Long-term safety and tolerability of oral tofacitinib in patients with Crohn's disease: results from a phase 2, open-label, 48-week extension study.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule Janus kinase inhibitor that is being investigated for inflammatory bowel disease. AIMS: This 48-week open-label extension study primarily investigated long-term safety of tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg b.d. and secondarily investigated efficacy as maintenance therapy in patients with Crohn's disease. METHODS: Patients who had completed the phase 2b maintenance study, or withdrawn due to treatment failure, were enrolled. Patients in remission (Crohn's disease activity index <150) at baseline received tofacitinib 5 mg b.d.; all others received 10 mg b.d. A single dose adjustment was allowed after 8 weeks' fixed, open-label treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients received tofacitinib 5 mg b.d.; 88 received 10 mg b.d. Both groups had similar rates of adverse events and serious infections. Crohn's disease worsening was the most frequent adverse event for tofacitinib 5 (33.9%) and 10 mg b.d. (19.3%). Patients not in remission at baseline, receiving 10 mg b.d., had higher rates of serious adverse events (19.3%) and discontinuation attributed to insufficient clinical response (30.7%) vs 5 mg b.d. (8.1% and 9.7%, respectively). At week 48, of patients with baseline remission receiving 5 mg b.d., 87.9% maintained remission and 75.0% sustained remission as observed (46.8% and 38.7%, respectively, by non-responder imputation). Study design prevented between-dose efficacy comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: No new safety signals emerged. Although both doses showed generally similar safety outcomes for overall adverse events, serious adverse events were more frequent for tofacitinib 10 than 5 mg b.d. Discontinuation due to insufficient clinical response was lower among patients in remission at baseline. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01470599.

Correction: The impact of anti-drug antibodies on drug concentrations and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab: Results from a multinational, real-world clinical practice, non-interventional study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175207.].

The impact of anti-drug antibodies on drug concentrations and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab: Results from a multinational, real-world clinical practice, non-interventional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with the TNF inhibitors etanercept (ETN), adalimumab (ADL), or infliximab (IFX), and determine the potential relationship with trough drug concentration, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: This multi-national, non-interventional, cross-sectional study (NCT01981473) enrolled adult patients with RA treated continuously for 6-24 months with ETN, ADL, or IFX. ADA and trough drug concentrations were measured by independent assays ≤2 days before the next scheduled dose. Efficacy measurements included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28), low disease activity (LDA), remission, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Targeted medical histories of injection site/infusion reactions, serum sickness, and thromboembolic events were collected. RESULTS: Baseline demographics of the 595 patients (ETN: n = 200; ADL: n = 199; IFX: n = 196) were similar across groups. The mean duration of treatment was 14.6, 13.5, and 13.1 months for ETN, ADL, and IFX, respectively. All ETN-treated patients tested negative for ADA, whereas 31.2% and 17.4% patients treated with ADL and IFX, respectively, tested positive. In ADL- or IFX-treated patients, those with ADA had significantly lower trough drug concentrations. There were negative correlations between trough drug levels and both CRP and ESR in ADL- and IFX-treated patients. DAS28-ESR LDA and remission rates were higher in patients without ADA. The rate of targeted medical events reported was low. CONCLUSION: ADA were detected in ADL- and IFX-treated but not ETN-treated patients. Patients without ADA generally showed numerically better clinical outcomes than those with ADA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01981473).

Two-Year Safety and Efficacy Experience in Patients with Methotrexate-Resistant Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Etanercept and Conventional Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs in the Latin American Region.

