Vibeke Strand

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.

OMERACT : An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology

OMERACT is the acronym for an international, informally organized network initiated in 1992 aimed at improving outcome measurement in rheumatology. Chaired by an executive committee, it organizes consensus conferences in a 2-yearly cycle that circles the globe. Data driven recommendations are prepared and updated by expert working groups. Recommendations include core sets of measures for most of the major rheumatologic conditions. Since 2002 patients have been actively engaged in the process.

Efficacy and Safety of Certolizumab Pegol Plus Methotrexate in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: The RAPID 2 Study

Background: Certolizumab pegol is a PEGylated tumour necrosis factor inhibitor. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol versus placebo, plus methotrexate (MTX), in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: An international, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in active adult-onset RA. Patients (n = 619) were randomised 2:2:1 to subcutaneous certolizumab pegol (liquid formulation) 400 mg at weeks 0, 2 and 4 followed by 200 mg or 400 mg plus MTX, or placebo plus MTX, every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary end point was ACR20 response at week 24. Secondary end points included ACR50 and ACR70 responses, change from baseline in modified Total Sharp Score, ACR core set variables and physical function. Results: Significantly more patients in the certolizumab pegol 200 mg and 400 mg groups achieved an ACR20 response versus placebo (p⩽0.001); rates were 57.3%, 57.6% and 8.7%, respectively. Certolizumab pegol 200 and 400 mg also significantly inhibited radiographic progression; mean changes from baseline in mTSS at week 24 were 0.2 and −0.4, respectively, versus 1.2 for placebo (rank analysis p⩽0.01). Certolizumab pegol-treated patients reported rapid and significant improvements in physical function versus placebo; mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI at week 24 were −0.50 and −0.50, respectively, versus −0.14 for placebo (p⩽0.001). Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with low incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events. Five patients developed tuberculosis. Conclusion: Certolizumab pegol plus MTX was more efficacious than placebo plus MTX, rapidly and significantly improving signs and symptoms of RA and physical function and inhibiting radiographic progression. Trial registration number: NCT00175877

