Opioid use surrounding diagnosis and follow-up in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis: Results from US claims databases

OBJECTIVE

To describe patients' use of opioids in the year preceding and year following new diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA), compared with patients without the/se diseases.

METHODS

This study used US IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE) and Medicaid data and included three cohorts, comprised of incident cases of AS, PsA, or RA (2010-2017). Three matched comparator patients (without the incident disease) were selected for each patient within the disease cohort. Opioid use and appropriate treatment exposure (as defined by US guideline recommendations) in the 12-month baseline and follow-up periods were evaluated using descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Prevalence of claims for opioids was higher for disease cohorts vs. comparators in CCAE; 36.4% of patients with AS, 29.5% with PsA, and 44.4% with RA did not have any claim for guideline-appropriate therapy in follow-up. Prevalence of claims for opioids was also higher for disease cohorts vs. comparators in Medicaid; 30.6% of patients with AS, 36.6% with PsA, and 65.4% with RA did not have any claim for guideline-appropriate therapy in follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AS, PsA, or RA, there was high reliance on opioids at and around the time of diagnosis. Significant proportions of patients were not on appropriate treatment as defined by professional society post-diagnosis guidelines; this discordance between actual patient therapies and treatment recommendations may suggest a need for better awareness of appropriate pain management and treatment strategies in rheumatic diseases. Key Points • This study analysed opioid use among patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and adds to current knowledge by expanding beyond assessment of opioid use at diagnosis, to the year before and after diagnosis. • Opioid use was found to be highly prevalent in AS, PsA, and RA in the year prior to diagnosis and, interestingly, was still seen during the year after diagnosis. • Opioids are neither disease modifying, nor a targeted/recommended treatment for chronic autoimmune diseases. In addition to their association with significant economic costs, opioids are potentially hazardous and are not better than alternative treatments with superior safety profiles. • The reasons behind opioid prescribing patterns should be explored further to support movement to targeted therapies.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials

OBJECTIVE

To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

METHODS

Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains.

RESULTS

WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains.

CONCLUSION

Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table.

RESULTS

We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table.

CONCLUSION

We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Generating a list of potentially important contextual factors covering randomized trials, cohorts, and measurement property studies: An OMERACT initiative

OBJECTIVES

To generate candidates for contextual factors (CFs) for each CF type (i.e., Effect Modifying Contextual Factors (EM-CFs), Outcome Influencing Contextual Factors (OI-CFs), and Measurement Affecting Contextual Factors (MA-CFs)) considered important within rheumatology.

METHODS

We surveyed OMERACT working groups and conducted a Special Interest Group (SIG) session at the OMERACT 2023 meeting, where the results were reviewed, and additional CFs suggested.

RESULTS

The working groups suggested 44, 49, and 21 generic EM-CFs, OI-CFs, and MA-CFs, respectively. SIG participants added 49, 44, and 55 factors, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Candidate CFs were identified, next step is a consensus-based set of endorsed (important) CFs.

Putting Patients First

They were some of the hardest phone calls I'd ever had to make. After more than 25 years of practice, I had to tell patients I'd been seeing for that entire period that I could no longer be their doctor.

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis: expanding the spectrum of an old disease: A narrative review

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) represents a distinct phenotype within the spectrum of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), which is characterized by a range of clinical manifestations. Despite a high disease burden that is comparable to ankylosing spondylitis (also known as radiographic axSpA), there is an unmet need to recognize and effectively manage patients with active nr-axSpA.A targeted literature search was conducted in OVID (MEDLINE and Embase databases) to identify articles on nr-axSpA, including its definition, demographics, epidemiology, burden, diagnosis, clinical presentation, and treatment guidelines.The lack of adequate epidemiological data and incomplete understanding of nr-axSpA among rheumatologists and nonrheumatologists contributes to delayed referrals and diagnosis. This delay results in a substantial burden on patients, physically and psychologically, and the healthcare system. Targeted therapies, such as biologics, including inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor or interleukin-17A, have been approved and utilized for the management of nr-axSpA, and other novel therapeutics with different mechanisms of action are in development. Raising awareness among US internists regarding the prevalence of nr-axSpA, disease burden, clinical presentation, diagnostic tools, and available treatments is important for improved disease management.Future clinical investigations focusing on the development of markers that aid early diagnosis and predict treatment response may also improve the management of nr-axSpA. This review provides an overview of nr-axSpA with the aim of raising awareness of the disease among US internists, with an overarching goal to contribute toward the improved recognition and timely referral of these patients to rheumatologists for diagnosis and management.

