A 52-week, open-label study evaluating the safety and efficacy of tabalumab, an anti-B-cell-activating factor monoclonal antibody, for rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of tabalumab, a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes membrane-bound and soluble B-cell-activating factor, in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: Patients with RA who completed one of two 24-week randomized controlled trials (RCTs) participated in this 52-week, flexible-dose, open-label extension study. Patients in RCT1 received intravenous placebo, 30-mg tabalumab or 80-mg tabalumab every 3 weeks, and patients in RCT2 received subcutaneous placebo or 1-, 3-, 10-, 30-, 60- or 120-mg tabalumab every 4 weeks (Q4W). Regardless of prior treatment, all patients in this study received subcutaneous 60-mg tabalumab Q4W for the first 3 months, then a one-time increase to 120-mg tabalumab Q4W (60-mg/120-mg group) and a one-time decrease to 60-mg tabalumab Q4W per patient was allowed (60-mg/120-mg/60-mg group). RESULTS: There were 182 patients enrolled: 60 mg (n = 60), 60/120 mg (n = 121) and 60/120/60 mg (n = 1). Pretabalumab baseline disease activity was generally higher in the 60-mg/120-mg group. There was a higher frequency of serious adverse events and treatment-emergent adverse events, as well as infections and injection-site reactions, in the 60-mg/120-mg group. One death unrelated to the study drug occurred (60-mg/120-mg group). In both groups, total B-cell counts decreased by approximately 40% from the baseline level in the RCT originating study. Both groups demonstrated efficacy through 52 weeks of treatment relative to baseline pretabalumab disease activity based on American College of Rheumatology criteria improvement ≥20%, ≥50% and ≥70%; European League against Rheumatism Responder Index in 28 joints; Disease Activity Score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein; and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index. CONCLUSIONS: With long-term, open-label tabalumab treatment, no unexpected safety signals were observed, and B-cell reductions were consistent with previous findings. Despite differences in RCT originating studies, both groups demonstrated an efficacy response through the 52-week extension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00837811 (registered 3 February 2009).

Sustained safety and efficacy of once-daily hydromorphone extended-release (OROS® hydromorphone ER) compared with twice-daily oxycodone controlled-release over 52 weeks in patients with moderate to severe chronic noncancer pain.

Once-daily hydromorphone extended-release (OROS(®) hydromorphone ER) and oxycodone controlled-release (CR) are semisynthetic, ER opioid analgesics with established efficacy. An open-label, randomized, 24-week, parallel group, flexible-dose study demonstrated noninferiority of OROS hydromorphone ER vs. twice-daily oxycodone CR in patients with chronic noncancer pain. In total, 112 patients were enrolled in a 28-week, open-label extension study; 60 patients received OROS hydromorphone ER and 52 received oxycodone CR. The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to Weeks 38 and 52 in Brief Pain Inventory item "pain right now." Global assessments of efficacy, dosing convenience, and tolerability were secondary endpoints. Mean change in "pain right now" from baseline to Week 38 was -3.0 (OROS hydromorphone ER) vs. -2.8 (oxycodone CR), and from baseline to Week 52 was -2.9 vs. -2.8; these changes were similar to the changes in the core phase (-2.1 vs. -2.1). Similar improvements were demonstrated for secondary assessments, including pain, pain interference, and quality of life. At Week 52, global assessment of efficacy was rated as "very good" or "good" by the majority of patients (OROS hydromorphone ER, 91.7%; oxycodone CR, 86.5%). More patients in the OROS hydromorphone ER group (35.0% vs. 21.2%) assessed mode of drug intake as "very convenient." The majority of patients receiving OROS hydromorphone ER (88.3%) and oxycodone CR (88.5%) rated tolerability as "good" or "very good" at Week 52; few patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event (1.6% vs. 0.4%, respectively). The effectiveness of OROS hydromorphone ER and oxycodone CR was maintained through 1 year.

