POS0072 CONSISTENT LONG-TERM GUSELKUMAB EFFICACY ACROSS PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS DOMAINS IRRESPECTIVE OF BASELINE PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients (pts) with differing baseline (BL) characteristics may vary in their response to treatment. In the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 studies, guselkumab (GUS) significantly improved joint symptoms, skin disease, enthesitis, dactylitis, physical function, and quality of life at Week (W) 24 in pts with PsA.1,2 Clinical responses across these disease domains were maintained or increased with GUS at W52,3.4 regardless of BL pt demographics, disease characteristics, or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) use.5 Durable efficacy with GUS through W100 across multiple disease domains was observed.6

Objectives

Assess both BL predictors of, and by BL pt subgroups, GUS efficacy across PsA disease domains through W100 of DISCOVER-2.

Methods

Biologic-naïve adults with active PsA despite standard therapies were enrolled in DISCOVER-2 (swollen joint count [SJC] ≥5 & tender joint count [TJC] ≥5, C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥0.6 mg/dL). Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W); GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or placebo (PBO).2 GUS effects on joint, skin, enthesitis, dactylitis, spinal pain, and disease severity endpoints (change in Disease Activity in PsA [DAPSA], SJC, and TJC scores; Psoriasis [PsO] Area Severity Index [PASI] score [among pts with BL IGA ≥2 and body surface area [BSA] with PsO ≥3%]; Leeds enthesitis index [LEI] score [among pts with enthesitis at BL]; dactylitis score [among pts with dactylitis at BL]; spinal pain score; and PsA Disease Activity Score [PASDAS], respectively) at W100 were evaluated for GUS-randomized pts, both by treatment group and by pooling pts across Q4W and Q8W treatment arms. A multivariate linear model adjusting for BL pt characteristics assessed associations between BL predictors of interest and changes in DAPSA, PASI, and LEI scores from BL to W100, and to assess least squares mean (LSM) changes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in all continuous endpoints from BL to W100 within subgroups of pts defined by BL sex, body mass index (BMI), PsA duration, SJC, TJC, CRP level, %BSA, PASI score, and csDMARD use.

Results

442 (90%) GUS-randomized pts completed study treatment through W100.6 Among the BL predictors of long-term GUS efficacy assessed (see above), only PsA duration (p=0.032), SJC (p<0.001), and TJC (p<0.001) were significant predictors of long-term (BL to W100) DAPSA score change; %BSA (p=0.002), PASI score (<0.001), SJC (p=0.008), and csDMARD use (p=0.014) were significant predictors of long-term PASI score change; and none significantly predicted long-term LEI score change among pooled GUS pts (Figure 1). However, statistically significant improvements from BL to W100 in DAPSA, PASI, and LEI scores were observed across all BL strata, including those indicating more extensive or severe disease, in pooled GUS Q4W+Q8W pts (Figure 1, all p<0.001) and within each dosing group. Similar improvements were observed for other continuous endpoints assessed (change in Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score [PASDAS], SJC, TJC, spinal pain, and dactylitis score).

Conclusion

GUS significantly improved PsA signs and symptoms through W100 across all BL pt subgroups evaluated, including pts with highly active disease, and regardless of dosing regimen.

References

[1]Deodhar A et al. Lancet 2020;395:1115-25.

[2]Mease PJ et al. Lancet 2020;395;1126-36.

[3]Ritchlin CT et al. RMD Open 2021;7(1):e001457.

[4]McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021;73:604-16.

[5]Ritchlin CT et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:1291-2.

[6]McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021;doi: 10.1002/art.42010.

