A new FRAX model for Brazil

Fracture probabilities derived from the original FRAX model for Brazil were compared to those from an updated model based on more recent regional estimates of the incidence of hip fracture. Fracture probabilities were consistently lower in the updated FRAX model. Despite large differences between models, differences in the rank order of fracture probabilities were minimal.

OBJECTIVE

Recent epidemiological data indicate that the risk of hip fracture in Brazil is lower than that used to create the original FRAX model. This paper describes the epidemiology of hip fracture in Brazil and the synthesis of an updated FRAX model with the aim of comparing this new model with the original model.

METHODS

Hip fracture rates from three cities in three regions were combined, weighted by the population of each region. For other major fractures, incidence rates for Brazil were estimated using Swedish ratios for hip to other major osteoporotic fracture (humerus, forearm or clinical vertebral fractures). Mortality estimates were taken from the UN.

RESULTS

Compared to the original FRAX model, the updated model gave lower 10-year fracture probabilities in men and women at all ages. Notwithstanding, there was a very close correlation in fracture probabilities between the original and updated models (r > 0.99) so that the revisions had little impact on the rank order of risk.

CONCLUSION

The disparities between the original and updated FRAX models indicate the importance of updating country-specific FRAX models with the advent of significant changes in fracture epidemiology.

Definition and management of very high fracture risk in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a position statement from the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) and the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism (ABRASSO)

Several drugs are available for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Over the last decades, most patients requiring pharmacological intervention were offered antiresorptive drugs as first-line therapy, while anabolic agents were considered a last resource for those with therapeutic failure. However, recent randomized trials in patients with severe osteoporosis have shown that anabolic agents reduce fractures to a greater extent than antiresorptive medications. Additionally, evidence indicates that increases in bone mineral density (BMD) are maximized when patients are treated with anabolic agents first, followed by antiresorptive therapy. This evidence is key, considering that greater increases in BMD during osteoporosis treatment are associated with a more pronounced reduction in fracture risk. Thus, international guidelines have recently proposed an individualized approach to osteoporosis treatment based on fracture risk stratification, in which the stratification risk has been refined to include a category of patients at very high risk of fracture who should be managed with anabolic agents as first-line therapy. In this document, the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism and the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism propose the definition of very high risk of osteoporotic fracture in postmenopausal women, for whom anabolic agents should be considered as first-line therapy. This document also reviews the factors associated with increased fracture risk, trials comparing anabolic versus antiresorptive agents, efficacy of anabolic agents in patients who are treatment naïve versus those previously treated with antiresorptive agents, and safety of anabolic agents.

Romosozumab improves lumbar spine bone mass and bone strength parameters relative to alendronate in postmenopausal women: results from the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH) trial

The Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH) trial (NCT01631214; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01631214) showed that romosozumab for 1 year followed by alendronate led to larger areal bone mineral density (aBMD) gains and superior fracture risk reduction versus alendronate alone. aBMD correlates with bone strength but does not capture all determinants of bone strength that might be differentially affected by various osteoporosis therapeutic agents. We therefore used quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and finite element analysis (FEA) to assess changes in lumbar spine volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), bone volume, bone mineral content (BMC), and bone strength with romosozumab versus alendronate in a subset of ARCH patients. In ARCH, 4093 postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis received monthly romosozumab 210 mg sc or weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for 12 months, followed by open-label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for ≥12 months. Of these, 90 (49 romosozumab, 41 alendronate) enrolled in the QCT/FEA imaging substudy. QCT scans at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 24 were assessed to determine changes in integral (total), cortical, and trabecular lumbar spine vBMD and corresponding bone strength by FEA. Additional outcomes assessed include changes in aBMD, bone volume, and BMC. Romosozumab caused greater gains in lumbar spine integral, cortical, and trabecular vBMD and BMC than alendronate at months 6 and 12, with the greater gains maintained upon transition to alendronate through month 24. These improvements were accompanied by significantly greater increases in FEA bone strength (p < 0.001 at all time points). Most newly formed bone was accrued in the cortical compartment, with romosozumab showing larger absolute BMC gains than alendronate (p < 0.001 at all time points). In conclusion, romosozumab significantly improved bone mass and bone strength parameters at the lumbar spine compared with alendronate. These results are consistent with greater vertebral fracture risk reduction observed with romosozumab versus alendronate in ARCH and provide insights into structural determinants of this differential treatment effect. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, phase III study of baricitinib versus placebo in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate therapy: results from the RA-BALANCE study

INTRODUCTION

To assess the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

This was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, phase III study in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX. Patients (n = 290) receiving stable background MTX were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive placebo or baricitinib 4 mg once daily with a primary endpoint at week 12. PROs assessed included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, patient's assessment of pain, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Level index scores and visual analogue scale, and measures collected in electronic patient daily diaries: duration of morning joint stiffness, Worst Tiredness, and Worst Joint Pain. Treatment comparisons were made with logistic regression and analysis of covariance models for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Statistically significant (p ⩽ 0.05) improvements in all PROs were observed in the baricitinib 4 mg group compared to placebo as early as week 1 to week 4; and were sustained to week 24. These improvements were maintained until week 52 for the baricitinib group. A significantly larger proportion of patients met or exceeded the minimum clinically important difference for HAQ-DI (⩾0.22) and FACIT-F (3.56) profiles in the baricitinib group.

CONCLUSION

Baricitinib provided significant improvements in PROs compared to placebo to 52 weeks of treatment in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02265705; NCT02265705; RA-BALANCE. Registered 13 October 2014.

Safety profile of upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis: integrated analysis from the SELECT phase III clinical programme

OBJECTIVES

This integrated analysis presents the safety profile of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, at 15 mg and 30 mg once daily in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory data from five randomised, placebo- or active-controlled phase III trials of upadacitinib for patients with RA were analysed and summarised. Exposure-adjusted event rates are shown for placebo (three trials; 12/14 weeks), methotrexate (two trials; mean exposure: 36 weeks), adalimumab (one trial; mean exposure: 42 weeks), upadacitinib 15 mg (five trials; mean exposure: 53 weeks) and upadacitinib 30 mg (four trials; mean exposure: 59 weeks).

RESULTS

3834 patients received one or more doses of upadacitinib 15 mg (n=2630) or 30 mg (n=1204), for a total of 4020.1 patient-years of exposure. Upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis and urinary tract infection were the most commonly reported TEAEs with upadacitinib. Rates of serious infection were similar between upadacitinib 15 mg and adalimumab but higher compared with methotrexate. Rates of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were higher in both upadacitinib groups versus methotrexate and adalimumab, and rates of gastrointestinal perforations were higher with upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of deaths, malignancies, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

In the phase III clinical programme for RA, patients receiving upadacitinib had an increased risk of herpes zoster and CPK elevation versus adalimumab. Rates of malignancies, MACEs and VTEs were similar among patients receiving upadacitinib, methotrexate or adalimumab.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

SELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873; SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847.

Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: an update of Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (2020)

The Brazilian guidelines for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis were updated and important topics were included such as assessment of risk fracture using FRAX Brazil, use of denosumab, and also recommendations for the use of glucocorticoid pulse therapy and inhaled glucocortiocoid.

INTRODUCTION

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are used in almost all medical specialties and the incidences of vertebral/nonvertebral fractures range from 30 to 50% in individuals treated with GCs for over 3 months. Thus, osteoporosis and frailty fractures should be prevented and treated in patients initiating treatment or already being treated with GCs. The Committee for Osteoporosis and Bone Metabolic Disorders of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (BSR) established in 2012 the Brazilian Guidelines for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO). Herein, we provide a comprehensive update of the original guidelines based on improved available scientific evidence and/or expert experience.

METHODS

From March to June 2020, the Osteoporosis Committee of the BRS had meetings to update the questions presented in the first consensus (2012). Thus, twenty-six questions considered essential for the preparation of the recommendations were selected. A systematic literature review based on real-life scenarios was undertaken to answer the proposed questions. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases were searched using specific search keywords.

RESULTS

Based on the review and expert opinion, the recommendations were updated for each of the 26 questions. We included 48 new bibliographic references that became available after the date of the publication of the first version of the consensus.

CONCLUSION

We updated the Brazilian guidelines for the prevention/treatment of GIO. New topics were added in this update, such as the assessment of risk fracture using FRAX Brazil, the use of denosumab, and approaches for the treatment of children and adolescents. Furthermore, we included recommendations for the use of inhaled GCs and GC pulse therapy in clinical settings.

Efficacy of teriparatide compared with risedronate on FRAX®-defined major osteoporotic fractures: results of the VERO clinical trial

FRAX^® calculates the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), which are considered to have a greater clinical impact than other fractures. Our results suggest that, in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, those treated with teriparatide had a 60% lower risk of FRAX^®-defined MOF compared with those treated with risedronate.

INTRODUCTION

The VERO trial was an active-controlled fracture endpoint clinical trial that enrolled postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis. After 24 months, a 52% reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) of clinical fractures was reported in patients randomized to teriparatide compared with risedronate. We examined fracture results restricted to FRAX^®-defined major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), which include clinical vertebral, hip, humerus, and forearm fractures.

METHODS

In total, 1360 postmenopausal women (mean age 72.1 years) were randomized to receive subcutaneous daily teriparatide (20 μg) or oral weekly risedronate (35 mg). Patient cumulative incidence of ≥ 1 FRAX^®-defined MOF and of all clinical fractures were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analyses, and the comparison between treatments was based on the stratified log-rank test. Additionally, an extended Cox model was used to estimate HRs at different time points. Incidence fracture rates were estimated at each 6-month interval.

RESULTS

After 24 months, 16 (2.6%) patients in the teriparatide group had ≥ 1 low trauma FRAX^®-defined MOF compared with 40 patients (6.4%) in the risedronate group (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23-0.68; p = 0.001). Clinical vertebral and radius fractures were the most frequent FRAX^®-defined MOF sites. The largest difference in incidence rates of both FRAX^®-defined MOF and all clinical fractures between treatments occurred during the 6- to 12-month period. There was a statistically significant reduction in fractures between groups as early as 7 months for both categories of clinical fractures analyzed.

CONCLUSION

In postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, treatment with teriparatide was more efficacious than risedronate, with a 60% lower risk of FRAX^®-defined MOF during the 24-month treatment period. Fracture risk was statistically significantly reduced at 7 months of treatment.

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110 EudraCT Number: 2012-000123-41.

Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib in Chinese Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients and the Subgroup Analyses: Results from Study RA-BALANCE

INTRODUCTION

Baricitinib is an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK 2, which has demonstrated significant efficacy in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis aims to describe the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in Chinese RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR), and to analyze the effects of baseline characteristics on the efficacy of baricitinib treatment.

METHODS

In this 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 231 Chinese patients with moderately to severely active RA who had MTX-IR were randomly assigned to placebo (n = 115) or baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n = 116). The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 12. Other efficacy measures included ACR50, ACR70, Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, patient's assessment of pain, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, remission and low disease activity rates according to Simplified Disease Activity Index or Clinical Disease Activity Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, and mean duration and severity of morning joint stiffness, worst tiredness and worst joint pain were analyzed. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed across baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvement in ACR20 response was achieved with baricitinib at week 12 (53.4 vs. 22.6%, p = 0.001) in Chinese patients, compared to placebo. Most of the secondary objectives were met with statistically significant improvements. Efficacy of baricitinib was irrespective of patient demographics and baseline characteristics. Safety events were similar between the baricitinib and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of baricitinib 4 mg in Chinese patients with moderately to severely active RA and prior MTX-IR was clinically significant compared to placebo regardless of baseline characteristics. Baricitinib was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile during the full study period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02265705.

Tofacitinib in combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient-reported outcomes from the 24-month Phase 3 ORAL Scan study

OBJECTIVES

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we present data from the completed Phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) ORAL Scan (NCT00847613), which evaluated the impact of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through 24 months in patients with active RA and inadequate responses to methotrexate (MTX-IR).

METHODS

Patients were randomised 4:4:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg, plus background MTX. Patients receiving placebo advanced to tofacitinib at month 3 (non-responders) or month 6 (remaining patients). Mean changes from baseline in PROs, assessed at months 1-24, included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (visual analogue scale [VAS]), Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS), health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 version 2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep.

RESULTS

Overall, 539/797 (67.6%) patients completed 24 months' treatment. At month 3, tofacitinib-treated patients reported signi cant (p<0.05) mean changes from baseline versus placebo across all PROs, and significantly more patients reported improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences versus placebo. Improvements in PROs with tofacitinib were sustained to month 24. Following advancement to tofacitinib, placebo-treated patients generally reported changes of similar magnitude to tofacitinib-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with RA and MTX-IR receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID plus MTX reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo at month 3, which were sustained through 24 months.

Baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to methotrexate: results from a phase 3 study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) therapy.

METHODS

In this phase 3, double-blind, 52-week, placebo-controlled study, 290 patients with moderately to severely active RA and inadequate response to MTX were randomly assigned 1:1 to placebo or baricitinib 4-mg once daily, stratified by country (China, Brazil, Argentina) and presence of joint erosions. Primary endpoint measures included American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary endpoints included changes in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts (DAS28)-high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score ≤3.3, mean duration of morning joint stiffness, severity of morning joint stiffness numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10), worst tiredness NRS, and worst joint pain NRS at week 12.