Occurrence of Possible Rheumatologic Immune-Related Adverse Events (rh-irAEs) Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) Therapy

Introduction

Current epidemiologic literature of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events (rh-irAEs) consists of clinical trials, case reports, or smaller, single-center series. We evaluate the occurrence of rh-irAEs during immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy from US commercial claims data.

Methods

Patients newly initiating ICI therapy in commercial claims data were eligible for inclusion. Rh-irAEs were defined using ≥ 1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 or ICD-10-Clinical Modification (CM) claims for selected events, ranging from joint pain and myalgia to ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis. The percentage of patients experiencing rh-irAEs after ICI initiation was determined.

Results

A total of 5722 patients initiating an ICI between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2018, were included; 201 patients (3.5%) had a history of rheumatic disease. Among the 5521 patients without a history of rheumatic disease, 29.6% experienced ≥ 1 rh-irAE in follow-up, decreasing to 22.6% when assessing events for which there was no diagnostic history. Limiting to claims for rh-irAE with a rheumatologist provider, the proportion of patients experiencing an event decreased to 0.9%. Among patients with a history of rheumatic disease, 71.6% experienced ≥ 1 rh-irAE. Limiting to events for which the patient did not have a history during baseline, 35.3% experienced an event.

Conclusions

Occurrence of rh-irAEs during ICI use is higher in patients with pre-existing rheumatic disease compared to those with no pre-existing rheumatic disease. However, the most common events were not definitive rheumatic diseases but rather symptoms, such as pain in joints. Occurrence of events associated with a rheumatologist provider was substantially lower, suggesting that either patients are not referred to a rheumatologist or referral does not result in confirmation of the diagnosis by the rheumatologist.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00359-z.

Improving domain definition and outcome instrument selection: Lessons learned for OMERACT from imaging

OBJECTIVES

Imaging is one of the most rapidly evolving fields in medicine. Unfortunately, many imaging technologies have been applied as measurement instruments without rigorous evaluation of the evidence supporting their truth, discriminatory capability and feasibility for that context of use. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA) is used to evaluate such evidence for use of an instrument in a research setting. The objectives of this work are to: [1] define and describe the key conceptual aspects that are essential for the evaluation of imaging as an outcome measurement instrument and [2] describe how these aspects can be assessed through OFISA.

METHODS

Experts in imaging and/or methodology met to formalize concepts and define key steps. These concepts were discussed with a team of patient research partners with interest in imaging to refine technical and methodological aspects into comprehensible information. A workshop was held at OMERACT2020 and feedback was incorporated into existing OMERACT process for domain and instrument selection.

RESULTS

Three key lessons were identified: (1) a clear definition of the domain we want to measure is a necessary prerequisite to the selection of a good instrument, (2) the sources of variability that can directly influence the instrument should be clearly identified, (3) incorporating these first two lessons into OFISA improves the quality of every instrument selection process.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of these lessons in the updated OMERACT Filter (now 2.2) will improve the quality of the selection process for all types of outcome measurement instruments.

Endorsement of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials: Results from a multi-stepped consensus-building approach

OBJECTIVE

To gain consensus on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

METHODS

The process followed the OMERACT Filter 2.1 methodology, and used consensus-building methods, with patients involved since the inception. After developing the draft core domain set in previous research, we conducted five steps: (i) improving the draft core domain set; (ii) developing and disseminating white-board videos to promote its understanding; (iii) conducting an electronic survey to gather feedback on the draft core domain set; (iv) finalizing the core domain set and developing summaries, a plenary session video and discussion boards to promote its understanding; and (v) conducting virtual workshops with voting to endorse the core domain set.