Disclosure of Interests

Iain McInnes Shareholder of: Causeway Therapeutics, and Evelo Compugen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Cabaletta, Compugen, GSK, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and UCB, John Tesser Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, CoreVitas, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma, Elena Schiopu Consultant of: Janssen, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Emmanouil Rampakakis Consultant of: Janssen, Employee of: JSS Medical Research, Natalie Shiff Shareholder of: AbbVie, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Frederic Lavie Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Paul Bird Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB

AB0526 SUSTAINED GUSELKUMAB RESPONSE IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS REGARDLESS OF BASELINE DEMOGRAPHIC AND DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS: POOLED RESULTS THROUGH WEEK 52 OF TWO PHASE 3, RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDIES

Background:

In the Phase 3 DISCOVER-11 & DISCOVER-22 trials, guselkumab (GUS), a human monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-23p19-subunit, was effective in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) across joint & skin endpoints. At Week 24 (W24), GUS benefit was consistent regardless of baseline (BL) demographic & disease characteristics.3

Objectives:

We assessed whether GUS efficacy was sustained through W52 in pooled DISCOVER-1 & -2 patients (pts) across select BL subgroups.

Methods:

Adults with active PsA despite standard therapies were enrolled in DISCOVER-1 (swollen [SJC] ≥3 & tender joint count [TJC] ≥3, C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥0.3 mg/dL) & DISCOVER-2 (SJC ≥5 & TJC ≥5, CRP ≥0.6 mg/dL). 31% of DISCOVER-1 pts had received 1-2 prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitors; DISCOVER-2 pts were biologic naïve. Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W); GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or placebo (PBO). Pts randomized to PBO received GUS 100 mg Q4W starting at W24 & were excluded from these analyses assessing maintenance of effect from W24 to W52. GUS effects on joint (American College of Rheumatology [ACR]20/50/70) & skin (Investigator’s Global Assessment [IGA=0/1 + ≥2-grade reduction from W0] in pts with ≥3% body surface area [BSA] with psoriasis & IGA ≥2 at W0) endpoints were evaluated by pt BL SJC, TJC, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) use, body mass index (BMI), PsA duration, & % BSA with psoriasis. Missing data were imputed as nonresponse through W52.

Results:

BL pt characteristics in DISCOVER-1 (N=381) & DISCOVER-2 (N=739) were well balanced across randomized groups.1,2 Among 1120 pooled pts, mean SJC was 11, mean TJC was 21, & 68% used csDMARDs (primarily methotrexate [MTX]). At W24, 62% (232/373) & 60% (225/375), respectively, of GUS Q4W- & Q8W-treated pts achieved ACR20 vs 29% (109/372) of PBO, with GUS effect consistently observed across pt BL subgroups (Figure 1). ACR20 response rates were sustained or increased at W52 in the GUS Q4W (72%) & Q8W (70%) groups & across SJC (61-79%), TJC (68-76%), & csDMARD use (68-80%) subgroups (Table 1) & pt subgroups defined by BL BMI, PsA duration, & % BSA with psoriasis (data not shown). ACR50 & 70 response patterns were similar to ACR20 (Table 1). In pts with ≥3% BSA psoriasis & IGA ≥2 at BL, 71% (193/273) & 66% (171/258) of GUS Q4W- & Q8W-treated pts, respectively, vs 18% (47/261) of PBO, achieved IGA 0/1 at W24, with GUS effect consistently observed across pt BL subgroups (Figure 1). IGA 0/1 response rates were also sustained or increased at W52 in the GUS Q4W (80%) & Q8W (71%) groups & across % BSA with psoriasis (67-87%) & csDMARD use (68-87%) subgroups (Table 1) & pt subgroups defined by BL BMI and PsA duration (data not shown).

Conclusion:

Treatment with GUS 100 mg Q4W & Q8W resulted in sustained improvement in signs & symptoms of active PsA through W52 regardless of pt BL characteristics.

References:

[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet 2020;395:1115-25;

[2]Mease P, et al. Lancet 2020;395:1126-36;

[3]Deodhar A, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2020; Poster P0908.

Figure 1

Figure 1Table 1.

