Edward C. Keystone

Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force

Background Aiming at therapeutic targets has reduced the risk of organ failure in many diseases such as diabetes or hypertension. Such targets have not been defined for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Objective To develop recommendations for achieving optimal therapeutic outcomes in RA. Methods A task force of rheumatologists and a patient developed a set of recommendations on the basis of evidence derived from a systematic literature review and expert opinion; these were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >60 experts from various regions of the world in a Delphi-like procedure. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Results The treat-to-target activity resulted in 10 recommendations. The treatment aim was defined as remission with low disease activity being an alternative goal in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1–3 months during active disease) with appropriate therapeutic adaptation to reach the desired state within 3 to a maximum of 6 months was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity which include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease. Levels of agreement were very high for many of these recommendations (≥9/10). Conclusion The 10 recommendations are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA based on evidence and expert opinion.

A comparison of etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND Etanercept, which blocks the action of tumor necrosis factor, reduces disease activity in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis. Its efficacy in reducing disease activity and preventing joint damage in patients with active early rheumatoid arthritis is unknown. METHODS We treated 632 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis with either twice-weekly subcutaneous etanercept (10 or 25 mg) or weekly oral methotrexate (mean, 19 mg per week) for 12 months. Clinical response was defined as the percent improvement in disease activity according to the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology. Bone erosion and joint-space narrowing were measured radiographically and scored with use of the Sharp scale. On this scale, an increase of 1 point represents one new erosion or minimal narrowing. RESULTS As compared with patients who received methotrexate, patients who received the 25-mg dose of etanercept had a more rapid rate of improvement, with significantly more patients having 20 percent, 50 percent, and 70 percent improvement in disease activity during the first six months (P<0.05). The mean increase in the erosion score during the first 6 months was 0.30 in the group assigned to receive 25 mg of etanercept and 0.68 in the methotrexate group (P= 0.001), and the respective increases during the first 12 months were 0.47 and 1.03 (P=0.002). Among patients who received the 25-mg dose of etanercept, 72 percent had no increase in the erosion score, as compared with 60 percent of patients in the methotrexate group (P=0.007). This group of patients also had fewer adverse events (P=0.02) and fewer infections (P= 0.006) than the group that was treated with methotrexate. CONCLUSIONS As compared with oral methotrexate, subcutaneous [corrected] etanercept acted more rapidly to decrease symptoms and slow joint damage in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis.

Updated consensus statement on biological agents for the treatment of rheumatic diseases, 2009

As in previous years, the consensus group to consider the use of biological agents in the treatment of rheumatic diseases met during the 13th Annual Workshop on Advances in Targeted Therapies in April, 2011. The group consisted of rheumatologists from a number of universities among the continents of Europe, North America, South America, Australia and Asia. Pharmaceutical industry support was obtained from a number of companies for the annual workshop itself, but these companies had no part in the decisions about the specific programme or about the academic participants at this conference. Representatives of the supporting sponsors participated in the initial working groups to supply factual information. The sponsors did not participate in the drafting of the consensus statement. This consensus was prepared from the perspective of the treating physician. In view of the new data for abatacept, B cell-specific agents, interleukin 1 (IL-1) antagonists, tocilizumab (TCZ) and tumour necrosis factor α blocking agents (TNF inhibitors), an update of the previous consensus statement is appropriate. To allow ease of updating, the 2010 (data from March 2009 to January 2010) updates are incorporated into the body of the article, while 2011 updates (February 2010–January 2011) are separated and highlighted. The consensus statement is annotated to document the credibility of the data supporting it as much as possible. This annotation is that of Shekelle et al and is described in appendix 1.1 We have modified the Shekelle annotation by designating all abstracts as ‘category D evidence’, whether they describe well-controlled trials or not, as details of the study were often not available in the abstracts. Further, the number of possible references has become so large that reviews are sometimes included; if they contain category A references, they will be referred to as category A evidence. The rheumatologists and bioscientists who attended …

American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Provisional Definition of Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis for Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE Remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an increasingly attainable goal, but there is no widely used definition of remission that is stringent but achievable and could be applied uniformly as an outcome measure in clinical trials. This work was undertaken to develop such a definition. METHODS A committee consisting of members of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative met to guide the process and review prespecified analyses from RA clinical trials. The committee requested a stringent definition (little, if any, active disease) and decided to use core set measures including, as a minimum, joint counts and levels of an acute-phase reactant to define remission. Members were surveyed to select the level of each core set measure that would be consistent with remission. Candidate definitions of remission were tested, including those that constituted a number of individual measures of remission (Boolean approach) as well as definitions using disease activity indexes. To select a definition of remission, trial data were analyzed to examine the added contribution of patient-reported outcomes and the ability of candidate measures to predict later good radiographic and functional outcomes. RESULTS Survey results for the definition of remission suggested indexes at published thresholds and a count of core set measures, with each measure scored as 1 or less (e.g., tender and swollen joint counts, C-reactive protein [CRP] level, and global assessments on a 0-10 scale). Analyses suggested the need to include a patient-reported measure. Examination of 2-year followup data suggested that many candidate definitions performed comparably in terms of predicting later good radiographic and functional outcomes, although 28-joint Disease Activity Score-based measures of remission did not predict good radiographic outcomes as well as the other candidate definitions did. Given these and other considerations, we propose that a patients RA can be defined as being in remission based on one of two definitions: (a) when scores on the tender joint count, swollen joint count, CRP (in mg/dl), and patient global assessment (0-10 scale) are all ≤ 1, or (b) when the score on the Simplified Disease Activity Index is ≤ 3.3. CONCLUSION We propose two new definitions of remission, both of which can be uniformly applied and widely used in RA clinical trials. We recommend that one of these be selected as an outcome measure in each trial and that the results on both be reported for each trial.

Certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate is significantly more effective than placebo plus methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: Findings of a fifty-two–week, phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study†‡

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2 dosage regimens of lyophilized certolizumab pegol (a novel PEGylated anti-tumor necrosis factor agent) as adjunctive therapy to methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to MTX therapy alone. METHODS In this 52-week, phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, 982 patients were randomized 2:2:1 to receive treatment with subcutaneous certolizumab pegol at an initial dosage of 400 mg given at weeks 0, 2, and 4, with a subsequent dosage of 200 mg or 400 mg given every 2 weeks, plus MTX, or placebo plus MTX. Co-primary end points were the response rate at week 24 according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20) and the mean change from baseline in the modified total Sharp score at week 52. RESULTS At week 24, ACR20 response rates using nonresponder imputation for the certolizumab pegol 200-mg and 400-mg groups were 58.8% and 60.8%, respectively, as compared with 13.6% for the placebo group. Differences in ACR20 response rates versus placebo were significant at week 1 and were sustained to week 52 (P < 0.001). At week 52, mean radiographic progression from baseline was reduced in patients treated with certolizumab pegol 200 mg (0.4 Sharp units) or 400 mg (0.2 Sharp units) as compared with that in placebo-treated patients (2.8 Sharp units) (P < 0.001 by rank analysis). Improvements in all ACR core set of disease activity measures, including physical function, were observed by week 1 with both certolizumab pegol dosage regimens. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. CONCLUSION Treatment with certolizumab pegol 200 or 400 mg plus MTX resulted in a rapid and sustained reduction in RA signs and symptoms, inhibited the progression of structural joint damage, and improved physical function as compared with placebo plus MTX treatment in RA patients with an incomplete response to MTX.

Golimumab, a human antibody to tumour necrosis factor α given by monthly subcutaneous injections, in active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy: the GO-FORWARD Study

Objective: The phase III GO-FORWARD study examined the efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned in a 3 : 3 : 2 : 2 ratio to receive placebo injections plus methotrexate capsules (group 1, n  =  133), golimumab 100 mg injections plus placebo capsules (group 2, n  =  133), golimumab 50 mg injections plus methotrexate capsules (group 3, n  =  89), or golimumab 100 mg injections plus methotrexate capsules (group 4, n  =  89). Injections were administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with 20% or greater improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 14 and the change from baseline in the health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI) score at week 24. Results: The proportion of patients who achieved an ACR20 response at week 14 was 33.1% in the placebo plus methotrexate group, 44.4% (p = 0.059) in the golimumab 100 mg plus placebo group, 55.1% (p = 0.001) in the golimumab 50 mg plus methotrexate group and 56.2% (p<0.001) in the golimumab 100 mg plus methotrexate group. At week 24, median improvements from baseline in HAQ-DI scores were 0.13, 0.13 (p = 0.240), 0.38 (p<0.001) and 0.50 (p<0.001), respectively. During the placebo-controlled portion of the study (to week 16), serious adverse events occurred in 2.3%, 3.8%, 5.6% and 9.0% of patients and serious infections occurred in 0.8%, 0.8%, 2.2% and 5.6%, respectively. Conclusion: The addition of golimumab to methotrexate in patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy significantly reduced the signs and symptoms of RA and improved physical function.

The safety of anti-tumour necrosis factor treatments in rheumatoid arthritis: meta and exposure-adjusted pooled analyses of serious adverse events

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety of biological treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using results from randomised controlled trials (RCT). METHODS The literature was searched to December 2007 for RCT evaluating inhibitors of tumour necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF) for RA. Safety data were abstracted and risk estimates were calculated using three approaches, meta-analysis with and without adjustment for exposure and simple exposure-adjusted pooling. RESULTS Eighteen randomised trials involving 8808 RA subjects were included. Treatment with recommended doses of anti-TNF found no increase in the odds of death (odds ratio (OR) 1.39; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.62), serious adverse events (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.32), serious infection (OR 1.21; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.63), lymphoma (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.52 to 3.06), non-melanoma skin cancers (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.67 to 2.42) or the composite endpoint of non-cutaneous cancers plus melanomas (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.48) when evaluated using the unadjusted meta-analytic method. Risk estimates were similar with the other methods. For subjects who received two to three times the recommended doses of anti-TNF the risk of serious infection was increased with the unadjusted meta-analytic and pooled analysis, (OR 2.07; 95% CI 1.31 to 3.26) and (risk ratio (RR) 1.83; 95% CI 1.18 to 2.85), respectively, but not increased in the exposure-adjusted meta-analysis (RR 1.99; 95% CI 0.90 to 4.37). Meta-regression identified that the risk of serious infection with anti-TNF therapy decreases with increasing trial duration (p = 0.035). CONCLUSION Meta-analytic and exposure-adjusted pooled analyses on over 8800 RA subjects in RCT treated over an average of 0.8 years did not identify an increased risk of serious adverse events with recommended doses. High-dose anti-TNF therapy was associated with a twofold increase in the risk of serious infections.

