Two-Year Safety and Effectiveness of Peficitinib in Moderate-To-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Phase IIb, Open-Label Extension Study.

INTRODUCTION: Peficitinib is a novel orally bioavailable, once-daily Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved in Japan for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This 2-year extension study of two global phase IIb trials investigated the long-term safety and effectiveness of peficitinib. METHODS: All eligible patients with moderate-to-severe RA including patients in the placebo group who participated in one of two global phase IIb trials ('with methotrexate' or 'without methotrexate') were included in this 2-year open-label extension study and were converted to peficitinib 100 mg once daily. The primary objective was to evaluate an additional 2 years of safety by assessing treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and clinical laboratory evaluations for 105 weeks. Evaluation of an additional 2 years of effectiveness using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses was the exploratory objective. RESULTS: Overall, 611 patients were enrolled in the extension study: 319 (52.2%) patients completed the study and 292 (48%) discontinued treatment, including for withdrawal of patient consent (n = 96), failure to achieve low disease activity (n = 62), and AE not including death (n = 41). AEs were reported in 463 (76%) patients. The most common AEs (per 100 patient-years) were upper respiratory tract infections (9.9) and urinary tract infections (7.2). Serious AEs were reported in 80 (13%) patients, with incidences per 100 patient-years of serious infections 2.7, herpes zoster 1.5 (including one herpes zoster ophthalmic), and malignancies 0.6 (most frequently basal cell carcinoma). At week 105, 269 (44%) patients demonstrated an ACR20 response relative to their respective phase IIb trial baselines. CONCLUSION: Among 319 patients who completed this 2-year extension of two global phase IIb studies, peficitinib 100 mg once daily demonstrated a stable safety profile and sustained effectiveness in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01711814. Registered 19 October 2012. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc.

Secukinumab in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Comparator- and Placebo-Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of secukinumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to or intolerance of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. METHODS: In this phase III study, 551 patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive intravenous secukinumab at a dose of 10 mg/kg (at baseline and weeks 2 and 4) followed by subcutaneous secukinumab at a dose of either 150 mg or 75 mg every 4 weeks or, alternatively, abatacept or placebo on the same dosing schedule. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in disease activity according to the American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 24 in the secukinumab 150 mg or 75 mg treatment groups as compared with placebo. Key secondary end points included change from baseline to week 24 in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ DI), as well as the ACR 50% improvement (ACR50) response rate at week 24. RESULTS: The primary efficacy end point was met in patients receiving 150 mg secukinumab, in whom the ACR20 response rate at week 24 was significantly higher than that in the placebo group. The ACR20 response rates at week 24 were 30.7% in patients receiving 150 mg secukinumab (P = 0.0305), 28.3% in those receiving 75 mg secukinumab (P = 0.0916), and 42.8% in those receiving abatacept, compared with 18.1% in the placebo group. A significant reduction in the DAS28-CRP was seen in patients treated with 150 mg secukinumab (P = 0.0495), but not in patients treated with 75 mg secukinumab. Improvements in the HAQ DI and ACR50 response rates were not significant in the 2 secukinumab dose groups compared with the placebo group. The overall safety profile was similar across all treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Secukinumab at a dose of 150 mg resulted in improvement in signs and symptoms and reduced disease activity in patients with active RA who had an inadequate response to TNF inhibitors. Improvements observed with abatacept were numerically higher than with secukinumab. There were no new or unexpected safety signals with secukinumab in this study.

Peficitinib, a JAK Inhibitor, in Combination With Limited Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of orally administered once-daily peficitinib in combination with limited conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase IIb trial, patients with RA (n = 289) were treated with peficitinib 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, or 150 mg or matching placebo once daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at week 12. RESULTS: ACR20 response rates at week 12 were 22.0%, 36.8%, 48.3% (P < 0.05), 56.3% (P < 0.01), and 29.4% in the peficitinib 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Patients in the peficitinib 100 mg and 150 mg groups achieved a rapid and statistically significant ACR20 response compared with those in the placebo group (P < 0.05), reaching statistical significance by week 2. Overall, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between patients receiving peficitinib and those receiving placebo. The most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection (5% [n = 15]), nausea (4% [n = 12]), and urinary tract infection (4% [n = 10]). There was 1 case of herpes zoster in the placebo group, and 1 serious infection (limb abscess) in the peficitinib 25 mg group. There were no incidences of grade 2 or higher neutropenia or lymphopenia. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe RA, orally administered once-daily peficitinib in combination with limited csDMARDs resulted in a dose-dependent ACR20 response rate over 12 weeks with satisfactory tolerability.

