 24 in the 1.0 mg group (LSMD -1.4, P = 0.0002). Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar in the placebo and CNTX-4975 1.0 mg groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, CNTX-4975 provided dose-dependent improvement in knee OA-associated pain. CNTX-4975 1.0 mg produced a significant decrease in OA knee pain through 24 weeks; CNTX-4975 0.5 mg significantly improved pain at 12 weeks, but the effect was not evident at 24 weeks.

JNK inhibition reduces lung remodeling and pulmonary fibrotic systemic markers.

BACKGROUND: Lung remodeling and pulmonary fibrosis are serious, life-threatening conditions resulting from diseases such as chronic severe asthma and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Preclinical evidence suggests that JNK enzyme function is required for key steps in the pulmonary fibrotic process. However, a selective JNK inhibitor has not been investigated in translational models of lung fibrosis with clinically relevant biomarkers, or in IPF patients. METHODS: The JNK inhibitor CC-930 was evaluated in the house dust mite-induced fibrotic airway mouse model, in a phase I healthy volunteer pharmacodynamic study, and subsequently in a phase II multicenter study of mild/moderate IPF (n = 28), with a 4-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind, sequential ascending-dose period (50 mg QD, 100 mg QD, 100 mg BID) and a 52-week open-label treatment-extension period. RESULTS: In the preclinical model, CC-930 attenuated collagen 1A1 gene expression, peribronchiolar collagen deposition, airway mucin MUC5B expression in club cells, and MMP-7 expression in lung, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and serum. In the phase I study, CC-930 reduced c-Jun phosphorylation induced by UV radiation in skin. In the phase II IPF study, there was a CC-930 dose-dependent trend in reduction of MMP-7 and SP-D plasma protein levels. The most commonly reported adverse events were increased ALT, increased AST, and upper respiratory tract infection (six subjects each, 21.4 %). A total of 13 subjects (46.4 %) experienced adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug. Nine out of 28 subjects experienced progressive disease in this study. The mean FVC (% predicted) declined after 26-32 weeks at doses of 100 mg QD and 100 mg BID. Changes in MMP-7, SP-D, and tenascin-C significantly correlated with change in FVC (% predicted). CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate JNK enzymatic activity involvement during pulmonary fibrosis, and support systemic biomarker use for tracking disease progression and the potential clinical benefit of this novel intervention in IPF. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01203943.

A Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Apremilast in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: Results of the PALACE 2 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, downregulates intracellular inflammatory mediator synthesis by elevating cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels. The PALACE 2 trial evaluated apremilast efficacy and safety in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) despite prior conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and/or biologic therapy. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg BID, or apremilast 30 mg BID. At Week 16, patients with swollen and tender joint count improvement < 20% entered early escape, with placebo patients rerandomized (1:1) to apremilast 20 mg BID or 30 mg BID while apremilast patients continued on their initial apremilast dose. At Week 24, patients remaining on placebo were rerandomized to apremilast 20 mg BID or 30 mg BID. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving > 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at Week 16. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (N = 484), ACR20 at Week 16 was achieved by more patients receiving apremilast 20 mg BID [37.4% (p = 0.0002)] and 30 mg BID [32.1% (p = 0.0060)] versus placebo (18.9%). Clinically meaningful improvements in signs and symptoms of PsA, physical function, and psoriasis were observed with apremilast through Week 52. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, headache, and upper respiratory tract infection. Diarrhea and nausea generally occurred early and usually resolved spontaneously with continued treatment. Laboratory abnormalities were infrequent and transient. CONCLUSION: Apremilast demonstrated clinical improvements in PsA for up to 52 weeks, including signs and symptoms, physical function, and psoriasis. No new safety signals were observed. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01212757.

Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, in patients with psoriatic arthritis and current skin involvement: a phase III, randomised, controlled trial (PALACE 3).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate apremilast treatment in patients with active psoriatic arthritis, including current skin involvement, despite prior therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and/or biologic agents. METHODS: Patients (N=505) were randomised (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice daily, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily. Rescue therapy with apremilast was designated at week 16 for placebo patients not achieving 20% improvement in swollen and tender joint counts. At week 24, the remaining placebo patients were then randomised to apremilast 20 mg twice daily or 30 mg twice daily. The efficacy and safety of apremilast were assessed over 52 weeks. RESULTS: At week 16, significantly more patients receiving apremilast 20 mg twice daily (28%) and 30 mg twice daily (41%) achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria versus placebo (18%; p=0.0295 and p<0.0001, respectively), and mean decrease in the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score was significantly greater with apremilast 30 mg twice daily (-0.20) versus placebo (-0.07; p=0.0073). In patients with baseline psoriasis body surface area involvement ≥3%, significantly more apremilast 30 mg twice daily patients achieved 50% reduction from baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (41%) versus placebo (24%; p=0.0098) at week 16. At week 52, observed improvements in these measures demonstrated sustained response with continued apremilast treatment. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity; the most common were diarrhoea, nausea, headache and upper respiratory tract infection. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis at week 16; sustained improvements were seen with continued treatment through 52 weeks. Apremilast was generally well tolerated and demonstrated an acceptable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01212770.