BACKGROUND: Although long-term data are available from biologic studies in North American/European populations with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), long-term findings in Latin American RA populations are limited. OBJECTIVE: To examine long-term safety/efficacy of etanercept, methotrexate, and/or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in Latin American patients with moderate-to-severe active RA. METHODS: In the first phase of this open-label study, patients were randomized to etanercept 50 mg weekly plus methotrexate or conventional DMARD (hydroxychloroquine or sulfasalazine) plus methotrexate for 24 weeks. At the start of the second phase (week 24), investigators selected a treatment regimen that included any combination/dosage of etanercept, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, or sulfasalazine based on previous treatment response, preference, and local product labeling, and was continued for the 104-week extension. RESULTS: In the extension, in the group previously randomized to etanercept-plus-methotrexate therapy, etanercept was continued in 259/260 patients; methotrexate continued in 260/260; and hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine added in 8/260 and 3/260, respectively. In the group previously randomized to conventional DMARD-plus-methotrexate therapy, conventional DMARD was discontinued in 86/126 and etanercept added in 105/126. Among etanercept-exposed patients (total exposure, 798.1 patient-year [PY]), rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, and serious infections per PY were 1.7, 0.07, and 0.02 events per PY. In both groups, after treatment modification was permitted, clinical response rates and improvements in clinical/patient-reported outcomes from baseline were sustained to week 128. CONCLUSION: After investigators were permitted to modify treatment, etanercept was part of the treatment regimen in 95% of patients. Continuation or addition of etanercept in the 2-year extension resulted in a consistently good risk:benefit profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open-Label Study Comparing Etanercept to Conventional Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drug (DMARD) Therapy; ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00848354; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00848354.

Effects of 50 and 100 mg desvenlafaxine versus placebo on sexual function in patients with major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis.

The primary objective of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the effect of short-term treatment with desvenlafaxine versus placebo on sexual dysfunction (SD), assessed from Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale scores, in adult outpatients with major depressive disorder. Data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of 50 or 100 mg/day desvenlafaxine for major depressive disorder were pooled. SD status, determined from Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale scores, was assessed at baseline and week 8, last observation carried forward. Subgroup analyses addressed the effects of sex, baseline SD, and antidepressant response. At week 8, last observation carried forward (n=1562), SD rates were 54, 47, and 49% for 50 mg/day desvenlafaxine, 100 mg/day desvenlafaxine, and placebo, respectively [adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) vs. placebo: 1.205 (0.928, 1.564) and 1.129 (0.795, 1.604), respectively]. The treatment by baseline SD interaction approached statistical significance (P=0.0663), mainly driven by poorer scores for desvenlafaxine versus placebo in the 100 mg group. Treatment by sex interactions were not statistically significant. Small but statistically significant treatment by sex interactions were observed for sex drive (P=0.0011) and ease of erection/lubrication (P=0.0151). Although there was no overall effect of desvenlafaxine on SD, a treatment by baseline SD interaction was suggested for 100 mg desvenlafaxine.

Open-label observation of addition of etanercept versus a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy in the Latin American region.