RESULTS

A total of 167 participants from 28 countries answered the survey (62% were patients/caregivers). Most participants rated domains as relevant (81%-95%) and clear (82%-93%). A total of 149 participants (n = 48 patients/caregivers, 101 clinicians/researchers) participated in virtual workshops and voted on the proposed core domain set which received endorsement by 95%. Endorsed domains are: 1- Knowledge of options, their potential benefits and harms; 2- Chosen option aligned with each patient's values and preferences; 3- Confidence in the chosen option; 4- Satisfaction with the decision-making process; 5- Adherence to the chosen option and 6- Potential negative consequences of the SDM intervention.

CONCLUSION

We achieved consensus among an international group of stakeholders on the OMERACT core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. Future research will develop the Core Outcome Measurement Set.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Prior to this study, there had been no consensus on the OMERACT core domain set for SDM interventions. The current study shows that the OMERACT core domain set achieved a high level of endorsement by key stakeholders, including patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers.

A Benefit Risk Review of Pediatric Use of Hydrocodone/Chlorpheniramine, a Prescription Opioid Antitussive Agent for the Treatment of Cough

Hydrocodone/chlorpheniramine is a prescription opioid licensed in the USA for the relief of cough and upper respiratory symptoms associated with allergy or cold in adults, previously contraindicated in children aged < 6 years. We present findings from a modern benefit risk review of hydrocodone/chlorpheniramine use as an antitussive agent in patients aged 6 to < 18 years. A cumulative search of the manufacturer’s pharmacovigilance database covering 1 January 1900–7 August 2017 identified all individual case safety reports (ICSRs) associated with product family name “hydrocodone/chlorpheniramine.” The search was inclusive of all MedDRA system organ classes, stratified by age (< 18 years). A comprehensive review of the scientific literature was conducted on safety and efficacy of opioids for pediatric treatment of cough. Three hundred and ninety-one ICSRs associated with hydrocodone/chlorpheniramine were identified; 35/391 ICSRs were in patients < 18 years of age; 18 were considered serious. Four fatalities were reported in patients 6 to < 18 years; two fatalities involved co-suspect medication azithromycin and two were poorly documented. Our literature search identified no robust efficacy data for hydrocodone/chlorpheniramine in the relief of cough and upper respiratory symptoms associated with allergy or cold in patients aged 6 to < 18 years. As we found no evidence of hydrocodone/chlorpheniramine efficacy in the pediatric population, we conclude that the benefit risk profile is unfavorable. This evidence contributed to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) recent decision that hydrocodone-containing cough and cold medications should no longer be indicated for treatment of cough in patients < 18 years, highlighting the value of proactive re-evaluation of the benefit risk profile of older established drugs.

Plain Language Summary

People often use medicines containing opioids to treat cough symptoms. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently decided that cough medicines containing opioids should not be used by children under 18 years old. Part of this decision was a review of the benefits and risks of using cough medicines that contain the opioid hydrocodone in children.

Why was this review carried out? Most cough medicines that doctors can prescribe were approved several decades ago. Since then, rules for the approval of medicines have become stricter. In this review, researchers looked at the safety of hydrocodone, and how well this opioid relieves cough symptoms in children. Up-to-date information and modern research methods were used.

The two key pieces of evidence found were:

We could not locate any clinical trials providing robust evidence for the use of hydrocodone for cough relief in children under 18 years of age. (Outside the scope of this review, a number of clinical trials of hydrocodone-containing cough medicines in adults aged 18 years and over have shown the medicine to be effective in these patients.)

Cough medicines containing opioids can cause harmful side effects in children such as breathing problems. In the research reported here, ten children died after taking a hydrocodone-containing cough medicine. Nine of these deaths were due to overdose.

This evidence was used to draw the following conclusions:

In children under 18 years of age, the risks of using hydrocodone for cough relief are greater than any benefits.

Older medicines should be reviewed regularly to look at their safety and how well they are working using up-to-date evidence.

Identifying Possible Outcome Domains from Existing Outcome Measures to Inform an OMERACT Core Domain Set for Safety in Rheumatology Trials

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Safety Working Group objective was to identify harm domains from existing outcome measurements in rheumatology.

