Stanley B. Cohen

Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis with a Recombinant Human Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor (p75)–Fc Fusion Protein

BACKGROUNDnTumor necrosis factor (TNF) is a proinflammatory cytokine involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis, and antagonism of TNF may reduce the activity of the disease. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a novel TNF antagonist - a recombinant fusion protein that consists of the soluble TNF receptor (p75) linked to the Fc portion of human IgG1 (TNFR:Fc).nnnMETHODSnIn this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 180 patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis to receive subcutaneous injections of placebo or one of three doses of TNFR:Fc (0.25, 2, or 16 mg per square meter of body-surface area) twice weekly for three months. The clinical response was measured by changes in composite symptoms of arthritis defined according to American College of Rheumatology criteria.nnnRESULTSnTreatment with TNFR:Fc led to significant reductions in disease activity, and the therapeutic effects of TNFR:Fc were dose-related. At three months, 75 percent of the patients in the group assigned to 16 mg of TNFR:Fc per square meter had improvement of 20 percent or more in symptoms, as compared with 14 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001). In the group assigned to 16 mg per square meter, the mean percent reduction in the number of tender or swollen joints at three months was 61 percent, as compared with 25 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001). The most common adverse events were mild injection-site reactions and mild upper respiratory tract symptoms. There were no dose-limiting toxic effects, and no antibodies to TNFR:Fc were detected in serum samples.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn this three-month trial TNFR:Fc was safe, well tolerated, and associated with improvement in the inflammatory symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.

Tofacitinib or Adalimumab versus Placebo in Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUNDnTofacitinib (CP-690,550) is a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is being investigated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.nnnMETHODSnIn this 12-month, phase 3 trial, 717 patients who were receiving stable doses of methotrexate were randomly assigned to 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, 40 mg of adalimumab once every 2 weeks, or placebo. At month 3, patients in the placebo group who did not have a 20% reduction from baseline in the number of swollen and tender joints were switched in a blinded fashion to either 5 mg or 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily; at month 6, all patients still receiving placebo were switched to tofacitinib in a blinded fashion. The three primary outcome measures were a 20% improvement at month 6 in the American College of Rheumatology scale (ACR 20); the change from baseline to month 3 in the score on the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (which ranges from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater disability); and the percentage of patients at month 6 who had a Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4[ESR]) of less than 2.6 (with scores ranging from 0 to 9.4 and higher scores indicating greater disease activity).nnnRESULTSnAt month 6, ACR 20 response rates were higher among patients receiving 5 mg or 10 mg of tofacitinib (51.5% and 52.6%, respectively) and among those receiving adalimumab (47.2%) than among those receiving placebo (28.3%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). There were also greater reductions in the HAQ-DI score at month 3 and higher percentages of patients with a DAS28-4(ESR) below 2.6 at month 6 in the active-treatment groups than in the placebo group. Adverse events occurred more frequently with tofacitinib than with placebo, and pulmonary tuberculosis developed in two patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group. Tofacitinib was associated with an increase in both low-density and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and with reductions in neutrophil counts.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving background methotrexate, tofacitinib was significantly superior to placebo and was numerically similar to adalimumab in efficacy. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Standard ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00853385.).

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

OBJECTIVEnThe 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.nnnMETHODSnIn 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.nnnRESULTSnAt 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.nnnCONCLUSIONnData 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.

Two‐year, blinded, randomized, controlled trial of treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with methotrexate

OBJECTIVEnThree 6-12-month, double-blind, randomized, controlled trials have shown leflunomide (LEF; 20 mg/day, loading dose 100 mg x 3 days) to be effective and safe for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis of the North American trial assessed whether the clinical benefit evident at month 12 was sustained over 24 months of treatment with LEF as compared with the efficacy and safety of methotrexate (MTX), an equivalent disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, at 24 months.nnnMETHODSnThe year-2 cohort, comprising patients continuing into the second year of treatment with > or = 1 dose of study medication and > or = 1 followup visit after week 52, consisted of 235 patients (LEF n = 98; placebo n = 36; MTX n = 101). The mean (+/- SD) maintenance dose of LEF was 19.6 +/- 1.99 mg/day in year 2 and that of MTX was 12.6 +/- 4.69 mg/week. Statistical analyses used an intent-to-treat (ITT) approach. Statistical comparisons of the active treatments only were prospectively defined in the protocol.nnnRESULTSnIn total, 85% and 79% of LEF and MTX patients, respectively, who entered year 2 completed 24 months of treatment. From month 12 to month 24, the American College of Rheumatology improvement response rates of > or = 20% (LEF 79% versus MTX 67%; P = 0.049), > or = 50% (LEF 56% versus MTX 43%; P = 0.053), and > or = 70% (LEF 26% versus MTX 20%; P = 0.361) were sustained in both of the active treatment groups. The mean change in total Sharp radiologic damage scores at year 2 compared with year 1 and baseline (LEF 1.6 versus MTX 1.2) showed statistically equivalent sustained retardation of radiographic progression in the active treatment groups. Maximal improvements evident at 6 months in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (HAQ DI) and the physical component score of the Medical Outcomes Survey 36-item short form were sustained over 12 months and 24 months; improvement in the HAQ DI with LEF4(-0.60) was statistically significantly superior to that with MTX (-0.37) at 24 months (P = 0.005). Over 24 months in the ITT cohort, serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 1.6% of the LEF-treated patients and 3.7% of the MTX-treated patients. Frequently reported adverse events included upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, rash, reversible alopecia, and transient liver enzyme elevations.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe safety and efficacy of LEF and MTX were maintained over the second year of this 2-year trial. Both active treatments retarded radiographic progression over 24 months. LEF was statistically significantly superior to MTX in improving physical function as measured by the HAQ DI over 24 months of treatment. Results indicate that LEF is a safe and effective initial treatment for active RA, with clinical benefit sustained over 2 years of treatment without evidence of new or increased toxicity.

