The magnitude and sustainability of treatment benefit of zuranolone on function and well-being as assessed by the SF-36 in adult patients with MDD and PPD: An integrated analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) and postpartum depression (PPD) are disabling conditions. This integrated analysis of MDD and PPD clinical trials investigated the impact of zuranolone-a positive allosteric modulator of synaptic and extrasynaptic GABAA receptors and neuroactive steroid under investigation for adults with MDD and approved as an oral, once-daily, 14-day treatment course for adults with PPD in the US-on health-related quality of life, including functioning and well-being, as assessed using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey V2 (SF-36). METHODS: Integrated data from 3 MDD (201B, MOUNTAIN, WATERFALL) and 1 PPD trial (ROBIN) for individual SF-36 domains were compared for zuranolone (30- and 50-mg) vs placebo at Day (D)15 and D42. Comparisons between zuranolone responders (≥50 % reduction from baseline in 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score) and nonresponders were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1003 patients were included (zuranolone, n = 504; placebo, n = 499). Significant differences in change from baseline (CFB) to D15 for patients in zuranolone vs placebo groups were observed in 6/8 domains; changes were sustained or improved at D42, with significant CFB differences for all 8 domains. Zuranolone responders had significantly higher CFB scores vs nonresponders for all domains at D15 and D42 (p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Two zuranolone doses were integrated across populations of 2 disease states with potential differences in functioning, comorbidities, and patient demographics. All p-values presented are nominal. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated data across 4 zuranolone clinical trials showed improvements in functioning and well-being across all SF-36 domains. Benefits persisted after completion of treatment course at D42.

Safety and efficacy of switching from adalimumab to sarilumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the ongoing MONARCH open-label extension.

Objective: Evaluate open-label sarilumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis switching from adalimumab monotherapy in MONARCH (NCT02332590); assess long-term safety and efficacy in patients continuing sarilumab during open-label extension (OLE). Methods: During the 48-week OLE, patients received sarilumab 200 mg subcutaneously once every 2 weeks. Safety (March 2017 cut-off) and efficacy, including patient-reported outcomes, were evaluated. Results: In the double-blind phase, patients receiving sarilumab or adalimumab monotherapy showed meaningful improvements in disease activity; sarilumab was superior to adalimumab for improving signs, symptoms and physical function. Overall, 320/369 patients completing the 24-week double-blind phase entered OLE (155 switched from adalimumab; 165 continued sarilumab). Sarilumab safety profile was consistent with previous reports. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups; no unexpected safety signals emerged in the first 10 weeks postswitch. Among switch patients, improvement in disease activity was evident at OLE week 12: 47.1%/34.8% had changes ≥1.2 in Disease Activity Score (28 joints) (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate/DAS28-C-reactive protein. In switch patients achieving low disease activity (LDA: Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤10; Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤11) by OLE week 24, 70.7%/69.5% sustained CDAI/SDAI LDA at both OLE weeks 36 and 48. Proportions of switch patients achieving CDAI ≤2.8 and SDAI ≤3.3 by OLE week 24 increased through OLE week 48. Improvements postswitch approached continuation-group values, including scores ≥normative values. Conclusions: During this OLE, there were no unexpected safety issues in patients switching from adalimumab to sarilumab monotherapy, and disease activity improved in many patients. Patients continuing sarilumab reported safety consistent with prolonged use and had sustained benefit.

Head-to-head comparison of certolizumab pegol versus adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year efficacy and safety results from the randomised EXXELERATE study.