ACR & IGA Responses at Weeks 24 & 52 & by Select BL Characteristics

Guselkumab Q4WGuselkumab Q8WN=373N=375Week 24Week 52Week 24Week 52ACR20, %62726070 SJC (<10/10-15/>15)68/59/5379/61/6757/66/6068/68/76 TJC (<10/10-15/>15)74/67/5673/76/6962/60/6075/68/68 csDMARD use (none/any/MTX)66/60/6380/68/6862/59/5773/68/68ACR50, %34493145 SJC (<10/10-15/>15)41/32/2058/39/3834/28/2646/40/49 TJC (<10/10-15/>15)51/41/2458/53/4340/33/2652/46/43 csDMARD use (none/any/MTX)36/33/3553/46/4836/29/2751/42/40ACR70, %16271627 SJC (<10/10-15/>15)22/10/732/20/2418/10/1930/23/26 TJC (<10/10-15/>15)29/19/934/32/2227/15/1435/28/24 csDMARD use (none/any/MTX)21/13/1430/26/2721/14/1434/24/23N=273N=258IGA 0/1, %71806671 BSA % with psoriasis(≥3-<10/≥10-<20/≥20)61/71/8076/87/7962/64/7267/72/74 csDMARD use (none/any/MTX)84/64/6787/77/7872/63/6477/68/68

Disclosure of Interests:

Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB Pharma, Philip J Mease Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB Pharma, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, John Tesser Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Crescendo Biosciences/Myriad, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Janssen, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Horizon, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck KG, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sun Pharma, Setpoint, and UCB Pharma, Elena Schiopu Consultant of: Janssen, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Yusang Jiang Employee of: Cytel, Inc., providing statistical support (funded by Janssen), Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB Pharma, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma.

FRI0100 COMPARISON OF PATIENTS (PTS) WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (RA) AMONG DISEASE ACTIVITY CATEGORIES AFTER 6 MONTHS OF TREATMENT WITH A TUMOUR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITOR (TNFI): RESULTS FROM THE CORRONA® RA REGISTRY

Background:

Targeting remission (REM) or low disease activity (LDA) is a widely accepted treatment strategy for RA. However, there are limited data on the proportion of pts who achieve these targets, or remain in moderate (MDA) or high disease activity (HDA) following advanced therapy.

Objectives:

To estimate the proportion of RA pts in disease activity states (REM, LDA, MDA, and HDA) who were biologic-naïve at initiation and had continuous treatment with a TNFi for 6–12 months in the Corrona RA registry.

Methods:

Eligible pts were aged ≥18 years, biologic-naïve, initiated TNFi treatment between January 1, 2010 and July 31, 2019, and had continuous use of a TNFi for 6–12 months. Disease activity was defined based on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at the visit closest to 6-month follow-up: REM, ≤2.8; LDA, >2.8–10; MDA, >10–22; and HDA, >22. Disease characteristics, disease activity measures, and pt-reported outcomes (PROs) were reported at TNFi initiation and at the 6-month follow-up visit.

Results:

2586 biologic-naïve pts who initiated a TNFi and had continuous use for 6–12 months were included. At TNFi initiation, 167 (6%) were in REM, 479 (19%) had LDA, 907 (35%) had MDA, and 1033 (40%) had HDA. After 6–12 months of treatment, 563 (21.8%) were in REM, 923 (35.7%) had LDA, 674 (26.1%) had MDA, and 426 (16.5%) had HDA. Pts with HDA/MDA at 6–12 months were more likely to have a history of hypertension (32.7% HDA; 34.0% MDA; vs 23.6% REM) and had higher mean body mass index (BMI) (30.9 HDA; 31.1 MDA; vs 29.0 REM) at baseline compared with pts in REM. Disease activity measures and PROs were worse in pts with MDA and HDA vs LDA and REM after 6–12 months (Table). Pt Global Assessment was higher than Physician Global Assessment across all groups.