Current Status, Goals, and Research Agenda for Outcome Measures Development in Behçet Syndrome: Report from OMERACT 2014.

OBJECTIVE: There is an unmet need for reliable, validated, and widely accepted outcomes and outcome measures for use in clinical trials in Behçet syndrome (BS). Our report summarizes initial steps taken by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) vasculitis working group toward developing a core set of outcome measures for BS according to the OMERACT methodology, including the OMERACT Filter 2.0, and discussions during the first meeting of the BS working group held during OMERACT 12 (2014). METHODS: During OMERACT 12, some of the important challenges in developing outcomes for BS were outlined and discussed, and a research agenda was drafted. RESULTS: Among topics discussed were the advantages and disadvantages of a composite measure for BS that evaluates several organs/organ systems; bringing patients and physicians together for discussions about how to assess disease activity; use of organ-specific measures developed for other diseases; and the inclusion of generic, disease-specific, or organ-specific measures. The importance of incorporating patients' perspectives, concerns, and ideas into outcome measure development was emphasized. CONCLUSION: The planned research agenda includes conducting a Delphi exercise among physicians from different specialties that are involved in the care of patients with BS and among patients with BS, with the aim of identifying candidate domains and subdomains to be assessed in randomized clinical trials of BS, and candidate items for a composite measure. The ultimate goal of the group is to develop a validated and widely accepted core set of outcomes and outcome measures for use in clinical trials in BS.

Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor, in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: Results of a phase III, randomized, controlled trial (Efficacy and Safety Trial Evaluating the Effects of Apremilast in Psoriasis [ESTEEM] 1).

BACKGROUND: Apremilast works intracellularly to regulate inflammatory mediators. OBJECTIVE: ESTEEM 1 evaluated efficacy/safety of apremilast at 30 mg twice a day for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: This phase III, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized adults (2:1) to apremilast or placebo. At week 16, the placebo group switched to apremilast through week 32, followed by a randomized treatment withdrawal phase to week 52. Binary end points were analyzed using χ(2) test; continuous end points used analysis of covariance. RESULTS: In all, 844 patients were randomized (n = 282, placebo; n = 562, apremilast). At week 16, significantly more patients taking apremilast achieved 75% or greater reduction from baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI-75) (33.1%) versus placebo (5.3%, P < .0001; primary end point). Most (61.0%) patients rerandomized to apremilast at week 32 achieved PASI-75 at week 52 versus 11.7% rerandomized to placebo. Of patients rerandomized to apremilast at week 32, mean percentage change from baseline PASI score was -88% to -81% (weeks 32-52). During the placebo-controlled period, 55.7% and 69.3% of patients randomized to placebo and apremilast, respectively, had 1 or more adverse events. Most adverse events were mild/moderate in severity. No new significant adverse events emerged with continued apremilast exposure versus the placebo-controlled period. LIMITATIONS: Data were limited to 52 weeks and may not generalize to nonplaque psoriasis. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast was effective in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Optimal Strategies for Reporting Pain in Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews: Recommendations from an OMERACT 12 Workshop.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is a patient-important outcome, but current reporting in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews is often suboptimal, impeding clinical interpretation and decision making. METHODS: A working group at the 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT 12) was convened to provide guidance for reporting treatment effects regarding pain for individual studies and systematic reviews. RESULTS: For individual trials, authors should report, in addition to mean change, the proportion of patients achieving 1 or more thresholds of improvement from baseline pain (e.g., ≥ 20%, ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%), achievement of a desirable pain state (e.g., no worse than mild pain), and/or a combination of change and state. Effects on pain should be accompanied by other patient-important outcomes to facilitate interpretation. When pooling data for metaanalysis, authors should consider converting all continuous measures for pain to a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and use the established, minimally important difference (MID) of 10 mm, and the conventionally used, appreciably important differences of 20 mm, 30 mm, and 50 mm, to facilitate interpretation. Effects ≤ 0.5 units suggest a small or very small effect. To further increase interpretability, the pooled estimate on the VAS should also be transformed to a binary outcome and expressed as a relative risk and risk difference. This transformation can be achieved by calculating the probability of experiencing a treatment effect greater than the MID and the thresholds for appreciably important differences in pain reduction in the control and intervention groups. CONCLUSION: Presentation of relative effects regarding pain will facilitate interpretation of treatment effects.