METHODS

Systematically searching the MEDLINE database on January 24, 2017, we identified full-text articles that could be used for harm outcomes in rheumatology. Domains/items from the identified instruments were described and the content synthesized to provide a preliminary framework for harm outcomes.

RESULTS

From 435 possible references, 24 were read in full text and 9 were included: 7 measurement instruments were identified. Investigation of domains/items revealed considerable heterogeneity in the grouping and approach.

CONCLUSION

The ideal way to assess harm aspects from the patients' perspective has not yet been ascertained.

The Third Biennial 2018 OMERACT First-time Participant Program: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the expanded/refined first-time participant training program.

METHODS

We conducted a refined new participant program at OMERACT 2018 on days 1-4, in which first-time participants provided feedback with online surveys and a nominal group on Day 4.

RESULTS

Twenty first-time participants attended the introductory session and 8-12 attended followup sessions. A high proportion valued the newbie session (100%), rating it overall (91%), content-wise (62%), for presentation quality (82%), and value for the money (82%) as outstanding or good. The nominal group technique identified opportunities for further improvement of breakouts/voting.

CONCLUSION

The expanded new participant training program is valued by attendees.

Opioid Use in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis Is Common in the United States: Outcomes of a Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of chronic opioid use in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and to compare the characteristics of patients with and without chronic opioid use.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with AS identified in the Truven Health MarketScan Research database between January 1, 2012, and March 31, 2017. Commercial and Medicaid claims data were examined using both specific (720.0 and M45.x) and broader (720.x and M45.x) International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding definitions. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years on the date of first qualifying ICD code occurrence (the index date). Demographics and clinical characteristics were assessed in the 12-month period preceding the index date. The 12-month followup period was used to assess prevalence and characteristics of chronic opioid use.

RESULTS

Chronic opioid use was common among patients with commercial claims (23.5% of ICD 720.0 patients; 27.3% of ICD 720.x patients), and especially those with Medicaid claims (57.1% and 76.7%, respectively). The proportion of patients with claims for anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies during followup was often low, and for Medicaid patients was lower among those with chronic opioid use (29.6% of ICD 720.0 patients; 2.3% of ICD 720.x patients) than those without (47.1% and 7.1%, respectively). Among chronic opioid users in all cohorts, the cumulative supply of opioids was typically high (≥ 270 days in the followup period); most opioids prescribed were Schedule II.

CONCLUSION

Patients with AS receive opioids with disturbing frequency. The infrequent prescription of recommended therapies to these patients reflects a need to optimize treatment further through education of patients and healthcare professionals alike.

The OMERACT First-time Participant Program: Fresh Eye from the New Guys

OBJECTIVE

To describe the experience of the first-time participant (newbie) training program at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2016 meeting.

METHODS

We conducted new participant sessions at OMERACT 2016, including a 2-h introductory session on Day 1 followed by 1-h evening followup sessions on days 1-4. Pre- and post-meeting surveys assessed participants' levels of comfort with the principles of the OMERACT Filter 2.0 (the essential tools for OMERACT methodology) and the different types of OMERACT sessions, and whether participants felt welcome. In addition, on the final day, a nominal group technique was used to elicit problematic components of the meeting and to develop solutions to those problems.

RESULTS

Of the 43 new attendees, 38 participated in the introductory session and 14-18 attended the followup sessions. Comparing Day 1 (preintroductory session) to days 1-3 (post), a similar proportion understood different types of sessions extremely well [45% (pre) versus 47%, 44%, and 36% (post), respectively], and a higher proportion understood principles of the OMERACT filter extremely well [22% (pre) versus 55%, 44%, and 40% (post), respectively]. Most reported feeling welcome (86.7%) and felt they contributed to breakout sessions (93.3%) on the evening of Day 1; results were sustained on days 2-3. The most commonly reported "best" experience included the OMERACT culture and the most common reported experience needing improvement included facilitation issues during breakouts.

CONCLUSION

The first-time participants came to OMERACT 2016 with a high baseline level of understanding. They rapidly attained a high comfort level with participation and provided concrete and innovative solutions to the most commonly reported experiences needing improvement.