Conclusion:

While 57.4% of pts who initiated a TNFi experienced a favorable outcome, >40% required additional or alternative intervention to achieve REM/LDA. Pts who remained in MDA/HDA continued to have an inadequate response to TNFi (as measured by disease activity measures and PROs) after 6–12 months of treatment compared with those who achieved REM/LDA.

Table

Summary of disease activity measures and PROs in previously biologic-naïve pts at the 6–12-month follow-up visit, stratified by disease activity category at the 6–12-month follow-up visit

Characteristics at 6–12 months, mean (standard deviation)Disease activity category at 6–12 monthsREM (n=563)LDA (n=923)MDA (n=674)HDA (n=426)CDAI1.2 (0.8)6.2 (2.1)15.4 (3.4)32.7 (9.2)Tender joint count (28)0.1 (0.3)1.0 (1.3)4.3 (3.3)13.4 (7.0)Swollen joint count (28)0.1 (0.3)1.1 (1.6)4.0 (3.6)9.1 (5.9)C-reactive protein6.4 (22.7)7.0 (10.6)11.1 (19.9)12.6 (22.1)Modified health assessment questionnaire0.1 (0.2)0.3 (0.4)0.5 (0.5)0.8 (0.5)Pt global assessment6.6 (6.8)28.6 (20.9)43.7 (25.7)58.0 (22.7)Physician global assessment3.6 (4.3)12.1 (10.4)27.4 (15.9)44.9 (19.8)Pt pain assessment8.7 (11.0)30.3 (23.5)46.1 (27.0)59.9 (24.4)Pt fatigue assessment15.7 (19.2)34.5 (26.6)48.3 (28.0)59.4 (27.5)Morning stiffness (min)16.5 (36.5)55.4 (146.3)96.9 (197.5)143.6 (260.0)

Disclosure of Interests:

Joel M Kremer Shareholder of: May own stocks and opinions, Grant/research support from: Research and consulting fees from AbbVie Inc., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Genentech, Inc., Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron and Sanofi, Employee of: Corrona, LLC employee, Anne Winkler Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, and Novratis, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Sanofi, Genentech, Celgene, Eli Lilly, and Novartis., Laura Anatale-Tardiff Employee of: Corrona, LLC employee, Robert McLean Employee of: Corrona, LLC, Ying Shan Employee of: Corrona, LLC employee, Page Moore Employee of: Corrona, LLC employee, Namita Tundia Shareholder of: May own stocks and options, Employee of: AbbVie employee, Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., John Tesser Consultant of: Sanofi/Regeneron, Speakers bureau: Sanofi/Regeneron

FRI0108 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CHANGES IN C-REACTIVE PROTEIN AT WEEK 12 AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AT WEEK 24 WITH SARILUMAB THERAPY ACROSS THREE PIVOTAL PHASE 3 STUDIES

Background:

Evaluation of early response to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy at 12 weeks after initiation is recommended in treatment guidelines. C-reactive protein (CRP) response at 12 weeks on therapy may indicate favorable longer-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Objectives:

To describe the association between CRP response at Week 12 and PROs at Week 24 with sarilumab therapy across three pivotal studies.

Methods:

The analysis included patients with RA who took part in MOBILITY (NCT01061736), TARGET (NCT01709578), or MONARCH (NCT02332590) and were treated with sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) or adalimumab 40 mg q2w (MONARCH only). Patients who achieved a CRP response at Week 12 (defined as serum CRP ≤3 mg/L) were evaluated for PROs at Week 24. Response for PROs was defined as change from baseline visual analog scale score ≥10 for pain, sleep, and morning stiffness and an increase of ≥4 for FACIT-Fatigue score. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated for the likelihood of achieving PRO responses at Week 24.