BACKGROUND: Previous global studies examined etanercept (ETN) + methotrexate (MTX) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but included few subjects from Latin America. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of ETN + MTX versus a standard-of-care disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) + MTX in Latin American subjects with moderate to severe active RA despite MTX therapy. METHODS: This open-label, active-comparator study (NCT00848354) randomized subjects 2:1 to ETN 50 mg/wk + MTX or investigator-selected DMARD (sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine) + MTX (ETN + MTX, n = 281; DMARD + MTX, n = 142). The primary end point was the proportion achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 at week 24. Secondary end points included ACR20/70, disease activity score (DAS) 28 measures, and mean change in modified total Sharp score. Patient-reported outcomes were the Health Assessment Questionnaire, 36-item Short-Form, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: RA (WPAI:RA), and Caregiver Burden and Resource Utilization. Statistical analyses were stratified by country; χ test and analysis of covariance were used. Adverse events were monitored. RESULTS: More subjects achieved ACR50 at week 24 with ETN + MTX versus DMARD + MTX (62% vs 23%, respectively), in addition to secondary end points (P < 0.0001 for all); mean change in modified total Sharp score was lower for the ETN + MTX group (0.4 vs 1.4, respectively; P = 0.0270). Improvements in patient-reported outcomes favored ETN + MTX for Health Assessment Questionnaire, 36-item Short-Form, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for depression, WPAI:RA, and Caregiver Burden and Resource Utilization emergency department visits for RA (P < 0.01). Overall, adverse events were similar between the groups (69% vs 68%,); serious adverse events were also similar (4% vs 1%). The rate of overall infections was higher with ETN + MTX (38%) than DMARD + MTX (22%, P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with published global data among RA patients with inadequate response to MTX, adding ETN to MTX demonstrated better efficacy than adding one other conventional DMARD to MTX. No new safety issues were observed. ETN + MTX provided favorable benefit-risk profile among RA patients from LA region.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study assessing the efficacy and tolerability of desvenlafaxine 10 and 50 mg/day in adult outpatients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to establish the lowest effective dose of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate), we assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of 10- and 50-mg/day desvenlafaxine vs placebo for the treatment of major depressive disorder. METHODS: Adult outpatients with DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(17)) total score ≥20 were randomly assigned to receive placebo or desvenlafaxine (10 or 50 mg/day) after a 6- to 14-day single-blind placebo lead-in period in an 8-week, phase 3, fixed-dose trial. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in the HAM-D(17) score analyzed using analysis of covariance. Efficacy analyses were conducted with the intent-to-treat population, using the last observation carried forward. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 673 patients. Change from baseline to final evaluation in adjusted HAM-D(17) total scores was not significantly different comparing desvenlafaxine 10 mg/day (-9.28) and desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day (-8.92) with placebo (-8.42). There were no differences among treatment groups in the rates of treatment response or remission. Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 1.8%, 0.9%, and 1.8% of patients in the placebo and desvenlafaxine 10- and 50-mg/day groups, respectively. Overall rates of treatment-emergent adverse events with both doses were similar to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Both doses of desvenlafaxine failed to separate from placebo. However, in a companion study reported separately, desvenlafaxine 50 mg, but not 25 mg, separated from placebo. Taken together, these studies suggest that 50 mg is the minimum effective dose of desvenlafaxine for the treatment of major depressive disorder. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00863798 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00863798?term=00863798&rank=1.

Efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine 25 and 50▒mg/day in a randomized, placebo-controlled study of depressed outpatients.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of low-dose desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) in treating major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Adult outpatients (aged 18 years) in the United States and (aged 20 years) in Japan, who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria for MDD and had a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) score 20, were ran-domly assigned to placebo, low-dose desvenlafaxine (25▒mg/day), or the recommended dose (50▒mg/day) after a 6to 14-day placebo lead-in, in an 8-week, fixed-dose trial. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in HAMD17 total score at final on-therapy evaluation. Efficacy analyses were based on the intent-totreat (ITT) population, using the last observation carried forward. RESULTS: The ITT population included 699 patients. Reduction in HAM-D17 scores from baseline to final evaluation was not significantly greater for desvenlafaxine 25▒mg/day (-8.98) but was significantly greater for desvenlafaxine 50▒mg/day (-10.02; P = 0.016) versus placebo (-8.52) after adjusting for multiplicity. P-values were < 0.05 versus placebo for percentage of patients responding to treatment ( 50% decrease in HAM-D17 score) with desven-lafaxine 50▒mg/day (46%; P = 0.015), but not with desvenlafaxine 25▒mg/day (42% versus 35% with placebo). P-values for remission rates (HAM-D17 score ≤ 7) were not < 0.05 versus placebo for either desvenlafaxine treatment group. Discontinuations due to adverse events were observed in 2.6%, 3.4%, and 3.4% of patients treated with placebo, desvenlafaxine 25▒mg/day, and desvenlafaxine 50▒mg/day, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with other clinical studies, desvenlafaxine 50▒mg/day demonstrated antidepressant efficacy and appears to be the minimally effective dosage for MDD. ClinicalTrials study identifier NCT00798707.