Concomitant Leflunomide Therapy in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis despite Stable Doses of Methotrexate: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Context Several disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) slow disease progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Many experts prefer methotrexate, although trials do not uniformly show that it is superior to other DMARDs. It is not known whether combining methotrexate with a second DMARD is better than prescribing methotrexate alone. Contribution This 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial shows that leflunomide added to ongoing stable-dose methotrexate therapy in patients with persistently active rheumatoid arthritis improves clinical outcomes compared with methotrexate alone. Cautions Some adverse effects, such as diarrhea, were more common with combination therapy. All patients receiving DMARD therapy need close monitoring for toxicities. The Editors Rheumatoid arthritis has considerable societal costs (1-5). Many patients with rheumatoid arthritis become disabled within a few years of disease onset (4, 5). Methotrexate is the standard treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. During the past several years, investigators have found that some disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs can increase the efficacy of methotrexate monotherapy (6-9). Methotrexate is an antimetabolite and immunomodulator that affects many intracellular metabolic pathways of purine metabolism (10). The precise intracellular biochemical pathway responsible for the observed clinical benefits of methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is still the subject of some debate (11), but methotrexate is thought to act primarily on purine pathways of cellular metabolism (10). Leflunomide (Arava, Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Bridgewater, New Jersey) also has antimetabolic effects, inhibiting pyrimidine intracellular pathways (12). Leflunomide has been shown to be effective for rheumatoid arthritis in double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (13, 14). Given the diverse intracellular pathways affected by both drugs, the combination of leflunomide and methotrexate has the potential for biochemical synergy. The possibility of increased benefits should be weighed against the possible toxicities of this combination. Abnormal aminotransferase levels have been seen with both methotrexate (15) and leflunomide (14) monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In a small open study, we previously observed that the combination of methotrexate and leflunomide led to considerable clinical improvements and reversible elevations in aminotransferase levels (16). We therefore sought to determine whether similar results could be achieved in a large, double-blind investigation of the combination of these two antimetabolic agents. Methods Patients The study sample consisted of 263 patients who had rheumatoid arthritis as defined by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria (17). Patients were 18 to 75 years of age and were receiving stable dosages of methotrexate (15 to 20 mg/wk, or 10 to 15 mg/wk if this was the maximum tolerated dose). Patients were recruited from active outpatient practice centers, and study participants were approached without a particular schema. Eligible patients had active rheumatoid arthritis despite at least 6 months of methotrexate therapy, including stable dosage for at least 8 weeks. Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were defined as meeting three of the following criteria on two different evaluations, 7 to 21 days apart: at least nine tender joints, at least six swollen joints, at least 45 minutes of morning stiffness, and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of at least 28 mm/h. Previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, not including ongoing methotrexate, had failed in 11 patients. Patients receiving corticosteroids were required to have been taking a stable daily dose of 10 mg or less for at least 30 days before study drug administration, and the corticosteroid dose was required to remain constant throughout the study. Complete exclusion criteria are listed in Appendix Table 1. Study Design The 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, with evaluations occurring at 4-week intervals (Figure 1), was conducted in 20 centers in the United States and Canada between September 1998 and June 2000. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding leflunomide or placebo to stable methotrexate therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. All participants provided written consent, and the institutional review board at each center approved the protocol. Figure 1. Patient eligibility, randomization, assignment, and discontinuation. Include no wish to continue in study, poor adherence to treatment, protocol violation, and moving away from the study area. A randomization schedule, generated by and stored with Quintiles, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, was used to assign sequential numbers to randomly allocated treatment codes. Randomization was done by using the Aventis standard random-code generator. Investigators allocated numbers to patients, beginning with the lowest available number. Quintiles, Inc., packaged and labeled the study medication. The randomization code used was concealed from investigators and patients throughout the study. Randomization was stratified by center. A set of 500 random numbers was generated, with treatment groups randomly assigned in a balanced manner (1:1 ratio) within each block of four consecutive random numbers (block size, 4). A set of these blocks was then sent to each investigative center. This method is identical to stratification by center because centers are balanced with respect to treatment assignment. Patients were randomly assigned to receive leflunomide, 100 mg/d, for 2 days followed by 10 mg/d or matching placebo. If substantial adverse events occurred, this dose could be reduced to 10 mg every other day. If 10 mg/d was tolerated but active disease, as defined earlier, was still present at week 8 or thereafter, an increase to 20 mg of leflunomide or matching placebo per day was required. If substantial adverse events occurred while the patient was taking 20 mg of the study drug per day, a one-time dose reduction to 10 mg/d was allowed at the discretion of the investigator. At least 1 mg of folate supplementation per day was mandated by the protocol. Adherence to study medication, assessed at each visit by tablet counts (actual number of tablets returned compared with number expected to be returned), was similar in the two groups. The mean adherence for all patients in the intention-to-treat sample was 98.0% (98.5% for those receiving placebo and 97.4% for those receiving leflunomide). In the placebo group and leflunomide group, respectively, 90.2% (120 of 133 patients) and 87.7% (114 of 130 patients) had adherence rates of 80% to 120%. Measurement of Efficacy The primary efficacy variable was the rate at which the intention-to-treat sample achieved 20% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR20) at the end of the study. To be classified as having achieved ACR20, patients were required to complete 24 weeks of treatment and meet ACR20 response criteria at end of the study (13). The ACR20 criteria were developed to define improvement in rheumatoid arthritis (18). Clinical improvement is indicated by 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 20% improvement in three of the following five criteria: patient global assessment, physician global assessment, pain intensity, physical function or disability measure, and level of acute-phase reactant (19). All ACR assessments were performed by the investigators, and the same assessor performed all analyses throughout the study whenever possible to increase the reliability of the assessment. Patients who discontinued therapy before the end of week 24 or for whom data were insufficient to assess ACR20 response at week 24 were classified as nonresponders for the primary analysis. Count of tender joints was based on 68 joint assessments, and count of swollen joints was based on 66 joint assessments. Percentage changes in tender joint and swollen joint counts were based on the number of evaluable joints at a visit. Joints that had been replaced or had been injected with corticosteroids within 4 weeks before the assessment were considered nonevaluable. Secondary outcomes included ACR50 and ACR70 responder rates at week 24 (analyses of responders at study end for the nonprimary efficacy measures). The ACR50 and ACR70 were defined as at least 50% and 70% improvement, respectively, in the same criteria used to calculate ACR20 response. Secondary efficacy variables also included change from baseline to end point in each of the individual components of the ACR response criteria and change from baseline to week 24 in levels of rheumatoid factor. Mean changes from baseline in individual efficacy measures are shown in Appendix Table 2. Measurement of Safety Safety was evaluated by adverse event reports; laboratory assays for changes in hematologic characteristics, blood chemistry, urinalysis, and liver function; and physical examination. Potential adverse events were assessed by using open-ended questions at each study visit. The assessor was blinded to reported toxicities and to any additional information obtained at the visit. The study protocol provided recommendations for dosage change and discontinuation of drug therapy, without unblinding, when patients were found to have alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) values greater than two times the upper limit of normal. Investigators decreased the dose of the study medication if, on repeated analysis at 72 hours, test values remained greater than two times but less than or equal to five times the upper limit of normal; only one dose adjustment was allowed before discontinuation of therapy with the study drug. Therapy with the study drug was also discontinued in patients with persistent elevations of aminotransferase enzyme levels to more than two times the upper limit of normal on repeated te