Results:

The proportions of patients achieving a CRP response at Week 12 were 78% (MOBILITY), 74% (TARGET), 80% (MONARCH, sarilumab), and 36% (MONARCH, adalimumab). Of these, 71.4% (MOBILITY; OR 3.78, 95% CI 2.31–6.18), 71.5% (TARGET; OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.44–5.65), 79.7% (MONARCH, sarilumab; OR 4.40, 95% CI 2.04–9.47), and 79.7% (MONARCH, adalimumab; OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.36–5.61) reported pain score responses at Week 24. Fatigue responses at Week 24 among Week 12 CRP responders were 66.6% (MOBILITY; OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.69–4.45), 59.9% (TARGET; OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.58–6.42), 73.0% (MONARCH, sarilumab; OR 4.78, 95% CI 2.21–10.33), and 64.1% (MONARCH, adalimumab; OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.88–3.06). Sleep was evaluated in MOBILITY only, and 58.2% of those achieving Week 12 CRP responses reported sleep score responses at Week 24 (OR 3.51, 95% CI 2.10–5.87). Morning stiffness responses (evaluated in TARGET and MONARCH only) at Week 24 among patients with Week 12 CRP responses were 71.5% (TARGET; OR 3.70, 95% CI 1.86–7.39), 81.1% (MONARCH, sarilumab; OR 5.36, 95% CI 2.47–11.63), and 75.0% (MONARCH, adalimumab; OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.24–4.72).

Conclusion:

Achievement of a CRP response at Week 12 in patients with RA treated with sarilumab 200 mg q2w or adalimumab 40 mg q2w was associated with improvements at Week 24 in PROs for pain, fatigue, sleep, and morning stiffness. Among patients with RA, CRP responses at 12 weeks on treatment predict favorable longer-term PRO improvements.

Acknowledgments:

Study funding was provided by Sanofi Genzyme (Cambridge, USA) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Tarrytown, USA). Medical writing support (Tracey Lonergan, Adelphi Communications Ltd, Macclesfield, UK) was provided by Sanofi Genzyme and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines.

Disclosure of Interests:

John Tesser Consultant of: Sanofi/Regeneron, Speakers bureau: Sanofi/Regeneron, Grace C. Wright Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exagen, Eli Lilly, Myriad Autoimmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exagen, Eli Lilly, Myriad Autoimmune, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, UCB, Jeff Kaine Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Karina Maslova Shareholder of: Sanofi Genzyme, Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme, Gregory St John Shareholder of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Kerri Ford Shareholder of: Sanofi Genzyme, Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme, Amy Praestgaard Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme, Ernest Choy Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bio-Cancer, Chugai Pharma, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Novimmune, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chelsea Therapeutics, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospita, Ionis, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MedImmune, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merrimack Pharmaceutical, Napp, Novartis, Novimmune, ObsEva, Pfizer, R-Pharm, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, SynAct Pharma, Sanofi Genzyme, Tonix, UCB, Speakers bureau: Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB

Effects of consuming foods containing oat beta-glucan on blood pressure, carbohydrate metabolism and biomarkers of oxidative stress in men and women with elevated blood pressure

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of consuming foods containing oat beta-glucan on blood pressure, carbohydrate homeostasis and biomarkers of oxidative stress.

DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial.

SETTING

The trial was conducted at two clinics.

SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Ninety-seven men and women with resting systolic blood pressure 130-179 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure 85-109 mm Hg were randomly assigned to consume foods containing oat beta-glucan or control foods for 12 weeks. Resting blood pressures, insulin and glucose values before and after standard breakfast meals, and four biomarkers of oxidative stress were measured before and at the end of the treatment period.

RESULTS

Changes from baseline to week 12 in mean peak insulin and incremental area under the insulin curve differed significantly between groups (P=0.037 and 0.034, respectively), with the beta-glucan group showing declines and the control group remaining essentially unchanged. Blood pressure responses were not significantly different between groups overall. However, in subjects with body mass index above the median (31.5 kg/m(2)), both systolic (8.3 mm Hg, P=0.008) and diastolic (3.9 mm Hg, P=0.018) blood pressures were lowered in the beta-glucan group compared to controls. No significant differences in biomarkers of oxidative stress were observed between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present trial suggest beneficial effects of foods containing beta-glucan from oats on carbohydrate metabolism, and on blood pressure in obese subjects.