Two-Year Treatment With Denosumab (AMG 162) in a Randomized Phase 2 Study of Postmenopausal Women With Low BMD†

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody to RANKL. In this randomized, placebo‐controlled study of 412 postmenopausal women with low BMD, subcutaneous denosumab given every 3 or 6 mo was well tolerated, increased BMD, and decreased bone resorption markers for up to 24 mo. Continued study of denosumab is warranted in the treatment of low BMD in postmenopausal women.

Rituximab inhibits structural joint damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapies

OBJECTIVEnTo determine if treatment with a B cell-targeted therapy can inhibit the progression of structural joint damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), exhibiting an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.nnnMETHODSnIn this phase III study, patients with an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor and receiving methotrexate were randomised to rituximab or placebo. Radiographs were obtained at baseline, week 24 and week 56 after randomisation. Patients with an inadequate response to their randomised therapy could receive rescue medication from week 16. From week 24, eligible patients from both treatment arms could receive open-label rituximab. Patients were analysed according to their original treatment group. Radiographs were scored using the Genant-modified Sharp method. The primary radiographic endpoint was change in total Genant-modified Sharp score at week 56.nnnRESULTSnRituximab treatment caused significant reduction in joint damage progression compared with placebo. The mean change from baseline in the total Genant-modified Sharp score at week 56 was significantly lower for patients treated with rituximab than for patients treated with placebo (1.00 vs 2.31; p = 0.005), and was supported by changes in erosion score (0.59 and 1.32 for rituximab plus methotrexate vs placebo plus methotrexate, respectively; p = 0.011) and joint space narrowing score (0.41 and 0.99, respectively; p<0.001).nnnCONCLUSIONSnThis study provides the first evidence that a B cell-targeted therapy-rituximab-can significantly inhibit the progression of structural joint damage in patients with RA with long-standing, active and treatment-resistant disease.

Effect of baseline rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated peptide antibody serotype on rituximab clinical response: a meta-analysis

Background Studies examining the relationship between serological status (rheumatoid factor and/or anticitrullinated antibody) and rituximab treatment outcome in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been hampered by limited numbers of seronegative patients. Objective To carry out a meta-analysis of trials from the rituximab RA clinical programme to investigate this relationship further. Methods This was a meta-analysis of four placebo-controlled, phase II or III clinical trials. The efficacy end point in all analyses was change from baseline in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) at 24 weeks. Assay of serotype and missing data imputation methods were consistent across all studies. Results The population analysed comprised 2177 patients (rituximab, n=1416; placebo, n=761). Demographics and baseline disease characteristics were well balanced. When a fixed-effects meta-analysis approach was used, the overall-effect model indicated evidence of additional treatment benefit with rituximab in seropositive patients: reduction in DAS28-ESR at week 24 was on average 0.35 units (95% CI 0.12 to 0.84; n=1394) greater than in seronegative patients; this effect was not seen in placebo patients. Heterogeneity indices indicated significant uncertainty in the overall-effect model (Q=8.8, I=0.77; p=0.03 (χ2 test)). Baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire score, pain visual analogue scale, swollen joint counts of 28 joints and race were significant contributors to this heterogeneity, with additional analysis indicating that these effects may predominate in early RA (methotrexate-naïve) populations. A dominant effect was seen in patients for whom one or more tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. Conclusion Although the difference was modest, the overall-effect model indicates that seropositive patients respond better to rituximab than seronegative patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Retreatment in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis with Previous Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors: Results from the SUNRISE Trial