Effect of interleukin-6 receptor blockade on surrogates of vascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis: MEASURE, a randomised, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: The interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6R) blocker tocilizumab (TCZ) reduces inflammatory disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but elevates lipid concentrations in some patients. We aimed to characterise the impact of IL-6R inhibition on established and novel risk factors in active RA. METHODS: Randomised, multicentre, two-part, phase III trial (24-week double-blind, 80-week open-label), MEASURE, evaluated lipid and lipoprotein levels, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) particle composition, markers of coagulation, thrombosis and vascular function by pulse wave velocity (PWV) in 132 patients with RA who received TCZ or placebo. RESULTS: Median total-cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglyceride levels increased in TCZ versus placebo recipients by week 12 (12.6% vs 1.7%, 28.1% vs 2.2%, 10.6% vs -1.9%, respectively; all p<0.01). There were no significant differences in mean small LDL, mean oxidised LDL or total HDL-C concentrations. However, HDL-associated serum amyloid A content decreased in TCZ recipients. TCZ also induced reductions (>30%) in secretory phospholipase A2-IIA, lipoprotein(a), fibrinogen and D-dimers and elevation of paraoxonase (all p<0.0001 vs placebo). The ApoB/ApoA1 ratio remained stable over time in both groups. PWV decreases were greater with placebo than TCZ at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.79 m/s (95% CI 0.22 to 1.35; p=0.0067)). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide the first detailed evidence for the modulation of lipoprotein particles and other surrogates of vascular risk with IL-6R inhibition. When compared with placebo, TCZ induced elevations in LDL-C but altered HDL particles towards an anti-inflammatory composition and favourably modified most, but not all, measured vascular risk surrogates. The net effect of such changes for cardiovascular risk requires determination.

One-year efficacy and safety results of secukinumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: phase II, dose-finding, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the longer-term safety and efficacy of secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antiinterleukin-17A antibody, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In this 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled (up to Week 20) study (NCT00928512), patients responding inadequately to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) or biologics were randomized to receive monthly subcutaneous injections of secukinumab (25, 75, 150, or 300 mg), or placebo. The efficacy and safety results up to Week 20 have been reported previously. Here, efficacy results from Week 20 to 52 and safety results from Week 20 to 60 are presented. RESULTS: Of 237 patients randomized, 174 (73.4%) completed the study. Patients with improved American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) C-reactive protein (CRP) responses at Week 16 sustained their responses through Week 52. In patients taking 150 mg of secukinumab, responses were improved through Week 52 (ACR50: Week 16 = 45%, Week 52 = 55%; DAS28-CRP ≤ 2.6: Week 16 = 25%, Week 52 = 40%). The rate of adverse events (AE) from weeks 20 to 60 was 64.8%, with most AE being mild to moderate in severity. The overall rate of infections was 31.9%, most being mild. The most predominant infection was nasopharyngitis, and was not associated with dose or concurrent neutropenia. Serious AE were reported in 21 patients (8.9%). There were 3 reports of malignancies (ovarian, lung, basal cell), and no deaths between weeks 20 and 60. CONCLUSION: Patients with active RA who failed to respond to DMARD and other biologics showed an improvement after longterm treatment with 150 mg of secukinumab. The frequency of AE remained stable over time and secukinumab had a consistent safety profile over 60 weeks.

Efficacy and safety of secukinumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a phase II, dose-finding, double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal anti-interleukin-17A antibody, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients (n=237) with inadequate response to methotrexate were randomly assigned to receive monthly subcutaneous injections of secukinumab 25 mg, 75 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg or placebo. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) at week 16. RESULTS: Demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable across all treatment groups. The primary efficacy endpoint was not achieved: the proportion of ACR20 responders at week 16 with secukinumab 25-300 mg was 36.0-53.7% versus placebo (34%). Disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28)-C-reactive protein (CRP) was a secondary endpoint and clinically relevant decreases with secukinumab 75-300 mg were reported versus placebo. Serum high sensitivity CRP levels at week 16 were significantly reduced with secukinumab 75 mg, 150 mg and 300 mg doses versus placebo. The safety profile of secukinumab was consistent with that seen with other biological agents. Most adverse events (AE) were mild to moderate in severity. Infections were slightly more frequent with secukinumab than placebo. Six serious AE were reported: secukinumab 75 mg (one), secukinumab 300 mg (four) and placebo (one). CONCLUSIONS: ACR20 response rates differed between secukinumab 75 mg, 150 mg and 300 mg doses and placebo; however, the primary efficacy endpoint was not achieved. Greater decreases in DAS28 were observed with secukinumab 75 mg, 150 mg and 300 mg than placebo. There were no unexpected safety signals and no specific organ-related toxicities. Further trials with secukinumab in the treatment of RA are warranted.