Risk of QT prolongation and torsade de pointes associated with exposure to hydroxyzine: re-evaluation of an established drug

Several noncardiac drugs have been linked to cardiac safety concerns, highlighting the importance of post‐marketing surveillance and continued evaluation of the benefit‐risk of long‐established drugs. Here, we examine the risk of QT prolongation and/or torsade de pointes (TdP) associated with the use of hydroxyzine, a first generation sedating antihistamine. We have used a combined methodological approach to re‐evaluate the cardiac safety profile of hydroxyzine, including: (1) a full review of the sponsor pharmacovigilance safety database to examine real‐world data on the risk of QT prolongation and/or TdP associated with hydroxyzine use and (2) nonclinical electrophysiological studies to examine concentration‐dependent effects of hydroxyzine on a range of human cardiac ion channels. Based on a review of pharmacovigilance data between 14th December 1955 and 1st August 2016, we identified 59 reports of QT prolongation and/or TdP potentially linked to hydroxyzine use. Aside from intentional overdose, all cases involved underlying medical conditions or concomitant medications that constituted at least 1 additional risk factor for such events. The combination of cardiovascular disorders plus concomitant treatment of drugs known to induce arrhythmia was identified as the greatest combined risk factor. Parallel patch‐clamp studies demonstrated hydroxyzine concentration‐dependent inhibition of several human cardiac ion channels, including the ether‐a‐go‐go‐related gene (hERG) potassium ion channels. Results from this analysis support the listing of hydroxyzine as a drug with “conditional risk of TdP” and are in line with recommendations to limit hydroxyzine use in patients with known underlying risk factors for QT prolongation and/or TdP.

Efficacy of Lumiracoxib in Osteoarthritis: A Review of Nine Studies

Lumiracoxib is a cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor in development for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis and acute pain. We reviewed nine clinical studies of 1 − 52 weeks' duration demonstrating the efficacy of lumiracoxib in OA. Male and female patients aged ≥ 18 years with primary OA of the hand, hip or knee received lumiracoxib, placebo or active comparators (diclofenac, celecoxib or rofecoxib). Lumiracoxib provided consistent reductions in OA pain intensity and improvements in the patient's global assessment of disease activity and functional status (assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire or the Australian/Canadian OA Hand Index). These results were superior to placebo and similar to the active comparators tested. In addition, lumiracoxib was consistently superior to placebo and generally similar to active comparators in terms of the new Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International criteria. These were used to provide a single measure of response to treatment, taking into account pain, the patient's global assessment of disease activity and functional status.

The OMERACT First-time Participant ("Newbie") Program: Initial Assessment and Lessons Learned

OBJECTIVE

To describe the experience of a first-time participant ("newbie") training program at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology 12 meeting in 2014.

METHODS

We conducted newbie sessions at OMERACT 12, including a 2-hour introductory session on Day 1, followed by 1-h evening followup sessions on days 1-4 of OMERACT 12. Pre- and postmeeting surveys assessed participants' level of comfort with the principles of the OMERACT Filters 1.0 (truth, discrimination, feasibility), and Filter 2.0 (the essential tools for OMERACT methodology), the different types of OMERACT sessions, and whether participants felt welcome.

RESULTS

In all, 25 new attendees participated in the introductory session and 10-16 attended followup sessions. Fewer participants reported being somewhat or extremely uncomfortable with the meeting, comparing Day 1 (preintroductory session) to days 1-4 (post): (1) with different OMERACT sessions: 56% (pre) versus 6%, 0%, 8%, and 6% (post days 1-4, respectively); and (2) with principles of the OMERACT filter, 64% (pre) versus 7%, 0%, 8%, and 0% (post), respectively. Most reported feeling welcome (100%) and that they were able to contribute substantively to breakout sessions (87%) on Day 1 evening; results were sustained on days 2-4.

CONCLUSION

First-time participant training sessions increased the comfort level of the participants with the OMERACT meeting structure and filter, and increased the ability of the new attendees to feel they could contribute to the OMERACT process.