Novel evidence-based systemic lupus erythematosus responder index

OBJECTIVE To describe a new systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) responder index (SRI) based on a belimumab phase II SLE trial and demonstrate its potential utility in SLE clinical trials. METHODS Data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 449 patients of 3 doses of belimumab (1, 4, 10 mg/kg) or placebo plus standard of care therapy (SOC) over a 56-week period were analyzed. The Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus: National Assessment (SELENA) version of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) SLE disease activity instruments, the Short Form 36 health survey, and biomarker analyses were used to create a novel SRI. Response to treatment in a subset of 321 serologically active SLE patients (antinuclear antibodies >/=1:80 and/or anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies >/=30 IU/ml) at baseline was retrospectively evaluated using the SRI. RESULTS SRI response is defined as 1) a >/=4-point reduction in SELENA-SLEDAI score, 2) no new BILAG A or no more than 1 new BILAG B domain score, and 3) no deterioration from baseline in the physicians global assessment by >/=0.3 points. In serologically active patients, the addition of belimumab to SOC resulted in a response in 46% of patients at week 52 compared with 29% of the placebo patients (P = 0.006). SRI responses were independent of baseline autoantibody subtype. CONCLUSION This evidence-based evaluation of a large randomized, placebo-controlled trial in SLE resulted in the ability to define a robust responder index based on improvement in disease activity without worsening the overall condition or the development of significant disease activity in new organ systems.

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

OBJECTIVE Three 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. METHODS The 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. RESULTS In 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. CONCLUSION The 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.

