Peter Sallstig
Novartis
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Peter Sallstig.
Arthritis & Rheumatism | 2010
Alexander So; Marc De Meulemeester; Andrey Pikhlak; A. Eftal Yücel; Dominik Richard; Valda Murphy; Udayasankar Arulmani; Peter Sallstig; Naomi Schlesinger
OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and tolerability of canakinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-1β monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of acute gouty arthritis. METHODS In this 8-week, single-blind, double-dummy, dose-ranging study, patients with acute gouty arthritis whose disease was refractory to or who had contraindications to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and/or colchicine were randomized to receive a single subcutaneous dose of canakinumab (10, 25, 50, 90, or 150 mg; n = 143) or an intramuscular dose of triamcinolone acetonide (40 mg; n = 57). Patients assessed pain using a 100-mm visual analog scale. RESULTS Seventy-two hours after treatment, a statistically significant dose response was observed for canakinumab. All canakinumab doses were associated with numerically less pain than triamcinolone acetonide; thus, a dose with equivalent efficacy to triamcinolone acetonide 72 hours after treatment could not be determined. The reduction from baseline in pain intensity with canakinumab 150 mg was greater than with triamcinolone acetonide 24, 48, and 72 hours after treatment (differences of -11.5 mm [P = 0.04], -18.2 mm [P = 0.002], and -19.2 mm [P < 0.001], respectively), and 4, 5, and 7 days after treatment (all P < 0.05). Canakinumab significantly reduced the risk of recurrent flares versus triamcinolone acetonide (P ≤ 0.01 for all doses) (relative risk reduction 94% for canakinumab 150 mg versus triamcinolone acetonide). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar for canakinumab (41%) and triamcinolone acetonide (42%); most were mild or moderate in severity. CONCLUSION Our findings indicate that canakinumab 150 mg provides rapid and sustained pain relief in patients with acute gouty arthritis, and significantly reduces the risk of recurrent flares compared with triamcinolone acetonide.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases | 2011
Naomi Schlesinger; Eduardo Mysler; Hsiao-Yi Lin; Marc De Meulemeester; Jozef Rovensky; Udayasankar Arulmani; Alison Balfour; Gerhard Krammer; Peter Sallstig; Alexander So
Objective This study assessed the efficacy and safety of canakinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin 1β monoclonal antibody, for prophylaxis against acute gouty arthritis flares in patients initiating urate-lowering treatment. Methods In this double-blind, double-dummy, dose-ranging study, 432 patients with gouty arthritis initiating allopurinol treatment were randomised 1:1:1:1:1:1:2 to receive: a single dose of canakinumab, 25, 50, 100, 200, or 300 mg subcutaneously; 4×4-weekly doses of canakinumab (50+50+25+25 mg subcutaneously); or daily colchicine 0.5 mg orally for 16 weeks. Patients recorded details of flares in diaries. The study aimed to determine the canakinumab dose having equivalent efficacy to colchicine 0.5 mg at 16 weeks. Results A dose-response for canakinumab was not apparent with any of the four predefined dose-response models. The estimated canakinumab dose with equivalent efficacy to colchicine was below the range of doses tested. At 16 weeks, there was a 62% to 72% reduction in the mean number of flares per patient for canakinumab doses ≥50 mg versus colchicine based on a negative binomial model (rate ratio: 0.28–0.38, p≤0.0083), and the percentage of patients experiencing ≥1 flare was significantly lower for all canakinumab doses (15% to 27%) versus colchicine (44%, p<0.05). There was a 64% to 72% reduction in the risk of experiencing ≥1 flare for canakinumab doses ≥50 mg versus colchicine at 16 weeks (hazard ratio (HR): 0.28–0.36, p≤0.05). The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. Conclusions Single canakinumab doses ≥50 mg or four 4-weekly doses provided superior prophylaxis against flares compared with daily colchicine 0.5 mg.
