Safety, tolerability, and clinical outcomes after intraarticular injection of a recombinant adeno-associated vector containing a tumor necrosis factor antagonist gene: results of a phase 1/2 Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess safety and clinical outcomes in patients with inflammatory arthritis after intraarticular (IA) injection of rAAV2-TNFR:Fc, a recombinant adeno-associated viral vector containing the human tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor-immunoglobulin (IgG1) Fc fusion (TNFR:Fc) gene. METHODS: In this phase 1/2 randomized study, adults with persistent moderate or severe inflammation in a target joint, being treated with or without systemic anti-TNF therapy, received a single IA injection of either rAAV2-TNFR:Fc (1 x 10(11), 1 x 10(12), or 1 x 10(13) DNase-resistant particles/ml joint volume) or placebo, followed by open-label rAAV2-TNFR:Fc 12-30 weeks later, depending on when the target joint met predetermined criteria for reinjection. RESULTS: 127 subjects received the first injection of blinded study drug; 95 subjects received open-label rAAV2-TNFR:Fc. Administration site reactions, consisting of transient mild to moderate increases in tenderness and swelling of the injected joint, occurred after 23/191 (12%) rAAV2-TNFR:Fc injections and were dose-dependent. Rates of other adverse events were not dose-dependent. Notable serious adverse events (SAE) included culture-negative septic arthritis in a subject receiving leflunomide and fatal disseminated histoplasmosis considered unrelated to rAAV2-TNFR:Fc in a subject receiving adalimumab. In the phase 2 portion of the study, a 30% decrease in target joint global visual analog scale was observed in 21/50 (42%) rAAV2-TNFR:Fc subjects and 3/16 (19%) placebo subjects 12 weeks after first injection (p = 0.14). CONCLUSION: IA rAAV2-TNFR:Fc resulted in administration site reactions after 12% of injections. A fatal SAE, disseminated histoplasmosis, was considered not related to study agent. Patient-reported outcome measures of clinical response showed greater improvement in treated patients than placebo patients.

Evaluation of the comparative efficacy of etoricoxib and ibuprofen for treatment of patients with osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To directly compare the efficacy and safety of etoricoxib, 30 mg once daily, ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily, and placebo for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with OA of the knee or hip was performed between February 2003 and November 2003 in 61 medical centers in the United States. Qualified patients aged 40 to 89 years were randomized to receive placebo, etoricoxib, 30 mg once daily, or ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily, for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy end points Included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and physical function subscales and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status. Response to treatment was assessed by the time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks. RESULTS: In 528 patients, baseline values for the 3 primary end points ranged from 67.78 to 72.60 mm (0-100 mm visual analog scale). Near-maximal efficacy was achieved by week 2 with both active treatments and sustained over the course of the trial. During the 12-week period, least squares mean changes in the primary end points (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status subscales) ranged from -16.53 to -13.55 mm, -27.89 to -23.68 mm, and -26.53 to -22.97 mm in the placebo, etoricoxib, and Ibuprofen groups, respectively. Both etoricoxib and ibuprofen were more effective (P<.001) than placebo for all primary end points. Etoricoxib and ibuprofen treatment responses for the primary end points were determined to be comparable with use of prespecified comparability criteria. Results for all other efficacy end points were consistent with responses observed for the primary end points. Etoricoxib and ibuprofen generally were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: For patients with OA, treatment with etoricoxib, 30 mg/d, is well tolerated and provides sustained clinical effectiveness that is superior to placebo and comparable to ibuprofen, 2400 mg/d.

A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial of LY333013, a selective inhibitor of group II secretory phospholipase A2, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a selective inhibitor of secretory phospholipase (sPLA2), LY333013, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Two hundred and fifty-one patients with active RA despite treatment with one or more disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) received oral doses of LY333013 (50, 250, and 1000 mg) or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. Concomitant low-dose glucocorticoids (< or = 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent) were allowed. Clinical improvement was assessed using the response criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20), and safety was evaluated with respect to adverse events and laboratory test abnormalities. RESULTS: The demographic characteristics of the treatment groups were similar. Dose-response relationships were found for ACR20 responses (p = 0.058) and reductions in C-reactive protein (p = 0.058) at week 1. The proportions of patients with an ACR20 response subsequently increased in all study groups including the placebo group at weeks 4 and 8, and the initial treatment benefit was lost. Adverse events were generally mild in severity and not associated with treatment. CONCLUSION: Treatment with LY333013 for 12 weeks was well tolerated but ineffective as an adjunct to DMARD treatment of active RA.

The low-throughput protein A adsorber: an immune modulatory device. Hypothesis for the mechanism of action in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

To achieve specific removal of pathogenic antibodies (Ab) or immune complexes (IC), several adsorbers have been developed. We discuss the mode of action of low-throughput staphylococcal protein A (SPA) immunoadsorption. The SPA-based Prosorba apheresis is likely to modify some of the autoantibodies (autoAb) or IC. The low-throughput adsorber showed very limited adsorption capacity of circulating autoAb and/or circulating IC. Besides changes of humoral diagnostic parameters, cellular changes could be observed in the Prosorba-treated patients. These changes were rather similar to those that have been observed in a patient successfully treated with Ab against tumor necrosis factor alpha. We propose an adsorber-catalyzed conversion of small, tissue-penetrating, scarcely detectable, non-complement-binding, proinflammatory IgG-rheumatoid factor (RF)-based IC into the more readily phagocytosed species of IC: intermediate-sized, partially cryoprecipitable, non-tissue penetrating IC that are opsonized with complement. These IC are rather short-lived and could quickly be cleared by the body's scavenging system.