RESULTS

Most patients (approximately 80%) were from China. More patients achieved ACR20 response at week 12 with baricitinib than with placebo (58.6% vs. 28.3%; p<0.001). Statistically significant improvements were also seen in HAQ-DI, DAS28-hsCRP, morning joint stiffness, worst tiredness, and worst joint pain in the baricitinib group compared to placebo at week 12. Through week 24, rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, including infections, were higher for baricitinib compared to placebo, while serious adverse event rates were similar between baricitinib and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX, baricitinib was associated with significant clinical improvements as compared with placebo.

Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: results of the LOFT multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and LOFT Extension study

BACKGROUND

Odanacatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. Previous work has shown that odanacatib increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

METHODS

The Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study at 388 outpatient clinics in 40 countries. Eligible participants were women aged at least 65 years who were postmenopausal for 5 years or more, with a femoral neck or total hip bone mineral density T-score between -2·5 and -4·0 if no previous radiographic vertebral fracture, or between -1·5 and -4·0 with a previous vertebral fracture. Women with a previous hip fracture, more than one vertebral fracture, or a T-score of less than -4·0 at the total hip or femoral neck were not eligible unless they were unable or unwilling to use approved osteoporosis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral odanacatib (50 mg once per week) or matching placebo. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice recognition system after stratification for previous radiographic vertebral fracture, and treatment was masked to study participants, investigators and their staff, and sponsor personnel. If the study completed before 5 years of double-blind treatment, consenting participants could enrol in a double-blind extension study (LOFT Extension), continuing their original treatment assignment for up to 5 years from randomisation. Primary endpoints were incidence of vertebral fractures as assessed using radiographs collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, yearly, and at final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline and at least one other timepoint, and hip and non-vertebral fractures adjudicated as being a result of osteoporosis as assessed by clinical history and radiograph. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The adjudicated cardiovascular safety endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. Individual cardiovascular endpoints and death were also assessed. LOFT and LOFT Extension are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00529373) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2007-002693-66).

FINDINGS

Between Sept 14, 2007, and Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and 8028 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 36·5 months (IQR 34·43-40·15) 4297 women assigned to odanacatib and 3960 assigned to placebo enrolled in LOFT Extension (total median follow-up 47·6 months, IQR 35·45-60·06). In LOFT, cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 3·7% (251/6770) versus 7·8% (542/6910), hazard ratio (HR) 0·46, 95% CI 0·40-0·53; hip fractures 0·8% (65/8043) versus 1·6% (125/8028), 0·53, 0·39-0·71; non-vertebral fractures 5·1% (412/8043) versus 6·7% (541/8028), 0·77, 0·68-0·87; all p<0·0001. Combined results from LOFT plus LOFT Extension for cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 4·9% (341/6909) versus 9·6% (675/7011), HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·42-0·55; hip fractures 1·1% (86/8043) versus 2·0% (162/8028), 0·52, 0·40-0·67; non-vertebral fractures 6·4% (512/8043) versus 8·4% (675/8028), 0·74, 0·66-0·83; all p<0·0001. In LOFT, the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 273 (3·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 245 (3·1%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·95-1·34; p=0·18). New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter occurred in 112 (1·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 96 (1·2%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·18, 0·90-1·55; p=0·24). Odanacatib was associated with an increased risk of stroke (1·7% [136/8043] vs 1·3% [104/8028], HR 1·32, 1·02-1·70; p=0·034), but not myocardial infarction (0·7% [60/8043] vs 0·9% [74/8028], HR 0·82, 0·58-1·15; p=0·26). The HR for all-cause mortality was 1·13 (5·0% [401/8043] vs 4·4% [356/8028], 0·98-1·30; p=0·10). When data from LOFT Extension were included, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in significantly more patients in the odanacatib group than in the placebo group (401 [5·0%] of 8043 vs 343 [4·3%] of 8028, HR 1·17, 1·02-1·36; p=0·029, as did stroke (2·3% [187/8043] vs 1·7% [137/8028], HR 1·37, 1·10-1·71; p=0·0051).

INTERPRETATION

Odanacatib reduced the risk of fracture, but was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, specifically stroke, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on the overall balance between benefit and risk, the study's sponsor decided that they would no longer pursue development of odanacatib for treatment of osteoporosis.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Long-term denosumab treatment restores cortical bone loss and reduces fracture risk at the forearm and humerus: analyses from the FREEDOM Extension cross-over group

Upper limb fractures (including wrist, forearm, and humerus) represent a significant burden among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Up to 7 years of treatment with denosumab resulted in an increase in bone mineral density and decrease in fractures in upper limb sites.

INTRODUCTION

Upper limb (wrist, forearm, and humerus) fractures are a significant burden in osteoporosis, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody against RANK ligand, increases bone mineral density (BMD) and decreases vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures. Here, we evaluated the long-term effect of denosumab treatment on upper limb fracture risk and BMD.

METHODS

In the FREEDOM trial, subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive every-6-month denosumab 60 mg or placebo subcutaneously for 3 years, after which all subjects could receive denosumab for up to 7 years (Extension). Among placebo subjects who completed FREEDOM and enrolled in the Extension, wrist, forearm, humerus, and upper limb fracture rates and rate ratios between different time periods (FREEDOM years 1-3, Extension years 1-3, and Extension years 4-7) were computed. BMD at the ultradistal radius, 1/3 radius, and total radius was analyzed in a subset of subjects in a BMD substudy.

RESULTS

This analysis included 2207 subjects (116 in the BMD substudy). Fracture rates decreased over the 7-year Extension; fracture rate ratios between Extension years 4-7 (denosumab) and FREEDOM years 1-3 (placebo) reduced significantly for the wrist (0.57), forearm (0.57), humerus (0.42), and upper limb (0.52; p < 0.05 for all). Percentage increase in BMD from Extension baseline at the ultradistal radius, 1/3 radius, and total radius was significant by Extension year 7 (p < 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with denosumab decreases upper limb fracture risk and increases forearm BMD, suggesting beneficial effects on both cortical and trabecular bone accruing over time.

Tofacitinib in Combination With Methotrexate in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Clinical Efficacy, Radiographic, and Safety Outcomes From a Twenty-Four-Month, Phase III Study

Objective

Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The phase III, 24‐month, placebo‐controlled Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis (ORAL) Scan trial was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy, including inhibition of structural progression, and safety of tofacitinib in patients with active RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Month 24 data from the completed study are reported here.

Methods

Patients were randomized 4:4:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo, switched to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, with stable background MTX. Patients receiving placebo switched to tofacitinib at month 3 (nonresponders) or month 6 (remaining patients). Clinical efficacy, structural progression, and treatment‐emergent adverse events were evaluated. Analyses were performed on the full analysis set with observed data or nonresponder imputation with no advancement penalty for clinical efficacy, and imputation by linear extrapolation for structural progression.