Safety of extended treatment with anakinra in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety profile of anakinra after extended exposure in a diverse clinical trial population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

A six month, randomised, double blind phase comparing anakinra (100 mg/day) with placebo was followed by open label anakinra treatment for up to three years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Concomitant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, and other disease modifying antirheumatic drugs were permitted.

RESULTS

In all 1346 patients with rheumatoid arthritis received anakinra for up to three years. Patients had varying levels of disease severity, concomitant drug use, and comorbid conditions. Cumulative, exposure adjusted event (EAE) rates for all adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and deaths were similar during each year of anakinra treatment; the overall rate (0 to 3 years) was similar to that observed for controls during the blinded phase. The most frequent AEs were injection site reactions (122.26 events/100 patient-years), rheumatoid arthritis progression (67.80 events/100 patient-years), and upper respiratory infections (26.09 events/100 patient-years). The EAE rate of serious infections was higher for patients treated with anakinra for 0 to 3 years (5.37 events/100 patient-years) than for controls during the blinded phase (1.65 events/100 patient-years). However, if the patient was not receiving corticosteroid treatment at baseline, the serious infection rate was substantially lower (2.87 event/100 patient-years). The overall incidence of malignancies was consistent with expected rates reported by SEER. Neutralising antibodies developed in 25 patients, but appeared to be transient in 12; neutralising antibody status did not appear related to occurrence of malignancies or serious infections. There were no clinically significant trends in laboratory data related to anakinra.

CONCLUSION

Anakinra is safe and well tolerated for up to three years of continuous use in a diverse population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Results of a phase-I/II randomized, masked, placebo-controlled trial of recombinant human interleukin-11 (rhIL-11) in the treatment of subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis

Interleukin-11 (IL-11) is a pleiotropic cytokine that regulates the growth and development of hematopoietic stem cells and decreases the proinflammatory mediators of cytokine and nitric oxide production. In animal models of arthritis, treatment with recombinant human IL-11 (rhIL-11) reduces both the level of synovitis and the histologic lesion scores in the joints. The goal of this phase-I/II study in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was to evaluate the safety and clinical activity of different doses and schedules of rhIL-11 in patients with active RA for whom treatment with at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug had failed. This was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that evaluated the safety and tolerability of rhIL-11 in 91 patients with active RA. rhIL-11 was administered subcutaneously; patients were randomized into one of five treatment groups (ratio of rhIL-11 to placebo, 4:1). Patients were treated for 12 weeks with either 2.5 or 7.5 microg/kg of rhIL-11 or placebo twice per week or 5 or 15 microg/kg of rhIL-11 or placebo once per week. The status of each subject's disease activity in accordance with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria was assessed before, during, and after completion of administration of the study drug. Administration of rhIL-11 was well tolerated at all doses and schedules. The most frequent adverse event was a reaction at the injection site. The data suggest a statistically significant reduction in the number of tender joints (P < 0.008) at the 15 microg/kg once-weekly dose schedule but showed no overall significant benefit at the ACR criterion of a 20% response. The trial showed rhIL-11 to be safe and well tolerated at a variety of doses and schedules over a 12-week treatment period in patients with active RA. The only adverse event clearly associated with rhIL-11 administration was reaction at the injection site.