Tofacitinib (CP‐690,550) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate: Twelve‐month data from a twenty‐four–month phase III randomized radiographic study

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this 24-month phase III study was to examine structural preservation with tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Data from a planned 12-month interim analysis are reported. METHODS In this double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, patients receiving background MTX were randomized 4:4:1:1 to tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, tofacitinib at 10 mg twice daily, placebo to tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, and placebo to tofacitinib at 10 mg twice daily. At month 3, nonresponder placebo-treated patients were advanced in a blinded manner to receive tofacitinib as indicated above; remaining placebo-treated patients were advanced at 6 months. Four primary efficacy end points were all analyzed in a step-down procedure. RESULTS At month 6, response rates according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were higher than those for placebo (51.5% and 61.8%, respectively, versus 25.3%; both P < 0.0001). At month 6, least squares mean (LSM) changes in total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were 0.12 and 0.06, respectively, versus 0.47 for placebo (P = 0.0792 and P ≤ 0.05, respectively). At month 3, LSM changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index score for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were -0.40 (significance not declared due to step-down procedure) and -0.54 (P < 0.0001), respectively, versus -0.15 for placebo. At month 6, rates of remission (defined as a value <2.6 for the 4-variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate) for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were 7.2% (significance not declared due to step-down procedure) and 16.0% (P < 0.0001), respectively, versus 1.6% for placebo. The safety profile was consistent with findings in previous studies. CONCLUSION Data from this 12-month interim analysis demonstrate that tofacitinib inhibits progression of structural damage and improves disease activity in patients with RA who are receiving MTX.

LONGTERM SAFETY OF PATIENTS RECEIVING RITUXIMAB IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS CLINICAL TRIALS

Objective. To evaluate the longterm safety of rituximab in clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. Pooled analysis of safety data, including adverse events (AE) and infections, from patients treated with rituximab in combination with methotrexate in a global clinical trial program. Results. A total of 2578 patients with RA received at least 1 course of rituximab. Safety analyses were based on 5013 patient-years of rituximab exposure. The most frequent AE was infusion-related reactions (25% of patients during the first infusion of Course 1). Less than 1% of infusion-related reactions were considered serious. Rates of AE and serious AE (SAE; 17.85 events/100 patient-yrs, 95% CI 16.72, 19.06) were stable following each course. The overall serious infection rate was 4.31/100 patient-years (95% CI 3.77, 4.92). Infections and serious infections over time remained stable across 5 courses at 4–6 events/100 patient-years. Compared with other patients with RA and with the general US population, there was no increased risk of malignancy. Conclusion. In this longterm safety update in RA clinical trial patients, rituximab remained well tolerated over multiple courses. SAE and infections remained stable over time and by treatment course.

Therapies for Active Rheumatoid Arthritis after Methotrexate Failure

BACKGROUND Few blinded trials have compared conventional therapy consisting of a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with biologic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have active disease despite treatment with methotrexate--a common scenario in the management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS We conducted a 48-week, double-blind, noninferiority trial in which we randomly assigned 353 participants with rheumatoid arthritis who had active disease despite methotrexate therapy to a triple regimen of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) or etanercept plus methotrexate. Patients who did not have an improvement at 24 weeks according to a prespecified threshold were switched in a blinded fashion to the other therapy. The primary outcome was improvement in the Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts (DAS28, with scores ranging from 2 to 10 and higher scores indicating more disease activity) at week 48. RESULTS Both groups had significant improvement over the course of the first 24 weeks (P=0.001 for the comparison with baseline). A total of 27% of participants in each group required a switch in treatment at 24 weeks. Participants in both groups who switched therapies had improvement after switching (P<0.001), and the response after switching did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.08). The change between baseline and 48 weeks in the DAS28 was similar in the two groups (-2.1 with triple therapy and -2.3 with etanercept and methotrexate, P=0.26); triple therapy was noninferior to etanercept and methotrexate, since the 95% upper confidence limit of 0.41 for the difference in change in DAS28 was below the margin for noninferiority of 0.6 (P=0.002). There were no significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes, including radiographic progression, pain, and health-related quality of life, or in major adverse events associated with the medications. CONCLUSIONS With respect to clinical benefit, triple therapy, with sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine added to methotrexate, was noninferior to etanercept plus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had active disease despite methotrexate therapy. (Funded by the Cooperative Studies Program, Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development, and others; CSP 551 RACAT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00405275.)