BACKGROUND: To date, head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy and safety of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs within the same class, including TNF inhibitors, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two different TNF inhibitors and to assess the efficacy and safety of switching to the other TNF inhibitor without a washout period after insufficient primary response to the first TNF inhibitor at week 12. METHODS: In this 104-week, randomised, single-blind (double-blind until week 12 and investigator blind thereafter), parallel-group, head-to-head superiority study (EXXELERATE), eligible patients from 151 centres worldwide were aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis at screening, as defined by the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria, and had prognostic factors for severe disease progression, including a positive rheumatoid factor, or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody result, or both. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice and web response system with no stratification to receive certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate or adalimumab plus methotrexate. All study staff were kept masked throughout the study and participants were masked until week 12. At week 12, patients were classified as responders (by either achieving low disease activity [LDA] according to Disease Activity Score 28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] ≤3·2 or DAS28-ESR reduction ≥1·2 from baseline) or as non-responders. Non-responders to the first TNF inhibitor to which they were randomised were switched to the other TNF inhibitor with no washout period. Primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving a 20% improvement according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12 and LDA at week 104 (week 12 non-responders were considered LDA non-responders). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500278. FINDINGS: Between Dec 14, 2011, and Nov 11, 2013, 1488 patients were screened of whom 915 were randomly assigned; 457 to certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate and 458 to adalimumab plus methotrexate. No statistically significant difference was observed in ACR20 response at week 12 (314 [69%] of 454 patients and 324 [71%] of 454 patients; odds ratio [OR] 0·90 [95% CI 0·67-1·20]; p=0·467) or DAS28-ESR LDA at week 104 (161 [35%] of 454 patients and 152 [33%] of 454 patients; OR 1·09 [0·82-1·45]; p=0·532) between certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate and adalimumab plus methotrexate, respectively. At week 12, 65 non-responders to certolizumab pegol were switched to adalimumab and 57 non-responders to adalimumab were switched to certolizumab pegol; 33 (58%) of 57 patients switching to certolizumab pegol and 40 (62%) of 65 patients switching to adalimumab responded 12 weeks later by achieving LDA or a DAS28-ESR reduction 1·2 or greater. 389 [75%] of 516 patients who received certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate and 386 [74%] of 523 patients who received adalimumab plus methotrexate reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Three deaths (1%) occurred in each group. No serious infection events were reported in the 70-day period after treatment switch. INTERPRETATION: These results show that certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate is not superior to adalimumab plus methotrexate. The data also show the clinical benefit and safety of switching to a second TNF inhibitor without a washout period after primary failure to a first TNF inhibitor. FUNDING: UCB Pharma.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Disease Activity Measures for the Assessment and Prediction of Response in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Initiating Certolizumab Pegol.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Patient/Physician Reported Efficacy Determination In Clinical Practice Trial (PREDICT; ClinicalTrials identifier NCT01255761) was to compare the patient-reported Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID-3) instrument with the investigator-based Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) for assessing certolizumab pegol (CZP) treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis patients at 12 weeks and to predict the treatment response at week 52 using the data from week 12 (coprimary end points). METHODS: Patients received 400 mg of CZP at weeks 0, 2, and 4 (loading dose), followed by 200 mg every 2 weeks thereafter. Patients were randomized 1:1 to assessment with the RAPID-3 or the CDAI. Responder classification was performed at week 12; treatment response was defined as a score of ≤6 or a 20% improvement over baseline on the RAPID-3 or a score of ≤10 or a 20% improvement over baseline on the CDAI. Long-term treatment success was defined as a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) of ≤3.2 at week 52. Comparisons were made for the coprimary end points using noninferiority methods. Patients with improvement of <1 on the CDAI score or with no improvement on the RAPID-3 score at week 12 or patients with high levels of disease activity (CDAI score >22 or RAPID-3 score >12) at 2 consecutive visits were withdrawn from the study. RESULTS: Patients had longstanding disease (mean 8.9 years) and high levels of disease activity (mean scores of 6.3 on the DAS28-ESR, 16.1 on the RAPID-3, and 40.2 on the CDAI). Previous anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy had failed in 55.5% of them. At week 12, a total of 64.7% (by RAPID-3) and 76.4% (by CDAI) of the patients were classified as responders (difference of -11.9% [95% confidence interval -18.4%, -5.3%]). At week 52, a total of 31.5% (by RAPID-3) and 32.3% (by CDAI) of the responders achieved a low level of disease activity on the DAS28-ESR (difference of -1.3% [95% confidence interval -9.3%, 6.6%]). CONCLUSION: The CDAI classified more patients as CZP responders at week 12 than did the RAPID-3. Although these outcome measures were not statistically comparable, the positive predictive value for low disease activity at week 52 was similar. As these tools cover differing domains of therapy response, further evaluation for clinical disease activity assessments and treatment decisions is needed.