Results

Overall, 797 patients were treated; 539 (67.6%) completed 24 months of treatment. Responses according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70; the proportion of patients in whom remission or low disease activity was achieved according to the 4‐variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Clinical Disease Activity Index, or Simplified Disease Activity Index; Boolean remission; and Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index scores were maintained from month 12 to 24 and were similar between tofacitinib dosages. Limited structural damage was observed at months 12 and 24. Safety events were similar in type and frequency for both tofacitinib dosages, and were consistent with those previously reported.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that clinical and radiographic treatment effects are sustained in months 12–24 in patients with RA receiving tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily plus MTX. The safety profile is consistent with that of other tofacitinib studies.

Correction to: Global dietary calcium intake among adults: a systematic review

The original Electronic Supplementary Material file 3 contained an erroneous reference for Mali. A link to the corrected file is provided here.

Effects of teriparatide and risedronate on new fractures in post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis (VERO): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

No clinical trials have compared osteoporosis drugs with incident fractures as the primary outcome. We compared the anti-fracture efficacy of teriparatide with risedronate in patients with severe osteoporosis.

METHODS

In this double-blind, double-dummy trial, we enrolled post-menopausal women with at least two moderate or one severe vertebral fracture and a bone mineral density T score of less than or equal to -1·50. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 20 μg of teriparatide once daily plus oral weekly placebo or 35 mg of oral risedronate once weekly plus daily injections of placebo for 24 months. The primary outcome was new radiographic vertebral fractures. Secondary, gated outcomes included new and worsened radiographic vertebral fractures, clinical fractures (a composite of non-vertebral and symptomatic vertebral), and non-vertebral fractures. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01709110) and EudraCT (2012-000123-41).

FINDINGS

We enrolled 680 patients in each group. At 24 months, new vertebral fractures occurred in 28 (5·4%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group and 64 (12·0%) of 680 patients in the risedronate group (risk ratio 0·44, 95% CI 0·29-0·68; p<0·0001). Clinical fractures occurred in 30 (4·8%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group compared with 61 (9·8%) of 680 in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·48, 95% CI 0·32-0·74; p=0·0009). Non-vertebral fragility fractures occurred in 25 (4·0%) patients in the teriparatide group and 38 (6·1%) in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·39-1·10; p=0·10).

INTERPRETATION

Among post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures is significantly lower in patients receiving teriparatide than in those receiving risedronate.

FUNDING

Lilly.

Global dietary calcium intake among adults: a systematic review

Low calcium intake may adversely affect bone health in adults. Recognizing the presence of low calcium intake is necessary to develop national strategies to optimize intake. To highlight regions where calcium intake should be improved, we systematically searched for the most representative national dietary calcium intake data in adults from the general population in all countries. We searched 13 electronic databases and requested data from domain experts. Studies were double-screened for eligibility. Data were extracted into a standard form. We developed an interactive global map, categorizing countries based on average calcium intake and summarized differences in intake based on sex, age, and socioeconomic status. Searches yielded 9780 abstracts. Across the 74 countries with data, average national dietary calcium intake ranges from 175 to 1233 mg/day. Many countries in Asia have average dietary calcium intake less than 500 mg/day. Countries in Africa and South America mostly have low calcium intake between about 400 and 700 mg/day. Only Northern European countries have national calcium intake greater than 1000 mg/day. Survey data for three quarters of available countries were not nationally representative. Average calcium intake is generally lower in women than men, but there are no clear patterns across countries regarding relative calcium intake by age, sex, or socioeconomic status. The global calcium map reveals that many countries have low average calcium intake. But recent, nationally representative data are mostly lacking. This review draws attention to regions where measures to increase calcium intake are likely to have skeletal benefits.

Patient-reported outcomes of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and no or limited prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment

Background

This study evaluates patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a double-blind, phase III study of baricitinib as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with no or minimal prior conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and naïve to biological DMARDs.

Methods

Patients were randomized 4:3:4 to MTX administered once weekly (N = 210), baricitinib monotherapy (4 mg once daily (QD), N = 159), or combination of baricitinib (4 mg QD) and MTX (baricitinib + MTX, N = 215). PROs included the Patient’s Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS), worst joint pain, worst tiredness, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), Short Form 36 version 2, Acute (SF-36); and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) Health State Profile. Comparisons were assessed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and logistic regression models.

Results

Compared to MTX, patients in both baricitinib groups reported greater improvement (p ≤ 0.01) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, fatigue, worst join pain, SF-36 physical component score, and EQ-5D at weeks 24 and 52. For the SF-36 mental component score, patients in both baricitinib groups reported statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.01) at week 52 compared to MTX-treated patients. Statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.05) were observed with the WPAI-RA for the baricitinib groups vs. MTX at week 24 and for the WPAI-RA daily activity and work productivity measures for baricitinib + MTX at week 52.

Conclusions

In this study, baricitinib alone or in combination with MTX, when used as initial therapy, resulted in significant improvement compared to MTX in the majority of the pre-specified PRO measures.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01711359. Registered on 18 October 2012.

Baricitinib, Methotrexate, or Combination in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and No or Limited Prior Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment

Objective

We undertook this phase III study to evaluate baricitinib, an orally administered JAK‐1/JAK‐2 inhibitor, as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate (MTX) compared to MTX monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had received no or minimal conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and who were naive to biologic DMARDs.

Methods

A total of 588 patients were randomized 4:3:4 to receive MTX monotherapy (once weekly), baricitinib monotherapy (4 mg once daily), or the combination of baricitinib and MTX for 52 weeks. The primary end point assessment was a noninferiority comparison of baricitinib monotherapy to MTX monotherapy based on the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at week 24.

Results

The study met its primary objective. Moreover, baricitinib monotherapy was found to be superior to MTX monotherapy at week 24, with a higher ACR20 response rate (77% versus 62%; P ≤ 0.01). Similar results were observed for combination therapy. Compared to MTX monotherapy, significant improvements in disease activity and physical function were observed for both baricitinib groups as early as week 1. Radiographic progression was reduced in both baricitinib groups compared to MTX monotherapy; the difference was statistically significant for baricitinib plus MTX. The rates of serious adverse events (AEs) were similar across treatment groups, while rates of some treatment‐emergent AEs, including infections, were increased with baricitinib plus MTX. Three deaths were reported, all occurring in the MTX monotherapy group. Malignancies, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were reported in 1 patient receiving MTX monotherapy, 1 receiving baricitinib monotherapy, and 4 receiving baricitinib plus MTX.