Apremilast for Behçet's syndrome--a phase 2, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Oral ulcers, the hallmark of Behçet's syndrome, can be resistant to conventional treatment; therefore, alternative agents are needed. Apremilast is an oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor that modulates several inflammatory pathways. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled study in which 111 patients with Behçet's syndrome who had two or more oral ulcers were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg of apremilast twice daily or placebo for 12 weeks. This regimen was followed by a 12-week extension phase in which the placebo group was switched to apremilast and a 28-day post-treatment observational follow-up phase. The patients and clinicians were unaware of the study assignments throughout the trial. The primary end point was the number of oral ulcers at week 12. Secondary outcomes included pain from these ulcers (measured on a 100-mm visual-analogue scale, with higher scores indicating worse pain), the number of genital ulcers, overall disease activity, and quality of life. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) number of oral ulcers per patient at week 12 was significantly lower in the apremilast group than in the placebo group (0.5±1.0 vs. 2.1±2.6) (P<0.001). The mean decline in pain from oral ulcers from baseline to week 12 was greater with apremilast than with placebo (-44.7±24.3 mm vs. -16.0±32.5 mm) (P<0.001). Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were more common in the apremilast group (with 22, 9, and 12 incidents, respectively, among 55 patients) than in the placebo group (with 10, 1, and 2 incidents, respectively, among 56 patients), findings that were similar to those in previous studies of apremilast. There were two serious adverse events in patients receiving apremilast. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast was effective in treating oral ulcers, which are the cardinal manifestation of Behçet's syndrome. This preliminary study was neither large enough nor long enough to assess long-term efficacy, the effect on other manifestations of Behçet's syndrome, or the risk of uncommon serious adverse events. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00866359.).

Treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a phase 3 randomised, placebo-controlled trial with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor.

OBJECTIVES: Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, regulates inflammatory mediators. Psoriatic Arthritis Long-term Assessment of Clinical Efficacy 1 (PALACE 1) compared apremilast with placebo in patients with active psoriatic arthritis despite prior traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and/or biologic therapy. METHODS: In the 24-week, placebo-controlled phase of PALACE 1, patients (N=504) were randomised (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice a day (BID) or apremilast 30 mg BID. At week 16, patients without ≥20% reduction in swollen and tender joint counts were required to be re-randomised equally to either apremilast dose if initially randomised to placebo or remained on their initial apremilast dose. Patients on background concurrent DMARDs continued stable doses (methotrexate, leflunomide and/or sulfasalazine). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 16. RESULTS: At week 16, significantly more apremilast 20 mg BID (31%) and 30 mg BID (40%) patients achieved ACR20 versus placebo (19%) (p<0.001). Significant improvements in key secondary measures (physical function, psoriasis) were evident with both apremilast doses versus placebo. Across outcome measures, the 30-mg group generally had higher and more consistent response rates, although statistical comparison was not conducted. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal and generally occurred early, were self-limiting and infrequently led to discontinuation. No imbalance in major adverse cardiac events, serious or opportunistic infections, malignancies or laboratory abnormalities was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast was effective in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis, improving signs and symptoms and physical function. Apremilast demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and was generally well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01172938.