Efficacy of tacrolimus in rheumatoid arthritis patients who have been treated unsuccessfully with methotrexate: a six-month, double-blind, randomized, dose-ranging study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, safety, and optimal dose of tacrolimus monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled monotherapy study was set in 12 community sites and 9 university-based sites. Two hundred sixty-eight patients with RA who were resistant to or intolerant of methotrexate (mean dose 15.2 mg/week) and had active disease for at least 6 months (mean tender joint count 28.2, mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate 46.5 mm/hour) were randomized to receive treatment after discontinuation of methotrexate. Those who received at least 1 dose of tacrolimus were analyzed; 141 completed the study. Stable dosages of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and low-dose prednisone were allowed during treatment. All patients were given 1, 3, or 5 mg of tacrolimus or placebo once daily for 24 weeks. The American College of Rheumatology definition of 20% improvement (ACR20) and the tender and swollen joint counts at the end of treatment were the primary outcomes. RESULTS: ACR20 response rates demonstrated a clear dose response. The ACR20 response was observed in 15.5% of patients receiving placebo (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 7.1-23.9%), 29% of the 1 mg tacrolimus group (95% CI 18.3-39.7%) (P < 0.058); 34.4% of the 3 mg group (95% CI 22.7-46.0%) (P < 0.013), and 50% of the 5 mg group (95% CI 37.8-62.3%) (P < or = 0.001). The tender joint count improved statistically significantly in all tacrolimus groups. The swollen joint count, physical function, and patient-assessed pain improved statistically significantly in the 3 mg and 5 mg groups. The incidence of creatinine elevation > or =40% above baseline levels increased in a dose-dependent manner. Dropout rates were high (41-59%) and were more common for inefficacy in the placebo patients (71.4%), whereas they were more common for toxicity in the high-dose tacrolimus groups (31-33%). Discontinuation for creatinine elevation occurred in the 3 mg (3.1%) and 5 mg (10.9%) tacrolimus groups. CONCLUSION: Tacrolimus improved disease activity in methotrexate-resistant or -intolerant patients with RA. A dose response was observed when efficacy and toxicity were assessed at different doses. The optimal dose of tacrolimus appears to be >1 mg but < or=3 mg daily.

Cevimeline for the treatment of xerostomia in patients with Sjögren syndrome: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Cevimeline hydrochloride is a cholinergic agent with muscarinic agonist activity prominently affecting the M1 and M3 receptors prevalent in exocrine glands. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of cevimeline in the treatment of xerostomia in patients with Sjögren syndrome. METHODS: Seventy-five patients with Sjögren syndrome and associated salivary gland dysfunction were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial at 8 university- and office-based outpatient clinical facilities in the United States. Eligible study participants were randomized to receive 30 mg of cevimeline 3 times daily, 60 mg of cevimeline 3 times daily, or placebo for 6 weeks. Subjective responses were determined using global patient evaluation and visual analog scales. Salivary flow was measured objectively. RESULTS: Sixty-one participants completed the study. Patients in both cevimeline groups had significant improvements in dry mouth, as indicated by symptoms, salivary flow, and use of artificial saliva, compared with the placebo group. The drug was generally well tolerated, with expected adverse events resulting from the drug's muscarinic agonist action. Fourteen patients withdrew from the study because of adverse events, the most frequent being nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with cevimeline, 30 mg 3 times daily, seems to be well tolerated and to provide substantive relief of xerostomia symptoms. Although both dosages of cevimeline provided symptomatic improvement, 60 mg 3 times daily was associated with an increase in the occurrence of adverse events, particularly gastrointestinal tract disorders. Use of 30 mg of cevimeline provides a new option for the treatment of xerostomia in Sjögren syndrome.

CD4 coating, but not CD4 depletion, is a predictor of efficacy with primatized monoclonal anti-CD4 treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Double blind studies were conducted with the anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody (Mab) keliximab in patients with active, stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA), to confirm preliminary evidence of efficacy and safety from open. uncontrolled studies. METHODS: We enrolled 136 and 186 patients into 2 consecutive, randomized, double blind trials, with similar populations [apart from inclusion of disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients in Study 2]. Patients received 4 weeks intravenous placebo or keliximab [40, 80, 120, or 140 mg twice weekly (bw), or 240 mg once weekly (ow)]. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response criteria, one week after the end of treatment. RESULTS: ACR 20 response rates in Study I were 19%, 42%, 51%*, and 69%* (*p < 0.05 compared to placebo), with placebo, 40, 80, or 140 mg keliximab bw, respectively. The response rates in Study 2 were 30%, 39%, 46% and 47% with placebo, 80 or 120 mg bw, or 240 mg keliximab ow, respectively. In the 2 studies, there was a dose dependent increase in peripheral blood CD4+ T cell coating with keliximab, but a different pattern of CD4 depletion was seen. While only 12% of keliximab treated patients in Study I had CD4 counts below 250 cells/mm3 at the end of the treatment period, 47% fell below this level in Study 2. Clinical response was not correlated with CD4 depletion, but was correlated with CD4+ T cell coating with keliximab. CONCLUSION: Coating of peripheral blood CD4+ T cells with keliximab, but not CD4 depletion, is a determinant of clinical response.