Conclusion

Baricitinib alone or in combination with MTX demonstrated superior efficacy with acceptable safety compared to MTX monotherapy as initial therapy for patients with active RA.

Biologic therapies and bone loss in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common systemic autoimmune disease of unknown cause, characterized by a chronic, symmetric, and progressive inflammatory polyarthritis. One of the most deleterious effects induced by the chronic inflammation of RA is bone loss. During the last 15 years, the better knowledge of the cytokine network involved in RA allowed the development of potent inhibitors of the inflammatory process classified as biological DMARDs. These new drugs are very effective in the inhibition of inflammation, but there are only few studies regarding their role in bone protection. The principal aim of this review was to show the evidence of the principal biologic therapies and bone loss in RA, focusing on their effects on bone mineral density, bone turnover markers, and fragility fractures.

METHODS

Using the PICOST methodology, two coauthors (PC, LM-S) conducted the search using the following MESH terms: rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, clinical trials, TNF- antagonists, infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, golimumab, IL-6 antagonists, IL-1 antagonists, abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab, bone mineral density, bone markers, and fractures. The search was conducted electronically and manually from the following databases: Medline and Science Direct. The search period included articles from 2003 to 2015. The selection included only original adult human research written in English. Titles were retrieved and the same two authors independently selected the relevant studies for a full text. The retrieved selected studies were also reviewed completing the search for relevant articles. The first search included 904 titles from which 253 titles were selected. The agreement on the selection among researchers resulted in a Kappa statistic of 0.95 (p < 0.000). Only 248 abstracts evaluated were included in the acronym PICOST. The final selection included only 28 studies, derived from the systematic search. Additionally, a manual search in the bibliography of the selected articles was made and included into the text and into the section of "small molecules of new agents."

CONCLUSION

Treatment with biologic drugs is associated with the decrease in bone loss. Studies with anti-TNF blocking agents show preservation or increase in spine and hip BMD and also a better profile of bone markers. Most of these studies were performed with infliximab. Only three epidemiological studies analyzed the effect on fractures after anti-TNF blocking agent's treatment. IL-6 blocking agents also showed improvement in localized bone loss not seen with anti-TNF agents. There are a few studies with rituximab and abatacept. Although several studies reported favorable actions of biologic therapies on bone protection, there are still unmet needs for studies regarding their actions on the risk of bone fractures.

Immunogenicity and safety of Southern Hemisphere inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine: a Phase III, open-label study of adults in Brazil

The World Health Organization influenza forecast now includes an influenza B strain from each of the influenza B lineages (B/Yamagata and B/Victoria) for inclusion in seasonal influenza vaccines. Traditional trivalent influenza vaccines include an influenza B strain from one lineage, but because two influenza B lineages frequently co-circulate, the effectiveness of trivalent vaccines may be reduced in seasons of influenza B vaccine-mismatch. Thus, quadrivalent vaccines may potentially reduce the burden of influenza compared with trivalent vaccines.

In this Phase III, open-label study, we assessed the immunogenicity and safety of Southern Hemisphere inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (Fluarix™ Tetra) in Brazilian adults (NCT02369341). The primary objective was to assess hemagglutination-inhibition antibody responses against each vaccine strain 21 days after vaccination in adults (aged ≥18–60 years) and older adults (aged >60 years). Solicited adverse events for four days post-vaccination, and unsolicited adverse events and serious adverse events for 21 days post-vaccination were also assessed.

A total of 63 adults and 57 older adults received one dose of inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine at the beginning of the 2015 Southern Hemisphere influenza season. After vaccination, in adults and older adults, the hemagglutination-inhibition titers fulfilled the European licensure criteria for immunogenicity. In adults, the seroprotection rates with HI titer ≥1:40 were 100% (A/H1N1), 98.4% (A/H3N2), 100% (B/Yamagata), and 100% (B/Victoria); in older adults were 94.7% (A/H1N1), 96.5% (A/H3N2), 100% (B/Yamagata), and 100% (B/Victoria). Pain was the most common solicited local adverse events in adults (27/62) and in older adults (13/57), and the most common solicited general adverse events in adults was myalgia (9/62), and in older adults were myalgia and arthralgia (both 2/57). Unsolicited adverse events were reported by 11/63 adults and 10/57 older adults.

The study showed that inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine was immunogenic and well-tolerated in Brazilian adults and older adults.

Romosozumab Treatment in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds sclerostin, increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption.

METHODS

We enrolled 7180 postmenopausal women who had a T score of -2.5 to -3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck. Patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of romosozumab (at a dose of 210 mg) or placebo monthly for 12 months; thereafter, patients in each group received denosumab for 12 months, at a dose of 60 mg, administered subcutaneously every 6 months. The coprimary end points were the cumulative incidences of new vertebral fractures at 12 months and 24 months. Secondary end points included clinical (a composite of nonvertebral and symptomatic vertebral) and nonvertebral fractures.

RESULTS

At 12 months, new vertebral fractures had occurred in 16 of 3321 patients (0.5%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 59 of 3322 (1.8%) in the placebo group (representing a 73% lower risk with romosozumab; P<0.001). Clinical fractures had occurred in 58 of 3589 patients (1.6%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 90 of 3591 (2.5%) in the placebo group (a 36% lower risk with romosozumab; P=0.008). Nonvertebral fractures had occurred in 56 of 3589 patients (1.6%) in the romosozumab group and in 75 of 3591 (2.1%) in the placebo group (P=0.10). At 24 months, the rates of vertebral fractures were significantly lower in the romosozumab group than in the placebo group after each group made the transition to denosumab (0.6% [21 of 3325 patients] in the romosozumab group vs. 2.5% [84 of 3327] in the placebo group, a 75% lower risk with romosozumab; P<0.001). Adverse events, including instances of hyperostosis, cardiovascular events, osteoarthritis, and cancer, appeared to be balanced between the groups. One atypical femoral fracture and two cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were observed in the romosozumab group.

CONCLUSIONS

In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, romosozumab was associated with a lower risk of vertebral fracture than placebo at 12 months and, after the transition to denosumab, at 24 months. The lower risk of clinical fracture that was seen with romosozumab was evident at 1 year. (Funded by Amgen and UCB Pharma; FRAME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01575834 .).

Effect of Abaloparatide vs Placebo on New Vertebral Fractures in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Additional therapies are needed for prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Abaloparatide is a selective activator of the parathyroid hormone type 1 receptor.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of abaloparatide, 80 μg, vs placebo for prevention of new vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women at risk of osteoporotic fracture.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Abaloparatide Comparator Trial In Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) was a phase 3, double-blind, RCT (March 2011-October 2014) at 28 sites in 10 countries. Postmenopausal women with bone mineral density (BMD) T score ≤-2.5 and >-5.0 at the lumbar spine or femoral neck and radiological evidence ≥2 mild or ≥1 moderate lumbar or thoracic vertebral fracture or history of low-trauma nonvertebral fracture within the past 5 years were eligible. Postmenopausal women (>65 y) with fracture criteria and a T score ≤-2.0 and >-5.0 or without fracture criteria and a T score ≤-3.0 and >-5.0 could enroll.