Improvements in patient-reported outcomes with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis: results from a phase IIb randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Apremilast, a specific inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4, modulates pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokine production. OBJECTIVES: Apremilast's effect on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis was evaluated in a phase IIb randomized, controlled trial (NCT00773734). METHODS: In this 16-week, placebo-controlled study, 352 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis received placebo or apremilast (10, 20, or 30 mg BID). PROs included Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), pruritus visual analog scale (VAS), and Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Changes from baseline and patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences (MCID) were analyzed. Correlations between changes across various PRO instruments were explored. RESULTS: Baseline DLQI (>10 points) and SF-36 MCS and domain scores indicated impairments in HRQOL. At 16 weeks, greater improvements from baseline in DLQI scores were reported with apremilast 20 (-5.9) and 30 mg BID (-4.4) compared with placebo (1.9; P≤0.005 for both), and a greater proportion of patients reported improvements ≥MCID (20 mg BID, 49.4%, 30 mg BID, 44.3%) versus placebo (25.0%; P<0.04). Greater improvements from baseline in pruritus VAS scores were reported with apremilast 20 (-35.5%) and 30 mg BID (-43.7%) versus placebo (-6.1%; P≤0.005). Significant and clinically meaningful improvements in SF-36 mental component summary scores (P≤0.008) and Bodily Pain, Mental Health, and Role-Emotional domains were reported with all apremilast doses (P<0.05), and Social Functioning with 20 and 30 mg BID (P<0.05) and Physical Functioning with 20 mg BID (P<0.03). Correlations between SF-36 scores and DLQI were moderate (r>0.30 and ≤0.60) and low between SF-36 and pruritus VAS (r≤0.30), indicating they measure different aspects of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast treatment resulted in improved HRQOL, including DLQI and pruritus VAS over 16 weeks of treatment, in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

Patient-reported Health-related Quality of Life with apremilast for psoriatic arthritis: a phase II, randomized, controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: Apremilast, a specific inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4, modulates proinflammatory and antiinflammatory cytokine production. A phase IIb randomized, controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the effect of apremilast on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: In this 12-week RCT, patients with active disease (duration > 6 mo, ≥ 3 swollen and ≥ 3 tender joints) received apremilast (20 mg BID or 40 mg QD) or placebo. PRO included pain and global assessment of disease activity [visual analog scale (VAS)], Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and correlations between SF-36 domains and pain VAS, HAQ-DI, and FACIT-F were determined. RESULTS: Among the 204 randomized patients (52.5% men; mean age 50.6 yrs), baseline SF-36 scores reflected large impairments in HRQOL. Apremilast 20 mg BID resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in physical and mental component summary scores and 7 and 6 SF-36 domains, respectively, compared with no change/deterioration in placebo group. Patients receiving apremilast 20 mg BID and 40 mg QD reported significant improvements ≥ MCID in global VAS scores and FACIT-F versus placebo, and significant improvements in pain VAS scores. Moderate-high, significant correlations were evident between SF-36 domains and other PRO. CONCLUSION: Apremilast resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQOL, pain and global VAS, and FACIT-F scores.

Oral apremilast in the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apremilast, a novel, orally available small molecule that specifically targets phosphodiesterase 4, in the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: This phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included the following: a 12-week treatment phase, with patients receiving placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice per day, or apremilast 40 mg once per day; a 12-week treatment-extension phase, with patients in the placebo group re-randomized to receive apremilast; and a 4-week observational phase after treatment cessation. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 12. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, vital signs, laboratory parameters, and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: Of the 204 patients with PsA who were randomized to a treatment group, 165 completed the treatment phase. At the end of the treatment phase (week 12), 43.5% of patients receiving apremilast 20 mg twice per day (P < 0.001) and 35.8% of those receiving 40 mg once per day (P = 0.002) achieved an ACR20 response, compared with 11.8% of those receiving placebo. At the end of the treatment-extension phase (week 24), >40% of patients in each group (patients receiving apremilast 20 mg twice per day, patients receiving apremilast 40 mg once per day, and patients in the placebo group re-randomized to receive apremilast) achieved the ACR20 level of improvement. Most patients in the treatment phase (84.3%) and treatment-extension phase (68.3%) reported ≥ 1 AE. Diarrhea, headache, nausea, fatigue, and nasopharyngitis were reported most frequently; most events were mild or moderate. No clinically relevant laboratory or electrocardiographic abnormalities were reported. CONCLUSION: Treatment with apremilast at a dosage of 20 mg twice per day or 40 mg once per day demonstrated efficacy in comparison with placebo and was generally well tolerated in patients with active PsA. The balance of efficacy, tolerability, and safety supports further study of apremilast in PsA.

Apremilast: a novel PDE4 inhibitor in the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.

Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) is a key enzyme in the degradation of cyclic adenosine monophosphate and is centrally involved in the cytokine production of inflammatory cells, angiogenesis, and the functional properties of other cell types such as keratinocytes. In this review article, apremilast, a novel small molecule inhibitor of PDE4, is introduced. Apremilast has profound anti-inflammatory properties in animal models of inflammatory disease, as well as human chronic inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Apremilast blocks the synthesis of several pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin 23, CXCL9, and CXCL10 in multiple cell types. In contrast to the biologics, which neutralize pro-inflammatory mediators at the protein level, apremilast modulates production of these mediators at the level of mRNA expression. Apremilast also interferes with the production of leukotriene B4, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and matrix metalloproteinase and reduces complex inflammatory processes, such as dendritic cell infiltration, epidermal skin thickening, and joint destruction. As this novel PDE4 inhibitor interferes with several key processes of inflammation, it may emerge as a promising new drug for the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases such as those of the skin and the joints.