A randomized study to demonstrate noninferiority of once-daily OROS(®) hydromorphone with twice-daily sustained-release oxycodone for moderate to severe chronic noncancer pain.

This was a randomized, open-label, comparative, parallel group study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of once-daily OROS(®) hydromorphone compared with twice-daily sustained-release (SR) oxycodone in subjects with chronic noncancer pain severe enough to require continuous opioid therapy. The core phase (24 weeks) consisted of titration and maintenance periods. This was followed by an optional extension phase (28 weeks), which collected data used to assess long-term safety and efficacy outcomes. Five hundred four subjects were randomized between the 2 treatment groups. The primary efficacy analysis showed that OROS hydromorphone was noninferior to SR oxycodone (P = 0.011) as measured by change in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity subscore "pain right now." The treatment difference with respect to change in BPI pain severity subscore "pain right now" was 0.29 (95% confidence interval: -0.27 to 0.84). The equianalgesic doses were 16 mg OROS hydromorphone and 40 mg SR oxycodone (median values). Secondary outcomes included other BPI scale items, the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Indices, and quality of life measured by the Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire. Both treatment groups showed improvements in the main secondary efficacy endpoints. No statistically significant differences were shown between the treatment groups, except for the scores for somnolence (MOS sleep subscale) and physical functioning (SF-36), which both had a statistically significant difference between treatments groups in favor of OROS hydromorphone. Both study medications had equivalent and acceptable safety profiles. The results of this open-label study showed that once-daily OROS hydromorphone is a safe and well-tolerated treatment for chronic pain and as efficacious as twice-daily SR oxycodone.

The selective estrogen receptor alpha agonist Org 37663 induces estrogenic effects but lacks antirheumatic activity: a phase IIa trial investigating efficacy and safety of Org 37663 in postmenopausal female rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving stable background methotrexate or sulfasalazine.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple lines of evidence suggest that sex hormones may play a role in the pathogenesis or clinical expression of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Studies on the effects of exogenous estrogens in RA patients have yielded contradictory results. We undertook this study to determine the effects of the selective estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) agonist Org 37663 in patients with RA, in terms of both its estrogenic effects and its ability to ameliorate disease activity. METHODS: A 10-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, dose-finding, proof-of-concept trial was initiated to obtain data on the efficacy and safety of Org 37663 in postmenopausal female patients with RA who were receiving background treatment with either methotrexate or sulfasalazine. Patients were randomized to receive placebo or Org 37663 at doses of 4 mg/day, 15 mg/day, or 50 mg/week. The primary efficacy variable was the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28). RESULTS: Org 37663 induced a clear biologic, estrogenic response in several organ systems, including a dose-related increase in levels of sex hormone binding globulin. However, the DAS28 decreased similarly for all treatment groups including placebo, indicating lack of clinical efficacy of Org 37663 in this trial. CONCLUSION: The observed lack of clinical benefit in RA patients treated with an ERalpha agonist, in association with a clear biologic response to the study drug, provides evidence that a biologically relevant ERalpha-mediated estrogenic effect is not associated with a clinically relevant effect on RA symptoms and signs.

[Soft tissue rheumatism in erderly]. / Reumatyzm tkanek miekkich u osób w podeszlym wieku.

Disorders of soft, peri-articular tissues are a common cause of musculoskeletal pain in elderly patients. Nevertheless, most physicians underestimate the role of soft tissue rheumatism in the pathomechanism of the pain. The impairments of soft tissue can not be diagnosed by X-rays examinations, whereas degenerative lesions of joints are easy diagnosed using this method even despite of their uncertain role in producing the symptoms. The incidence of pain syndromes originated from soft tissues differ regarding to the age of patients. In young subjects the incidence of all of them is generally low. Syndromes provoked by overloading during work: repetitive strain syndrome, canal tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow, golfers elbow, shoulder tendon coin disorders and myofascial pain syndrome are common in middle-aged patients. The morbidity of fibromialgia syndrome is also lower in old people probably as the result of diminished numbers and degenerative changes in nociceptive fibers. The syndromes prevailing in elderly patients include trochanteric syndrome and the pain syndromes provoked by muscle spasm depended on posture abnormalities. In the soft tissue pain syndrome prevention adapted to old age kinesitherapy and avoiding muscle overloading are recommended. Soft tissue pain syndromes are usually treated with non steroidal anti inflammatory drugs. In local pain syndromes better results can be obtained by local treatment. Local injections of glikocorticosteroids are usually very effective and safe.

The efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment: results of a phase IIB randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of different rituximab doses plus methotrexate (MTX), with or without glucocorticoids, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) resistant to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including biologic agents. METHODS: A total of 465 patients were randomized into 9 treatment groups: 3 rituximab groups (placebo [n = 149], 500 mg [n = 124], or 1,000 mg [n = 192] on days 1 and 15) each also taking either placebo glucocorticoids, intravenous methylprednisolone premedication, or intravenous methylprednisolone premedication plus oral prednisone for 2 weeks. All patients received MTX (10-25 mg/week); no other DMARDs were permitted. RESULTS: Significantly more patients who received 2 500-mg or 2 1,000-mg infusions of rituximab met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at week 24 (55% and 54%, respectively) compared with placebo (28%; P < 0.0001). ACR50 responses were achieved by 33%, 34%, and 13% of patients, respectively (P < 0.001), and ACR70 responses were achieved by 13%, 20%, and 5% of patients (P < 0.05). Changes in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (-1.79, -2.05, -0.67; P < 0.0001) and moderate to good responses on the European League Against Rheumatism criteria (P < 0.0001) reflected the ACR criteria responses. Glucocorticoids did not contribute significantly to the primary efficacy end point, ACR20 response at 24 weeks. Intravenous glucocorticoid premedication reduced the frequency and intensity of first infusion-associated events; oral glucocorticoids conferred no additional safety benefit. Rituximab was well tolerated; the type and severity of infections was similar to those for placebo. CONCLUSION: Both rituximab doses were effective and well tolerated when added to MTX therapy in patients with active RA. The primary end point (ACR20 response) was independent of glucocorticoids, although intravenous glucocorticoid premedication improved tolerability during the first rituximab infusion.

Prevention of ulcers by esomeprazole in at-risk patients using non-selective NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: Proton pump inhibitors reduce ulcer recurrence in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) users, but their impact in at-risk ulcer-free patients using the current spectrum of prescribed agents has not been clearly defined. We assessed esomeprazole for ulcer prevention in at-risk patients (> or = 60 yr and/or ulcer history) taking NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors. Such studies are particularly relevant, given that concerns regarding adverse cardiovascular outcomes among COX-2 inhibitor users may prompt re-evaluation of their use. METHODS: We conducted two similar double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter studies; VENUS (United States) and PLUTO (multinational). A total of 844 and 585 patients requiring daily NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors were randomized to receive esomeprazole (20 or 40 mg) or placebo, daily for 6 months. RESULTS: In the VENUS study, the life table estimated proportion of patients who developed ulcers over 6 months (primary variable, intent-to-treat population) was 20.4% on placebo, 5.3% on esomeprazole 20 mg (p < 0.001), and 4.7% on esomeprazole 40 mg (p < 0.0001). In the PLUTO study, the values were 12.3% on placebo, 5.2% with esomeprazole 20 mg (p = 0.018), and 4.4% with esomeprazole 40 mg (p = 0.007). Significant reductions were observed for users of both non-selective NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. Pooled ulcer rates for patients using COX-2 inhibitors (n = 400) were 16.5% on placebo, 0.9% on esomeprazole 20 mg (p < 0.001) and 4.1% on esomeprazole 40 mg (p= 0.002). Esomeprazole was well tolerated and associated with better symptom control than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: For at-risk patients, esomeprazole was effective in preventing ulcers in long-term users of NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors.

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.