Apremilast: a novel PDE4 inhibitor in the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases

Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) is a key enzyme in the degradation of cyclic adenosine monophosphate and is centrally involved in the cytokine production of inflammatory cells, angiogenesis, and the functional properties of other cell types such as keratinocytes. In this review article, apremilast, a novel small molecule inhibitor of PDE4, is introduced. Apremilast has profound anti-inflammatory properties in animal models of inflammatory disease, as well as human chronic inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Apremilast blocks the synthesis of several pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin 23, CXCL9, and CXCL10 in multiple cell types. In contrast to the biologics, which neutralize pro-inflammatory mediators at the protein level, apremilast modulates production of these mediators at the level of mRNA expression. Apremilast also interferes with the production of leukotriene B4, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and matrix metalloproteinase and reduces complex inflammatory processes, such as dendritic cell infiltration, epidermal skin thickening, and joint destruction. As this novel PDE4 inhibitor interferes with several key processes of inflammation, it may emerge as a promising new drug for the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases such as those of the skin and the joints.

Preliminary evidence for a structural benefit of the new bisphosphonate zoledronic acid in early rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast activity, which is central to the development of bone damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to assess whether treatment with zoledronic acid, compared with placebo, could achieve a > or = 50% reduction in the development of new erosions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with early RA.

METHODS

In this proof-of-concept study, 39 patients with early RA and clinical synovitis of the hand/wrist were randomized to receive infusions with either zoledronic acid (5 mg) or placebo, administered at baseline and week 13. Patients in both groups received methotrexate (MTX) at a dosage of 7.5-20 mg/week. MRI and plain radiography were performed at baseline and week 26.

RESULTS

At week 26, the mean +/- SD change in MRI hand and wrist erosions was 61% lower in the zoledronic acid group compared with the placebo group (0.9 +/- 1.63 versus 2.3 +/- 3.09; P = 0.176). The mean +/- SD increase in the number of hand and wrist bones with erosions was 0.3 +/- 0.75 for zoledronic acid compared with 1.4 +/- 1.77 for placebo (P = 0.029). The proportion of patients in whom new MRI-visualized bone edema developed was smaller in the zoledronic acid group compared with the placebo group (33% versus 58%; P = 0.121). The zoledronic acid group had a mean change in the number of radiographic erosions of 0.1 compared with 0.5 for the placebo group (P = 0.677). The safety profile of zoledronic acid was similar to that of placebo.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest a structural benefit associated with zoledronic acid therapy in patients with RA, as demonstrated by consistent results in structural end points in favor of zoledronic acid plus MTX compared with MTX alone.

Lumiracoxib is effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a prospective randomized 13-week study versus placebo and celecoxib

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of lumiracoxib compared with placebo and celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Following a 3- to 7-day washout period for previous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 1,600 patients aged >or=18 years with primary knee OA were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 200 or 400 mg once daily (o.d.), celecoxib 200 mg o.d. or placebo for 13 weeks. Primary efficacy variables were OA pain intensity in the target knee, patient's global assessment of disease activity and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale and total scores at week 13. Secondary variables included OA pain intensity in the target knee and physician's and patient's global assessments of disease activity by visit. Exploratory analysis of responder rates using the Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria was performed. Safety and tolerability were assessed. Lumiracoxib was superior to placebo in all primary and secondary variables and was generally similar to celecoxib. There were no statistically significant differences between the two doses of lumiracoxib. All active treatments were significantly more effective than placebo at weeks 2 and 13 in terms of response to treatment assessed using OMERACT-OARSI criteria. The incidence of adverse events was similar across the groups. Lumiracoxib 200 mg o.d. is a well-tolerated and effective treatment option for OA of the knee, providing pain relief and improved functional status with efficacy superior to placebo and similar to celecoxib. Lumiracoxib demonstrated a tolerability profile similar to placebo and celecoxib.

Efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily in knee osteoarthritis: a 13-week, randomized, double-blind study vs. placebo and celecoxib

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of lumiracoxib for knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

This was a 13-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study. Males or females aged >/= 18 years with primary knee OA received lumiracoxib 100 mg od, lumiracoxib 100 mg od with a loading dose of 200 mg od for the first two weeks, celecoxib 200 mg od, or placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Co-primary variables, assessed at week 13, were OA pain intensity in the target knee, patient's global assessment of disease activity and the WOMAC total score. Other variables included OMERACT-OARSI responder rates and WOMAC subscale scores. Safety and tolerability were evaluated.