INTERVENTIONS

Blinded, daily subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 821); abaloparatide, 80 μg (n = 824); or open-label teriparatide, 20 μg (n = 818) for 18 months.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary end point was percentage of participants with new vertebral fracture in the abaloparatide vs placebo groups. Sample size was set to detect a 4% difference (57% risk reduction) between treatment groups. Secondary end points included change in BMD at total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine in abaloparatide-treated vs placebo participants and time to first incident nonvertebral fracture. Hypercalcemia was a prespecified safety end point in abaloparatide-treated vs teriparatide participants.

RESULTS

Among 2463 women (mean age, 69 years [range, 49-86]), 1901 completed the study. New morphometric vertebral fractures occurred less frequently in the active treatment groups vs placebo. The Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate for nonvertebral fracture was lower with abaloparatide vs placebo. BMD increases were greater with abaloparatide than placebo (all P < .001). Incidence of hypercalcemia was lower with abaloparatide (3.4%) vs teriparatide (6.4%) (risk difference [RD], −2.96 [95%CI, −5.12 to −0.87]; P = .006). [table: see text].

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, the use of subcutaneous abaloparatide, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures over 18 months. Further research is needed to understand the clinical importance of RD, the risks and benefits of abaloparatide treatment, and the efficacy of abaloparatide vs other osteoporosis treatments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01343004.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib following inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

OBJECTIVES

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have shown diminished clinical response following an inadequate response (IR) to ≥1 previous bDMARD. Here, tofacitinib was compared with placebo in patients with an IR to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs; bDMARD-naive) and in patients with an IR to bDMARDs (bDMARD-IR).

METHODS

Data were taken from phase II and phase III studies of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo, as monotherapy or with background methotrexate or other csDMARDs. Efficacy endpoints and incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) of special interest were assessed.

RESULTS

2812 bDMARD-naive and 705 bDMARD-IR patients were analysed. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups within subpopulations. Across subpopulations, improvements in efficacy parameters at month 3 were generally significantly greater for both tofacitinib doses versus placebo. Clinical response was numerically greater with bDMARD-naive versus bDMARD-IR patients (overlapping 95% CIs). Rates of safety events of special interest were generally similar between tofacitinib doses and subpopulations; however, patients receiving glucocorticoids had more serious AEs, discontinuations due to AEs, serious infection events and herpes zoster. Numerically greater clinical responses and incidence rates of AEs of special interest were generally reported for tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily versus tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (overlapping 95% CIs).

CONCLUSIONS

Tofacitinib demonstrated efficacy in both bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-IR patients with RA. Clinical response to tofacitinib was generally numerically greater in bDMARD-naive than bDMARD-IR patients. The safety profile appeared similar between subpopulations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

(NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385).

Prediction of remission and low disease activity in disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with golimumab

Objective. To create a tool to predict probability of remission and low disease activity (LDA) in patients with RA being considered for anti-TNF treatment in clinical practice.

Methods. We analysed data from GO-MORE, an open-label, multinational, prospective study in biologic-naïve patients with active RA (DAS28-ESR ⩾3.2) despite DMARD therapy. Patients received 50 mg s.c. golimumab (GLM) once monthly for 6 months. In secondary analyses, regression models were used to determine the best set of baseline factors to predict remission (DAS28-ESR <2.6) at month 6 and LDA (DAS28-ESR ⩽3.2) at month 1.

Results. In 3280 efficacy-evaluable patients, of 12 factors included in initial regression models predicting remission or LDA, six were retained in final multivariable models. Greater likelihood of LDA and remission was associated with being male; younger age; lower HAQ, ESR (or CRP) and tender joint count (or swollen joint count) scores; and absence of comorbidities. In models predicting 1-, 3- and 6-month LDA or remission, area under the receiver operating curve was 0.648–0.809 (R² = 0.0397–0.1078). The models also predicted 6-month HAQ and EuroQoL-5-dimension scores. A series of matrices were developed to easily show predicted rates of remission and LDA.

Conclusion. A matrix tool was developed to show predicted GLM treatment outcomes in patients with RA, based on a combination of six baseline characteristics. The tool could help provide practical guidance in selection of candidates for anti-TNF therapy.

Tofacitinib with methotrexate in third-line treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: patient-reported outcomes from a phase III trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for tofacitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in a 6-month, phase III, randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Patients ages ≥18 years with active RA with an inadequate response to ≥1 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and receiving stable background methotrexate were randomized 2:2:1:1 to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily at month 3. PROs measured at month 3 included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI), Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2; acute), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and MOS Sleep Scale.

RESULTS

Patients received tofacitinib 5 mg (n = 133) or 10 mg (n = 134) or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 mg (n = 66) or 10 mg (n = 66). HAQ DI (reported previously), PtGA (P < 0.0001), and SF-36v2 physical and mental component summary (P < 0.05) scores were improved for both tofacitinib doses versus placebo. Furthermore, improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important difference were more frequently reported by tofacitinib-treated patients versus placebo for PtGA (P < 0.05), pain (P < 0.0001), HAQ DI (P < 0.05), SF-36v2 physical and mental component summary scores (P < 0.05), and FACIT-F (P < 0.001 for 5 mg twice daily). No statistical differences were observed in the MOS Sleep Scale.

CONCLUSION

Tofacitinib treatment resulted in significant, clinically meaningful improvements in multiple PROs versus placebo over 3 months of treatment in patients with active RA and a previous inadequate response to TNFi.