Clinical and immunologic effects of a PRIMATIZED anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody in active rheumatoid arthritis: results of a phase I, single dose, dose escalating trial

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this single infusion, dose escalation study was to evaluate the safety of the PRIMATIZED anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody (Mab), IDEC-CE9.1, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Twenty-five patients received single infusions of IDEC-CE9.1 in dose escalation form (0.03 to 4 mg/kg). Cohorts consisted of 3 patients each with seropositive RA. Following treatment, patients were monitored for 2 weeks before initiation of treatment of the next cohort. Peripheral blood samples were taken during and after treatment to measure immune function. Flow cytometry of peripheral blood mononuclear cells and in vitro proliferative responses to antigens and recall antigens were assessed pre and post-treatment. Cell surface markers CD3, CD4 (OKT4 and Leu 3a), CD8, CD20, CD25, CD45Ro, CD45Ra and DR were analyzed, and proliferation to mitogens and recall antigens was measured.

RESULTS

No infusion related adverse events were noted and other drug related adverse events were mild. Reduction in peripheral CD4 T cell number was brief (3 to 7 days) and not associated with infection. CD4 cell surface antigen downmodulation was observed postinfusion. Suppression of CD25 expression was associated with a positive clinical response. In vitro proliferative responses to mitogens and antigen were inhibited for up to one month with no association to positive clinical response.

CONCLUSION

IDEC-CE9.1 appears to have a benign safety profile and may modulate immune function rather than deplete CD4+ T cells.

How often does lateral spine DXA detect low bone mass in patients with both normal PA spine and hip?

The clinical utility of lateral bone mineral density (BMD) measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis remains controversial. Since both posterior-anterior (PA) spine and hip scans are universally performed, the true clinical utility of lateral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) should lie in its ability to detect low bone mass independent of both PA spine and hip. We examined lateral, PA and hip BMDs in 2134 referred Caucasian females aged 25-89 using the Hologic 2000. Compared only to PA scans, the additional percentages of women with very low BMD (T-score below -2.5 utilizing the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES] III normative database) on lateral were 7.3, 16.4, 28.2, 33.7, and 26.2% for age groups 25-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80-89, respectively. When the results from both PA and total hip measurements were combined, lower but still significant percentages were found: 5.4, 14.9, 24.4, 26.6, and 17.8% for age groups 25-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80-89, respectively. Utilizing the original Hologic normative database, the additional yield in women with a nonosteoporotic PA spine and femoral neck was quite low: 4.6, 8.5, 13.3, 10.0, and 2.5% for women age 25-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80-89, respectively. Thus, the lateral scans now add more additional patients into the very low BMD category. Whether the relationship to future fracture risk of low BMD and T-scores on lateral is similar to that of PA spine remains to be established.

How the new Hologic hip normal reference values affect the densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis

In February 1997, Hologic supplied new software to all QDR dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) machines replacing the previous femoral normative reference database with the NHANES III normative data. In addition to changing the normative database (and therefore T-scores) for all regions of the hip, the new software has changed the primary region of interest from the femoral neck to the total hip. In the present study we examined how these changes influence the densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis in a large clinical referral population (n = 2311, mean age 62.7 years). The patients had spine and hip DXA performed at either of two centers using a Hologic QDR-2000 over a 4-year period. T-scores were derived for each patient using both previous and current young normal reference databases. Intraindividual differences in T-scores were calculated. The prevalence of osteoporosis based on the two normative databases and the difference between the prevalence was calculated for each skeletal site. The average paired difference between current and previous T-scores at femoral neck is 0.64, the difference increasing with age. Using the new normative database, the percentage of osteoporotic patients decreases from 49% of all patients at the femoral neck to 28% at the femoral neck and 20% at the total hip. In conclusion, the densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis will be affected in a significant proportion of women as a result of the implementation of the new hip normative database supplied by Hologic. Whether this will translate into fewer patients being treated remains to be seen.

Combination treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis with cyclosporine and methotrexate for forty-eight weeks: an open-label extension study. The Methotrexate-Cyclosporine Combination Study Group

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the clinical benefit and favorable safety profile previously noted with the combination of cyclosporine (CSA) and methotrexate (MTX) given for 24 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) would be maintained for a further 24 weeks, and whether the addition of CSA in patients who had previously been randomized to receive placebo + MTX would result in clinical benefit.