RESULTS

All active treatments were superior to placebo for all co-primary variables. No significant differences were observed between any active treatments. Mean reductions from baseline to week 13 for lumiracoxib 100mg od, 100mg od with loading dose, celecoxib and placebo, respectively, were: OA pain intensity in the target knee: 26.8, 26.2, 26.6 and 21.4mm (all p < 0.01 vs. placebo); patient's global assessment of disease activity: 25.1, 21.9, 22.9 and 18.9 mm (all p < 0.05 vs. placebo); WOMAC total score: 15.2, 14.8, 14.7 and 11.3 (all p < 0.01 vs. placebo). Lumiracoxib was superior to placebo and similar to celecoxib for OMERACT-OARSI response and WOMAC subscale scores. Lumiracoxib was well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events was similar across groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumiracoxib 100 mg od provided effective relief from the pain of knee OA, with efficacy similar to celecoxib 200 mg od, and was well tolerated.

Lumiracoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and acute postoperative dental pain: results of three dose-response studies

OBJECTIVES

Overview of three dose-response studies demonstrating the efficacy of lumiracoxib, a novel COX-2 selective inhibitor, for chronic pain associated with osteoarthritis (0A), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and acute pain following dental extraction.

METHODS

OA and RA: 4-week, randomized, placebo- and active-controlled studies of similar design. Patients (OA, n = 583; RA, n = 571) received lumiracoxib 50 mg, 100 mg or 200 mg twice daily (bid), lumiracoxib 400 mg once daily (od), diclofenac 75 mg bid or placebo. Dental: 12-h, single-center, randomized, placebo- and active-controlled study. Patients (n = 202) received single oral doses of lumiracoxib 100 mg or 400 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg or placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

OA: pain intensity (PI) in the target joint (visual analogue scale [VAS]) and WOMAC score at Week 4; RA: overall PI (VAS) and ACR20 response at Week 4; Dental: difference (PID, categorical and VAS) score over 12h post dose, time to onset of analgesia.

RESULTS

Throughout the OA study, all lumiracoxib doses provided superior reductions in PI versus placebo and at Week 4, all lumiracoxib doses provided efficacy similar to each other and to diclofenac. In the RA study, lumiracoxib 100 mg bid, 200 mg bid and 400mg od were significantly better than placebo in PI at Weeks 1 and 2 (all p < 0.05) but demonstrated borderline significance at Week 4 (lumiracoxib 400 mg od, p = 0.06). In pain following dental surgery, PID scores for both lumiracoxib doses were superior to placebo from 1.5 h onwards and always comparable, or superior, to ibuprofen. Lumiracoxib 400 mg had the fastest onset of analgesia, measured as median time to confirmed first perceptible pain relief using the two-stopwatch method (37.4 min, superiority versus placebo, p < 0.001). Lumiracoxib was well tolerated in all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies provide initial evidence that lumiracoxib is an effective, well-tolerated agent for the treatment of chronic and acute pain.

Efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib in the treatmentof osteoarthritis of the knee: A 13-week, randomized, double-blind comparison with celecoxib and placebo

BACKGROUND

Lumiracoxib is a cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitor developed for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis, and acute pain.

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib 100 mg QD compared with celecoxib and placebo in patients with OA of the knee.