Arthritis Research & Therapy | 2011
Naomi Schlesinger; Marc De Meulemeester; Andrey Pikhlak; A. Eftal Yücel; Dominik Richard; Valda Murphy; Udayasankar Arulmani; Peter Sallstig; Alexander So
IntroductionWe report the impact of canakinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-1β monoclonal antibody, on inflammation and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with difficult-to-treat Gouty Arthritis.MethodsIn this eight-week, single-blind, double-dummy, dose-ranging study, patients with acute Gouty Arthritis flares who were unresponsive or intolerant to - or had contraindications for - non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or colchicine were randomized to receive a single subcutaneous dose of canakinumab (10, 25, 50, 90, or 150 mg) (N = 143) or an intramuscular dose of triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg (N = 57). Patients assessed pain using a Likert scale, physicians assessed clinical signs of joint inflammation, and HRQoL was measured using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (acute version).ResultsAt baseline, 98% of patients were suffering from moderate-to-extreme pain. The percentage of patients with no or mild pain was numerically greater in most canakinumab groups compared with triamcinolone acetonide from 24 to 72 hours post-dose; the difference was statistically significant for canakinumab 150 mg at these time points (P < 0.05). Treatment with canakinumab 150 mg was associated with statistically significant lower Likert scores for tenderness (odds ratio (OR), 3.2; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.27 to 7.89; P = 0.014) and swelling (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.09 to 6.50, P = 0.032) at 72 hours compared with triamcinolone acetonide. Median C-reactive protein and serum amyloid A levels were normalized by seven days post-dose in most canakinumab groups, but remained elevated in the triamcinolone acetonide group. Improvements in physical health were observed at seven days post-dose in all treatment groups; increases in scores were highest for canakinumab 150 mg. In this group, the mean SF-36 physical component summary score increased by 12.0 points from baseline to 48.3 at seven days post-dose. SF-36 scores for physical functioning and bodily pain for the canakinumab 150 mg group approached those for the US general population by seven days post-dose and reached norm values by eight weeks post-dose.ConclusionsCanakinumab 150 mg provided significantly greater and more rapid reduction in pain and signs and symptoms of inflammation compared with triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg. Improvements in HRQoL were seen in both treatment groups with a faster onset with canakinumab 150 mg compared with triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov: NCT00798369.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | 2008
Roy Fleischmann; Hyman Tannenbaum; N Patel; Marianne Notter; Peter Sallstig; Jean-Yves Reginster
BackgroundThe efficacy, safety and tolerability of lumiracoxib, a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, has been demonstrated in previous studies of patients with osteoarthritis (OA). As it is important to establish the long-term safety and efficacy of treatments for a chronic disease such as OA, the present study compared the effects of lumiracoxib at doses of 100 mg once daily (o.d.) and 100 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) with those of celecoxib 200 mg o.d. on retention on treatment over 1 year.MethodsIn this 52-week, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, male and female patients (aged at least 40 years) with symptomatic primary OA of the hip, knee, hand or spine were randomised (1:2:1) to lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d. (n = 755), lumiracoxib 100 mg b.i.d. (n = 1,519) or celecoxib 200 mg o.d. (n = 758). The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate non-inferiority of lumiracoxib at either dose compared with celecoxib 200 mg o.d. with respect to the 1-year retention on treatment rate. Secondary outcome variables included OA pain in the target joint, patients and physicians global assessments of disease activity, Short Arthritis assessment Scale (SAS) total score, rescue medication use, and safety and tolerability.ResultsRetention rates at 1 year were similar for the lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d., lumiracoxib 100 mg b.i.d. and celecoxib 200 mg o.d. groups (46.9% vs 47.5% vs 45.3%, respectively). It was demonstrated that retention on treatment with lumiracoxib at either dose was non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg o.d. Similarly, Kaplan-Meier curves for the probability of premature discontinuation from the study for any reason were similar across the treatment groups. All three treatments generally yielded comparable results for the secondary efficacy variables and all treatments were well tolerated.ConclusionLong-term treatment with lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d., the recommended dose for OA, was as effective and well tolerated as celecoxib 200 mg o.d. in patients with OA.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT00145301
Journal of Clinical Hypertension | 2008
Michael E. Farkouh; Freek W.A. Verheugt; Sean Ruland; Howard S. Kirshner; Raban Jeger; Xavier Gitton; Gerhard Krammer; Kirstin Stricker; Peter Sallstig; Bernhard Mellein; Patrice Matchaba; James H. Chesebro
The 52‐week Therapeutic Arthritis Research and Gastrointestinal Event Trial (TARGET) investigated the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety profile of lumiracoxib 400 mg once daily compared with 2 traditional nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): ibuprofen 800 mg 3 times daily and naproxen 500 mg twice daily. Data from TARGET were analyzed to examine the effect of lumiracoxib compared with ibuprofen and naproxen on blood pressure (BP), incidence of de novo and aggravated hypertension, prespecified edema events, and congestive heart failure. Lumiracoxib resulted in smaller changes in BP as early as week 4. Least‐squares mean change from baseline at week 4 for systolic BP was +0.57 mm Hg with lumiracoxib compared with +3.14 mm Hg with ibuprofen (P<.0001) and +0.43 with lumiracoxib compared with +1.80 mm Hg with naproxen (P<.0001). In conclusion, the use of lumiracoxib and traditional NSAIDs results in differing BP changes; these might be of clinical relevance.
Gastroenterology | 2007
Christopher J. Hawkey; Wilfred M. Weinstein; Walter E. Smalley; Xavier Gitton; Peter Sallstig; Kirstin Stricker; Gerhard Krammer; Bernhard Mellein; Dominik Richard; Patrice Matchaba
Arthritis & Rheumatism | 2010
Alexander So; Marc De Meulemeester; Andrey Pikhlak; A. Eftal Yücel; Dominik Richard; Valda Murphy; Udayasankar Arulmani; Peter Sallstig; Naomi Schlesinger
Ophthalmology | 2017
Pravin U. Dugel; Glenn J. Jaffe; Peter Sallstig; James Warburton; Andreas Weichselberger; Mark R. Wieland; Lawrence J. Singerman
Clinical Rheumatology | 2011
Thomas J. Schnitzer; I. Dan Dattani; Bruno Seriolo; Hartmut Schneider; Alan Moore; Lillian Tseng; Peter Sallstig; Rosemary Rebuli; Thomas Maxwell
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science | 2015
Lawrence J. Singerman; Andreas Weichselberger; Peter Sallstig