How to ascertain drug safety in the context of benefit. Controversies and concerns.

There is great concern about clearly defining benefit and risk in the context of both drug development and clinical practice. In view of this pressure, the OMERACT Executive identified the need to bring together clinical trialists, pharmacoepidemiologists, clinicians, clinical epidemiologists, statistical experts, and regulatory representatives to discuss different approaches to define risk and perhaps improved ways to express it. Each attendee spoke on a given topic and the group was charged to consider the issue of risk in the context of formally posed questions. This article provides a summary of the presentations and outlines the discussions that followed.

Standardizing assessment and reporting of adverse effects in rheumatology clinical trials II: the Rheumatology Common Toxicity Criteria v.2.0.

OBJECTIVE: The OMERACT Drug Safety Working Group focuses on standardization of assessment and reporting of adverse events in clinical trials and longitudinal and observational studies in rheumatology. This group developed the Rheumatology Common Toxicity Criteria (RCTC) in 1999, building on the Oncology Common Toxicity Criteria. At OMERACT 8, a workshop group reviewed the use of the RCTC and other instruments in rheumatology clinical trials to date, to revise and to stimulate its implementation. METHODS: The Working Group drafted a revision of the RCTC after an iterative examination of its contents, terms, and definitions. The RCTC were compared with the Oncology Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC v.2.0), and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v.3.0). In addition a pharmaceutical company focus group met to clarify the challenges of application of RCTC terms and definitions, relative to the standard in pharmaceutical clinical trials, i.e., verbatim recording of adverse events followed by mapping to Medical Dictionary of Drug Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terms. The workshop focused on the proposed revision of RCTC to version 2.0 and on the research agenda, including a validation of the RCTC in future trials. RESULTS: At OMERACT 8, breakout groups amended the contents of the 4 current and 2 new categories of adverse event terms within the draft RCTC v.2.0. Participants recognized the need to standardize the definitions for disease flares, infection, malignancy, and certain syndromes such as drug hypersensitivity and infusion reactions. Moderate consensus (62%) was reached in the final plenary session that the amended RCTC v.2.0 should be promulgated and tested in available trials of anti-tumor necrosis factor agents. CONCLUSION: The RCTC has face validity and construct validity. However, documentation of discrimination and feasibility (the other elements of the OMERACT filter) is needed. Collaboration with drug safety working groups in rheumatology professional organizations is necessary to enable this project.

Efficacy of B-cell-targeted therapy with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: An open-label study indicated that selective depletion of B cells with the use of rituximab led to sustained clinical improvements for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. To confirm these observations, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled study. METHODS: We randomly assigned 161 patients who had active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate to receive one of four treatments: oral methotrexate (> or =10 mg per week) (control); rituximab (1000 mg on days 1 and 15); rituximab plus cyclophosphamide (750 mg on days 3 and 17); or rituximab plus methotrexate. Responses defined according to the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) were assessed at week 24 (primary analyses) and week 48 (exploratory analyses). RESULTS: At week 24, the proportion of patients with 50 percent improvement in disease symptoms according to the ACR criteria, the primary end point, was significantly greater with the rituximab-methotrexate combination (43 percent, P=0.005) and the rituximab-cyclophosphamide combination (41 percent, P=0.005) than with methotrexate alone (13 percent). In all groups treated with rituximab, a significantly higher proportion of patients had a 20 percent improvement in disease symptoms according to the ACR criteria (65 to 76 percent vs. 38 percent, P< or =0.025) or had EULAR responses (83 to 85 percent vs. 50 percent, P< or =0.004). All ACR responses were maintained at week 48 in the rituximab-methotrexate group. The majority of adverse events occurred with the first rituximab infusion: at 24 weeks, serious infections occurred in one patient (2.5 percent) in the control group and in four patients (3.3 percent) in the rituximab groups. Peripheral-blood immunoglobulin concentrations remained within normal ranges. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment, a single course of two infusions of rituximab, alone or in combination with either cyclophosphamide or continued methotrexate, provided significant improvement in disease symptoms at both weeks 24 and 48.