METHODS

In this 13-week, double-blind, double-dummy,placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients with primary OA of the knee and pain intensity in the target knee a 40 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale after a 3- to 7-day washout of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 100 mg QD, lumiracoxib 100 mg QD with a loading dose of lumiracoxib 200 mg QD for the first 2 weeks, celecoxib 200 mg QD, or placebo. Three primary efficacy variables were assessed at the end of the study: pain intensity in the target knee, the patient's global assessment of disease activity, and functional status (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index total score). In addition, the treatment response was assessed using the Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT OARSI) criteria. The safety profile and tolerability of all treatments were also examined.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 1551 patients (primarily white; 62% female; mean age, 60.5 years): 391 were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 100 mg QD, 385 lumiracoxib 100 mg QD with a loading dose, 393 celecoxib 200 mg QD, and 382 placebo. Treatment groups were closely balanced at baseline with respect to demographic and disease characteristics. Lumiracoxib was superior to placebo (P < 0.001) and similar to celecoxib on all primary efficacy variables. Reductions in pain intensity in the target knee were similar in the 2 lumiracoxib groups at week 13 (estimated least square mean difference vs placebo: -6.7 and -8.1 mm for lumiracoxib 100 mg QD and lumiracoxib 100 mg QD with loading dose, respectively; both, P < 0.001); with celecoxib, the estimated least square mean difference was -5.7 mm (P < 0.001). Significant differences compared with placebo were seen in all variables starting at week 2 for all active treatments (all, P < 0.001). No significant differences were seen between the lumiracoxib groups at any time point. Based on OMERACT OARSI criteria, all active treatments were superior to placebo (all, P < 0.001). Lumiracoxib and celecoxib were well tolerated, with an incidence of adverse events similar to that with placebo (64.7% lumiracoxib 100 mg QD, 67.0% lumiracoxib 100 mg QD with loading dose, 58.8% celecoxib, 58.4% placebo).

CONCLUSION

In this population of patients with OA of the knee, lumiracoxib 100 mg QD was of similar efficacy to celecoxib 200 mg QD and had similar tolerability to placebo.

Efficacy, safety and tolerability of lumiracoxib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

A randomised, double-blind study was performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients received lumiracoxib 200mg once daily (o.d.) (n= 280), lumiracoxib 400mg o.d. (n= 281), naproxen 500 mg twice daily (n= 279) or placebo (n= 284) for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was response to treatment according to ACR20 criteria (adjusted for prohibited concomitant or excessive rescue medication use and discontinuations due to unsatisfactory therapeutic response) at week 13. Safety and tolerability was also assessed. Significantly more patients receiving lumiracoxib than placebo were responders according to ACR20 criteria at week 13 (41.1 and 42.7% for lumiracoxib 200 and 400 mg o.d., respectively; 32.4% for placebo; both p < 0.05). The proportion responding to naproxen (39.1%) was not significantly different from placebo. Prespecified gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent with naproxen than with either lumiracoxib dose or placebo. Lumiracoxib is therefore an effective and well-tolerated therapy for RA.

Efficacy and safety of four doses of lumiracoxib versus diclofenac in patients with knee or hip primary osteoarthritis: a phase II, four-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the novel cyclooxygenase 2-selective inhibitor lumiracoxib with placebo and diclofenac in osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Adults (n=583) with knee or hip OA were randomized to receive for 4 weeks lumiracoxib 50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily or 400 mg once daily; placebo; or diclofenac 75 mg twice daily. Efficacy assessments included overall joint pain intensity and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscales; tolerability was evaluated by adverse event and physician reporting.

RESULTS

All lumiracoxib doses were superior to placebo in relieving pain, improving stiffness, and improving physical function after 4 weeks. At study endpoint, pain relief was comparable among all lumiracoxib dosages and similar to diclofenac. Lumiracoxib tolerability was superior to diclofenac and comparable to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Lumiracoxib provides predictable and sustained relief from pain, stiffness, and impaired physical function in OA. Lumiracoxib shows clinically comparable efficacy and superior tolerability to diclofenac.

Mediation by HLA-DM of dissociation of peptides from HLA-DR

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DM is an unconventional major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II heterodimer that is important for B-cell-mediated antigen processing and presentation to MHC class II-restricted T cells. HLA-DM is encoded by two genes, DMA and DMB, which map to the MHC class II region, and shares some homology with MHC class I and class II proteins. Here we define the biochemical role of HLA-DM. Recombinant soluble HLA-DM heterodimers have been purified from culture supernatants of insect cell transformants. At pH 5.0, they induce the dissociation of a subset of peptides bound to HLA-DR, including a nested set of class-II-associated invariant chain peptides (CLIP). This process liberates HLA-DR and leads to the enhanced binding of exogenous peptides.