Treatment with leflunomide slows radiographic progression of rheumatoid arthritis: Results from three randomized controlled trials of leflunomide in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE To determine whether treatment with leflunomide (LEF), methotrexate (MTX), or sulfasalazine (SSZ) for 6-12 months retards progression of radiographic damage and to identify clinical variables that correlate with radiographic progression. METHODS Radiographs of the hands and feet were performed at baseline and at the end of study or early exit in 3 randomized controlled trials. Protocol US301 was a 12-month controlled trial of LEF or MTX treatment compared with placebo in 482 patients randomized in a 3:3:2 ratio. Protocol MN301 compared 6 months of LEF or SSZ treatment with placebo in 358 patients, randomized in a 3:3:2 ratio, with continued blinded treatment in the active control arms for 12 months. Protocol MN302 compared 12 months of LEF treatment with MTX in 999 patients. Radiographs were blinded for sequence and treatment and were scored for erosions and joint space narrowing. All analyses were by intent-to-treat. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for missing data. RESULTS LEF, MTX, and SSZ treatment resulted in statistically significantly less radiographic progression compared with placebo at 6 and 12 months: for protocol US301, LEF versus placebo P = 0.0007 and MTX versus placebo P = 0.0196; for protocol MN301, LEF versus placebo P = 0.0004 and SSZ versus placebo P = 0.0484. The effect of LEF treatment was similar to that of MTX and SSZ. CONCLUSION These are the first 6- and 12-month randomized placebo- and active drug-controlled trials to demonstrate retardation of radiographic progression by a new disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), LEF, as well as 2 commonly used DMARDs, MTX and SSZ.

Pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of combination treatment with methotrexate and leflunomide in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE To examine the safety and pharmacokinetics of and clinical response to leflunomide, a de novo pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor, when administered to patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have been receiving long-term methotrexate therapy. METHODS This was an open-label, 52-week study in which 30 patients with RA that remained active despite therapy with methotrexate at 17+/-4 mg/week (mean +/- SD) for > or =6 months were given leflunomide, 10-20 mg/day. Patients were assessed for adverse effects, pharmacokinetic measurements of leflunomide and methotrexate, and clinical response by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% response criteria. RESULTS Twenty-three patients completed 1 year of treatment. No significant pharmacokinetic interactions between leflunomide and methotrexate were noted. This combination therapy was generally well tolerated clinically, with the exception of elevations of liver enzyme levels. Seven patients withdrew from the treatment regimen: 2 withdrawals were voluntary, 3 were due to persistent elevation of plasma transaminase levels, and 2 were due to lack of efficacy. Of the patients, 16 (53%) met ACR 20% response criteria. Two met ACR criteria for remission after 1 year. CONCLUSION The combination of methotrexate and leflunomide has therapeutic potential in RA.

Efficacy and safety of epratuzumab in patients with moderate/severe active systemic lupus erythematosus: results from EMBLEM, a phase IIb, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study

Objective To identify a suitable dosing regimen of the CD22-targeted monoclonal antibody epratuzumab in adults with moderately to severely active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods A phase IIb, multicentre, randomised controlled study (NCT00624351) was conducted with 227 patients (37–39 per arm) receiving either: placebo, epratuzumab 200 mg cumulative dose (cd) (100 mg every other week (EOW)), 800 mg cd (400 mg EOW), 2400 mg cd (600 mg weekly), 2400 mg cd (1200 mg EOW), or 3600 mg cd (1800 mg EOW). The primary endpoint (not powered for significance) was the week 12 responder rate measured using a novel composite endpoint, the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)-based Combined Lupus Assessment (BICLA). Results Proportion of responders was higher in all epratuzumab groups than with placebo (overall treatment effect test p=0.148). Exploratory pairwise analysis demonstrated clinical improvement in patients receiving a cd of 2400 mg epratuzumab (OR for 600 mg weekly vs placebo: 3.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 8.8), nominal p=0.03; OR for 1200 mg EOW vs placebo: 2.6 (0.9 to 7.1), nominal p=0.07). Post-hoc comparison of all 2400 mg cd patients versus placebo found an overall treatment effect (OR=2.9 (1.2 to 7.1), nominal p=0.02). Incidence of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and infusion reactions was similar between epratuzumab and placebo groups, without decreases in immunoglobulin levels and only partial reduction in B-cell levels. Conclusions Treatment with epratuzumab 2400 mg cd was well tolerated in patients with moderately to severely active SLE, and associated with improvements in disease activity. Phase III studies are ongoing.