Clinical response and tolerability to abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with infliximab or abatacept: open-label extension of the ATTEST Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in biological-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate treated in the long-term extension (LTE) of the ATTEST trial. METHODS: Patients randomly assigned to abatacept, placebo or infliximab completing the 1-year double-blind period were eligible to receive abatacept ∼10 mg/kg in the open-label LTE. Efficacy to year 2 is presented for patients randomly assigned to abatacept or infliximab who switched to open-label abatacept. Safety data are presented for all patients entering LTE regardless of double-blind treatment. RESULTS: Of 431 patients randomly assigned, 79.8% remained on abatacept at year 2. At years 1 and 2, 19.7% and 26.1% of abatacept and 13.3% and 28.6% of infliximab-to-abatacept patients achieved disease activity score 28-defined remission (<2.6). Safety with abatacept during the cumulative study period was consistent with the double-blind experience, with no increase in adverse event incidence following the switch to abatacept. CONCLUSION: In methotrexate-inadequate responders, abatacept efficacy was maintained over 2 years. For infliximab-to-abatacept patients, efficacy improvements were seen in year 2 after patients switched to abatacept. Switching directly from infliximab to abatacept was well tolerated. These data demonstrate that abatacept provides sustained responses and consistent safety, suggesting that switching from infliximab to abatacept is a viable treatment option.

Immunization responses in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with rituximab: results from a controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine immunization responses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with rituximab and to investigate the effects of rituximab-induced CD20+ B cell depletion on immune responses to tetanus toxoid (T cell-dependent antigen), pneumococcal polysaccharide (T cell-independent antigen), and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) (neoantigen) and on delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH). METHODS: In a controlled trial, we enrolled 103 patients with active RA receiving a stable dose of methotrexate (MTX). Tetanus toxoid, pneumococcal polysaccharide, and KLH vaccines as well as a Candida albicans skin test were administered to 1 group of patients receiving rituximab plus MTX (called rituximab-treated patients) for 36 weeks and to 1 group of patients receiving MTX alone for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a >or=4-fold rise in antitetanus IgG levels. Antitetanus, antipneumococcal, and anti-KLH serum IgG levels were measured prior to and 4 weeks following vaccine administration. The DTH response to C albicans was measured 2-3 days following placement. RESULTS: Responses to tetanus toxoid vaccine (>or=4-fold rise) were similar in both groups (39.1% of rituximab-treated patients and 42.3% of patients treated with MTX alone). The ability to maintain a positive DTH response to the C albicans skin test was comparable in both groups (77.4% of rituximab-treated patients and 70% of patients treated with MTX alone), showing no effect of rituximab treatment. Rituximab-treated patients had decreased responses to pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (57% of patients had a 2-fold rise in titer in response to >or=1 serotype, compared with 82% of patients treated with MTX alone) and to KLH vaccine (47% of patients had detectable anti-KLH IgG, compared with 93% of patients treated with MTX alone). CONCLUSION: Recall responses to the T cell-dependent protein antigen tetanus toxoid as well as DTH responses were preserved in rituximab-treated RA patients 24 weeks after treatment. Responses to neoantigen (KLH) and T cell-independent responses to pneumococcal vaccine were decreased, but many patients were able to mount responses. These data suggest that polysaccharide and primary immunizations should be administered prior to rituximab infusions to maximize responses.

Economic evaluation of controlled-release oxycodone vs oxycodone-acetaminophen for osteoarthritis pain of the hip or knee.

OBJECTIVE: To examine, in routine practice, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oxycodone (OxyContin) compared with standard therapy for osteoarthritis pain. STUDY DESIGN: Open-label active-controlled randomized naturalistic 4-month study of oxycodone vs a combination of oxycodone-acetaminophen (Percocet). METHODS: Outcomes and health resource utilization data were collected by telephone interview. Effectiveness was measured among 485 patients as the proportion having at least 20% improvement from baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the Health Utilities Index 3 score. Cost-effectiveness was measured as cost per patient improved and the QALYs gained, using generic oxycodone-acetaminophen in the base case for the healthcare and societal perspectives. Uncertainty was evaluated using multiple 1-way sensitivity analyses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Improvement occurred in 62.2% of patients with oxycodone and in 45.9% of patients with oxycodone-acetaminophen (P < .001). After adjustment for baseline differences, 0.0105 QALYs were gained with oxycodone compared with oxycodone-acetaminophen (P = .17). The mean societal costs per patient during 4 months were 7379 US dollars and 7528 US dollars for oxycodone and oxycodone-acetaminophen, respectively (P = .33). Oxycodone was more effective and less costly than oxycodone-acetaminophen based on the societal perspective (including costs associated with time lost). Based on the healthcare perspective (excluding costs associated with time lost), the cost-effectiveness of oxycodone was 4883 US dollars per patient improved and 75,810 US dollars per QALY gained. The base-case results were robust. CONCLUSIONS: From the societal perspective, oxycodone was more effective and less costly than oxycodone-acetaminophen. From the healthcare perspective, oxycodone (compared with generic oxycodone-acetaminophen) fell within the acceptable range of cost-effectiveness between 50,000 US dollars and 100,000 US dollars per QALY gained.