Objective. To assess the efficacy and safety of 1 versus 2 courses of rituximab over 48 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. Adult patients taking methotrexate with a previous inadequate response to ≥ 1 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor received 1 course of open-label rituximab (2 × 1000 mg IV) at baseline. From Week 24, patients were randomized to receive an additional course of retreatment with rituximab or placebo. Efficacy responses at Week 48 relative to baseline were assessed. Results. Of 559 patients who received the open-label first course of rituximab, 475 patients were randomized to a second course (rituximab retreatment: n = 318, placebo retreatment: n = 157). Relative to baseline, patients who took rituximab during retreatment had significantly improved efficacy at Week 48 compared to patients who took a placebo during retreatment [American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) criteria, 54% vs 45%, p = 0.02; change in Disease Activity Score-28 mean −1.9 vs −1.5, p = 0.006]. Differences in efficacy between groups were first observed following Weeks 28–32. Worsening of most components of the ACR core set occurred in the placebo-retreated patients with relative maintenance of these measures in rituximab-retreated patients. Randomized patients who had achieved week 24 ACR responses following the first course had greater odds of losing response if retreated with placebo (odds ratios for ACR20, ACR50, ACR70: 2.09, 2.03, and 4.09, respectively). Following retreatment, the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse events (AE), serious AE, infections, and serious infections were comparable between the rituximab and placebo retreatment groups. Conclusion. Two courses of rituximab about 6 months apart resulted in improved and sustained efficacy at 1 year, compared with 1 course, with a similar safety profile.

A 24-Week, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel Group Study of the Efficacy of Oral SCIO-469, a p38 Mitogen-activated Protein Kinase Inhibitor, in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oral SCIO-469, a p38 MAPK inhibitor that blocks tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1ß, and cyclooxygenase-2 synthesis in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. Patients were randomized to receive SCIO-469 at either 30 or 60 mg three times daily in an immediate-release (IR) formulation or at 100 mg once daily in an extended-release (ER) formulation, or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response at Week 12. Safety was monitored through Week 26. Results. Overall, 302 patients were randomized: 76 to placebo, 75 to 30 mg IR, 73 to 60 mg IR, and 78 to 100 mg ER. There were no significant differences in ACR20 responses at Week 12 between SCIO-469 and placebo. Declines in C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate during early treatment did not persist to Week 12 and were not a consequence of decreased SCIO-469 plasma levels. The 60 mg IR regimen showed a dose-limiting toxicity manifested by elevations in alanine aminotransferase. Adverse events were common in all groups (79.7% and 86.7% through 13 and 26 weeks, respectively). Twenty-one patients reported 28 serious adverse events (SAE). SAE were more common with IR SCIO-469 than with placebo (7% vs 4%) but were not reported with ER SCIO-469. Conclusion. In all regimens tested, SCIO-469 showed no greater efficacy compared to placebo in patients with RA. The transient effect of SCIO-469 on acute-phase reactants suggests a complex role of p38 MAPK in inflammation.

A randomized, double-blind study of AMG 108 (a fully human monoclonal antibody to IL-1R1) in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee

IntroductionAMG 108 is a fully human, immunoglobulin subclass G2 (IgG2) monoclonal antibody that binds the human interleukin-1 (IL-1) receptor type 1, inhibiting the activity of IL-1a and IL-1b. In preclinical studies, IL-1 inhibition was shown to be beneficial in models of osteoarthritis (OA). The purpose of this two-part study was to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK; Part A) and clinical effect (Part B) of AMG 108 in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose study in patients with OA of the knee.MethodsIn Part A, patients received placebo or AMG 108 subcutaneously (SC; 75 mg or 300 mg) or intravenously (IV; 100 mg or 300 mg) once every 4 weeks for 12 weeks; in Part B, patients received placebo or 300 mg AMG 108 SC, once every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. The clinical effect of AMG 108 was measured in Part B by using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index pain score.ResultsIn Part A, 68 patients were randomized, and 64 received investigational product. In Part B, 160 patients were randomized, and 159 received investigational product. AMG 108 was well tolerated. Most adverse events (AEs), infectious AEs, serious AEs and infections, as well as withdrawals from the study due to AEs occurred at similar rates in both active and placebo groups. One death was reported in an 80-year-old patient (Part A, 300 mg IV AMG 108; due to complications of lobar pneumonia). AMG 108 serum concentration-time profiles exhibited nonlinear PK. The AMG 108 group in Part B had statistically insignificant but numerically greater improvement in pain compared with the placebo group, as shown by the WOMAC pain scores (median change, -63.0 versus -37.0, respectively).ConclusionsThe safety profile of AMG 108 SC and IV was comparable with placebo in patients with OA of the knee. Patients who received AMG 108 showed statistically insignificant but numerically greater improvements in pain; however, minimal, if any, clinical benefit was observed.Trial RegistrationThis study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT00110942.