METHODS

Eligible subjects from the initial study (weeks 0-24), in which the addition of placebo or CSA to MTX therapy was compared in patients with RA that was partially responsive to MTX, were enrolled. Patients who had received CSA + MTX continued this regimen for a further 24 weeks (weeks 24-48) (group 1; n = 48), and patients who had initially received placebo + MTX now received CSA + MTX for 24 weeks (weeks 24-48) (group 2; n = 44), in an open-label extension study. The primary outcome measures were the number of tender joints, number of swollen joints, physician and patient global assessments, pain, functional disability as measured by the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate.

RESULTS

Of the 92 patients enrolled, 80 (87%) completed the extension study. In patients in group 1, the clinically and statistically significant improvement in response outcomes previously noted at week 24, ranging from 25% to 50%, was maintained through week 48. In patients in group 2, the addition of CSA resulted in significant clinical improvement. By week 48, most outcome measures in group 2 patients were similar to those in group 1 patients. CSA treatment resulted in a small increase in serum creatinine levels, but only 1 patient was withdrawn from the study for this reason.

CONCLUSION

The clinical improvement previously observed in patients treated with the CSA + MTX combination for 24 weeks was maintained for 24 subsequent weeks, without serious adverse effects, and was also observed in the patients whose treatment was switched from placebo + MTX to CSA + MTX.

Combination therapy with cyclosporine and methotrexate in severe rheumatoid arthritis. The Methotrexate-Cyclosporine Combination Study Group

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis who are treated with methotrexate frequently have only partial improvement.

METHODS

In a six-month randomized, double-blind trial, we compared combination therapy with cyclosporine (2.5 to 5 mg per kilogram of body weight per day in two divided doses at 12-hour intervals) and methotrexate (at the maximal tolerated dose) with methotrexate and placebo in 148 patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had residual inflammation and disability despite partial but substantial responses to prior methotrexate treatment. The primary outcome measure was the change in the number of tender joints.

RESULTS

The mean (+/- SD) dose of cyclosporine at the final treatment was 2.97 +/- 1.02 mg per kilogram per day. As compared with the placebo group, the patients in the treatment group had a net improvement in the tender-joint count of 25 percent, or 4.8 joints (95 percent confidence interval, 0.7 to 8.9; P = 0.02), and in the swollen-joint count of 25 percent, or 3.8 joints (95 percent confidence interval, 1.3 to 6.3; P = 0.005); improvement in overall disease activity as assessed by the physician (19 percent, P < 0.001) and the patient (21 percent, P < 0.001); and improvement in joint pain (23 percent, P = 0.04) and in the degree of disability (26 percent, P < 0.001). The mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate increased by 4.2 mm per hour in the cyclosporine group and decreased by 4.8 mm per hour in the placebo group (P = 0.006). Thirty-six patients (48 percent) in the cyclosporine group and 12 patients (16 percent) in the placebo group (P < 0.001) met the 1993 criteria for improvement of the American College of Rheumatology (more than 20 percent improvement in the numbers of both swollen and tender joints and improvement in three of five other variables). Seventeen patients in the cyclosporine group and 12 patients in the placebo group were withdrawn from the study; 2 patients in the cyclosporine group died, 1 from viral pneumonia and the other in a motor vehicle accident. Serum creatinine concentrations increased by a mean of 0.14 +/- 0.27 mg per deciliter (12 +/- 24 mmol per liter) in the cyclosporine group and by 0.05 +/- 0.19 mg per deciliter (4 +/- 17 mmol per liter) in the placebo group (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In a six-month study, patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis and only partial responses to methotrexate had clinically important improvement after combination therapy with cyclosporine and methotrexate. Side effects were not substantially increased. Long-term follow-up of patients treated with this combination is needed.