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.

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.

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.