Timing and magnitude of initial change in disease activity score 28 predicts the likelihood of achieving low disease activity at 1 year in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with certolizumab pegol: a post-hoc analysis of the RAPID 1 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between timing and magnitude of Disease Activity Score [DAS28(ESR)] nonresponse (DAS28 improvement thresholds not reached) during the first 12 weeks of treatment with certolizumab pegol (CZP) plus methotrexate, and the likelihood of achieving low disease activity (LDA) at 1 year in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In a post-hoc analysis of the RAPID 1 study, patients achieving LDA [DAS28(ESR) ≤ 3.2] at Year 1 were assessed according to DAS28 nonresponse at various timepoints within the first 12 weeks. RESULTS: Seven-hundred eighty-three patients were included (CZP 200 mg, n = 393; CZP 400 mg, n = 390). A total of 86.9% of patients in the CZP 200 mg group had a DAS28 improvement of ≥ 1.2 by Week 12. Of the 13.1% of patients with DAS28 improvement < 1.2 by Week 12, only 2.0% had LDA at Year 1. Failure to achieve LDA at Year 1 depended on timing of nonresponse - 22.3%, 8.4%, and 2.0% of patients with DAS28 improvement < 1.2 by Weeks 1, 6, and 12, respectively, had LDA at Year 1 - and magnitude of initial lack of DAS28 improvement; for example, compared with the patients with DAS28 < 1.2 improvement, fewer patients with DAS28 < 0.6 had LDA at Year 1 (17.4%, 2.4%, and 0.0% at Weeks 1, 6, and 12, respectively). CONCLUSION: Failure to achieve improvement in DAS28 within the first 12 weeks of therapy was predictive of a low probability of achieving LDA at Year 1. Moreover, the accuracy of the prediction was found to be strongly dependent on the magnitude and timing of the lack of the response. (Clinical Trial Registration Nos. NCT00152386 and NCT00175877).

Lack of central effects of peripherally administered adenosine A(1) agonists on synaptic transmission in the rat hippocampus.

Peripheral administration of adenosine A(1) receptor selective agonists is generally thought to protect the hippocampus against ischemic damage via central actions. We examined the effects of two peripherally administered A(1) agonists, cyclohexyladenosine (CHA) and adenosine amine congener (ADAC), on synaptic transmission in the hippocampus and on indices of cardiovascular function. We conclude that the permeability of these agonists is not sufficient to result in concentrations necessary to activate central adenosine A(1) receptors within the hippocampus.

Adenosine-mediated activation of Akt/protein kinase B in the rat hippocampus in vitro and in vivo.

Adenosine is considered an endogenous neuroprotective metabolite that through activation of the A(1) receptor results in reduction of neuronal damage following cerebral ischemia. Protein kinase B, also known as Akt/PKB, is part of an endogenous pathway that exerts effective neuroprotection from both necrotic and apoptotic cell death. Using a rat model of unilateral common carotid artery occlusion coupled with hypoxia, and using in vitro rat hippocampal slices, we examined the ability of adenosine to directly activate Akt/PKB. Western blot analysis revealed that levels of phosphorylated Akt/PKB were elevated in vivo under ischemic conditions in an adenosine A(1)-dependent manner and elevated in hippocampal slices treated with an adenosine A(1) agonist. We conclude from these studies that the activation of an adenosine A(1) receptor-mediated signal transduction pathway, either by endogenous adenosine (in vivo) or by an adenosine A(1) agonist (in vitro), results in the activation of the neurotrophic kinase Akt/PKB.