Effects of up to 5 years of denosumab treatment on bone histology and histomorphometry: the FREEDOM study extension

Denosumab reduced bone resorption, increased bone mineral density (BMD), and decreased new vertebral, hip, and nonvertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in the FREEDOM trial. Consistent with its mechanism of action, transiliac crest bone biopsies from subjects treated with denosumab for 1 to 3 years demonstrated reduced bone turnover that was reversible upon treatment cessation. Long-term denosumab treatment for up to 6 years in the FREEDOM extension provides sustained bone turnover reduction and continued low fracture incidence. Here, we evaluate 5 years of denosumab treatment on bone remodeling at the tissue level. Transiliac crest bone biopsies were obtained from 41 subjects (13 cross-over and 28 long-term from the FREEDOM placebo and denosumab groups, respectively) at year 2 of the FREEDOM extension, representing up to 5 years of denosumab treatment. Demographics for this subset were comparable to the overall extension cohort. The mean (SD) duration from the last denosumab dose to the first dose of tetracycline was 5.7 (0.5) months. Qualitative bone histology assessed in all biopsy samples was unremarkable, showing normally mineralized lamellar bone. Structural indices, including trabecular bone volume, number, and surface, were similar between cross-over and long-term groups. Bone resorption was decreased as reflected by eroded surface in cross-over and long-term subjects. A total of 11 of 13 (85%) cross-over subjects and 20 of 28 (71%) long-term subjects had specimens with double or single tetracycline label in trabecular and/or cortical compartments; specimens from 5 cross-over subjects and 10 long-term subjects were evaluable for dynamic trabecular bone parameters. Dynamic remodeling indices were low for both groups and consistent with reduced bone turnover with denosumab. In conclusion, denosumab treatment through 5 years resulted in normal bone quality with reduced bone turnover. These observations are consistent with its mechanism of action and associated with continued BMD increases and low fracture incidence.

Odanacatib in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density: a review of current clinical evidence

Human bones are in a continuous process of remodeling that ensures renovation and maintenance of the skeletal mass. Bone remodeling has two phases that are normally coupled and balanced: bone resorption mediated by osteoclasts and bone formation mediated by osteoblasts. An increase in bone resorption over bone formation results in a progressive loss of bone mass and impairment of bone microarchitecture leading to osteoporosis and its associated fractures. Recent advances in the understanding of the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in the remodeling process have allowed the development of new targets for osteoporosis treatment. Cathepsin K, a cysteine protease, is found in osteoclasts along the bone resorption surfaces and very efficiently degrades type I collagen, the major component of the organic bone matrix. Inhibition of cathepsin K reduces bone resorption but does not impair bone formation particularly at cortical sites. Odanacatib, a potent and highly selective cathepsin K inhibitor, showed prevention of bone loss without reduction of bone formation in preclinical and clinical trials (phase I and II). Odanacatib is currently in a phase III fracture outcome international trial for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Efficacy and safety of golimumab as add-on therapy to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: results of the GO-MORE study

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous golimumab as add-on therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment. To evaluate an intravenous plus subcutaneous (IV+SC) golimumab strategy in patients who had not attained remission.

Methods

GO-MORE was an open-label, multinational, prospective study in patients with active RA in typical clinical practice settings. In part 1, patients received add-on monthly 50-mg subcutaneous golimumab for 6 months. The percentage of patients with good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28)–erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) response was compared in patient subgroups with various concurrent or previous DMARD treatments. In part 2, patients with EULAR responses but not remission were randomly assigned to receive IV+SC or subcutaneous golimumab to month 12; DAS28–ESR remission was measured.

Results

3366 patients were enrolled. At baseline of part 1, 3280 efficacy-evaluable patients had mean disease duration of 7.6 years and mean DAS28–ESR of 5.97 (SD=1.095). At month 6, 82.1% achieved good/moderate EULAR responses and 23.9% attained remission. When EULAR responses were analysed by the number of previously failed DMARD or the concomitant methotrexate dose, DMARD type, or corticosteroid use, no statistically significant differences were observed. Part 2 patients (N=490) who received IV+SC or subcutaneous golimumab achieved similar remission rates (∼25%). Adverse events were consistent with previous reports of golimumab and other tumour necrosis antagonists in this population.

Conclusions

Add-on monthly subcutaneous golimumab resulted in good/moderate EULAR response in most patients; 25% achieved remission after 6 more months of golimumab, but an IV+SC regimen provided no additional efficacy over the subcutaneous regimen.

Tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects approximately 1% of the worldwide population. It primarily targets the synovial membrane of joints, leading to a synovial proliferation, joint cartilage lesion and erosions in the adjacent bone tissue. The disease is usually progressive and if the inflammatory process is not adequately suppressed, joint deformity takes place, leading to a significant functional disability and work incapacity. Over the last decade, biological therapy was established as a major step towards disease control in those patients who experienced failure after treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Despite the growing number of biological agents with different immunological targets, a significant number of patients do not receive appropriate disease control, or have the use of these agents limited because of adverse events. As such, the search for new molecules with a higher efficacy and better safety profile is ongoing. This article focuses on a new drug, tofacitinib, which is a synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for treatment of RA. Preclinical studies in arthritis and transplantation animal models are reviewed as a background for the possible use of tofacitinib treatment in humans. Four Phase II (one A and three B dose-ranging) trials lasting from 6 to 24 weeks in RA patients showed significant American College of Rheumatology 20 improvements as early as week 2 and sustained at week 24 in two studies. Tofacitinib Phase III studies in RA are included in a clinical program called 'ORAL Trials'. Long-term follow-up from ongoing studies will contribute to a more accurate tofacitinib efficacy and safety profile. Trials in other illness such as psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, renal transplant rejection prevention, inflammatory bowel diseases and dry eye are underway.

Relationship between bone mineral density changes with denosumab treatment and risk reduction for vertebral and nonvertebral fractures

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometric bone mineral density (DXA BMD) is a strong predictor of fracture risk in untreated patients. However, previous patient-level studies suggest that BMD changes explain little of the fracture risk reduction observed with osteoporosis treatment. We investigated the relevance of DXA BMD changes as a predictor for fracture risk reduction using data from the FREEDOM trial, which randomly assigned placebo or denosumab 60 mg every 6 months to 7808 women aged 60 to 90 years with a spine or total hip BMD T-score < -2.5 and not < -4.0. We took a standard approach to estimate the percent of treatment effect explained using percent changes in BMD at a single visit (months 12, 24, or 36). We also applied a novel approach using estimated percent changes in BMD from baseline at the time of fracture occurrence (time-dependent models). Denosumab significantly increased total hip BMD by 3.2%, 4.4%, and 5.0% at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Denosumab decreased the risk of new vertebral fractures by 68% (p < 0.0001) and nonvertebral fracture by 20% (p = 0.01) over 36 months. Regardless of the method used, the change in total hip BMD explained a considerable proportion of the effect of denosumab in reducing new or worsening vertebral fracture risk (35% [95% confidence interval (CI): 20%-61%] and 51% [95% CI: 39%-66%] accounted for by percent change at month 36 and change in time-dependent BMD, respectively) and explained a considerable amount of the reduction in nonvertebral fracture risk (87% [95% CI: 35% - >100%] and 72% [95% CI: 24% - >100%], respectively). Previous patient-level studies may have underestimated the strength of the relationship between BMD change and the effect of treatment on fracture risk or this relationship may be unique to denosumab.

Safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab in combination with methotrexate in MTX-naive subjects with rheumatoid arthritis: the phase III FILM trial

Objective

To determine the efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab (OCR) with methotrexate (MTX) in MTX-naive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

Methods

In a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial, patients received placebo+MTX (MTX; n=210), OCR 200 mg×2+MTX (OCR 200; n=200) or OCR 500 mg×2+MTX (OCR 500; n=203). OCR/placebo (two intravenous infusions) was given on days 1 and 15, with fixed re-treatment scheduled at weeks 24/26, 52/54 and 76/78. Due to early termination of OCR dosing, there was no formal primary end point analysis (change from baseline in modified total Sharp score (ΔmTSS) at week 104). Analyses are reported for week 52 outcomes.

Results

At week 52, treatment with OCR+MTX compared with MTX alone reduced progression of joint damage (mean (SD) change in ΔmTSS: OCR 200, 0.66 (4.51); OCR 500, 0.27 (2.91); MTX alone, 1.59 (4.82); p=0.001 and p=0.003, respectively vs MTX alone) and improved clinical signs and symptoms (American College of Rheumatology 20 response: OCR 200, 73.0%; OCR 500, 71.0%; MTX alone, 57.5%; p<0.005 for each OCR vs MTX alone). Serious infection rates per 100 patient-years were similar with OCR 200 and MTX alone (2.6 (95% CI 0.9 to 6.1) and 3.0 (1.1 to 6.5), respectively), but higher with OCR 500 (7.1 (3.9 to 11.9)).

Conclusions

OCR 200 mg and 500 mg with MTX in MTX-naive patients with RA were effective in inhibiting joint damage progression and improving RA signs and symptoms. OCR 500 mg with MTX was associated with an increased rate of serious infections.

The safety and efficacy of a JAK inhibitor in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIa trial of three dosage levels of CP-690,550 versus placebo

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of 3 different dosages of CP-690,550, a potent, orally active JAK inhibitor, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom methotrexate, etanercept, infliximab, or adalimumab caused an inadequate or toxic response.

METHODS

Patients (n = 264) were randomized equally to receive placebo, 5 mg of CP-690,550, 15 mg of CP-690,550, or 30 mg of CP-690,550 twice daily for 6 weeks, and were followed up for an additional 6 weeks after treatment. The primary efficacy end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response rate at 6 weeks.

RESULTS

By week 6, the ACR20 response rates were 70.5%, 81.2%, and 76.8% in the 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg twice daily groups, respectively, compared with 29.2% in the placebo group (P < 0.001). Improvements in disease activity in CP-690,550-treated patients compared with placebo were seen in all treatment groups as early as week 1. ACR50 and ACR70 response rates significantly improved in all treatment groups by week 4. The most common adverse events reported were headache and nausea. The infection rate in both the 15 mg twice daily group and the 30 mg twice daily group was 30.4% (versus 26.2% in the placebo group). No opportunistic infections or deaths occurred. Increases in mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and increases in mean serum creatinine level (0.04-0.06 mg/dl) were seen in all CP-690,550 treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that CP-690,550 is efficacious in the treatment of RA, resulting in rapid, statistically significant, and clinically meaningful reductions in the signs and symptoms of RA. Further studies of CP-690,550 in RA are warranted.

Improved pain, physical functioning and health status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with CP-690,550, an orally active Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor: results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of CP-690,550 in improving pain, function and health status in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate or a tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor.

METHODS

Patients were randomised equally to placebo, CP-690,550 5, 15 or 30 mg twice daily for 6 weeks, with 6 weeks' follow-up. The patient's assessment of arthritis pain (pain), patient's assessment of disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) were recorded.

RESULTS

At week 6, significantly more patients in the CP-690,550 5, 15 and 30 mg twice-daily groups experienced a 50% improvement in pain compared with placebo (44%, 66%, 78% and 14%, respectively), clinically meaningful reductions in HAQ-DI (> or =0.3 units) (57%, 75%, 76% and 36%, respectively) and clinically meaningful improvements in SF-36 domains and physical and mental components.

CONCLUSIONS

CP-690,550 was efficacious in improving the pain, function and health status of patients with RA, from week 1 to week 6.

Is it ethical to use placebos in osteoporosis trials?

The use of placebo control groups (e.g., subjects using calcium and vitamin D) in osteoporosis trials with subjects at high risk for fracture has been systematically questioned by institutional review boards (IRBs). Regulatory agencies, on the other hand, continue to not only recommend but also require that placebo-controlled trials be presented for the registration of new drugs for osteoporosis treatment. The Declaration of Helsinki and its updates have upheld the principle that protection of research subjects' rights is of primary concern. Nevertheless, even the Declaration keeps clearly opening the possibility of using placebo-control designs if it is justified for "compelling and scientifically sound methodological reasons." The use of intermediary endpoints or surrogates to establish the efficacy or safety of new medications in the management of osteoporosis is currently considered scientifically insufficient. This concept has led regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the European Medicines Agency in the European Union, to require "fragility fracture reduction" as the primary endpoint in clinical trials for the registration of new drugs. Superiority or noninferiority trials are alternatives to placebo-controlled designs. However, factors such as sample size, cost, and statistical limitations render these models impractical for the registration of new medications for osteoporosis. We recommend collaboration among regulatory agencies, IRBs, scientists, and ethicists on the design of clinical trials for the registration of new medications for reduction of fracture risk. Delay in developing mutually acceptable models may impair scientific development in the field and possibly deprive patients of potentially beneficial treatments.

When a DMARD fails, should patients switch to sulfasalazine or add sulfasalazine to continuing leflunomide?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding sulfasalazine to leflunomide treatment compared with switching to sulfasalazine alone in patients with RA with an inadequate response to leflunomide monotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with active RA ((DAS28) >3.2) who were enrolled in the first open label phase of the RELIEF study received leflunomide for 24 weeks. Inadequate responders then entered the double blind phase and received a further 24 weeks' treatment with leflunomide (20 mg once daily) plus sulfasalazine (final dose 2 g once daily), or placebo plus sulfasalazine (dose as above). The primary efficacy variable was the DAS28 response rate, and secondary efficacy outcomes were ACR 20%, 50%, and 70% response rates. Adverse events, including standard laboratory tests, were recorded.

RESULTS

106 inadequate responders entered the double blind phase; 56 received leflunomide plus sulfasalazine, and 50 placebo plus sulfasalazine. In the intention to treat population, more patients receiving leflunomide plus sulfasalazine (25/56 (45%)) achieved a DAS28 response than those receiving placebo plus sulfasalazine (17/50 (34%)) (p = 0.179). In week 24 completers, more patients receiving leflunomide plus sulfasalazine (17/56 (30%)) were DAS28 responders than those receiving placebo plus sulfasalazine (10/50 (20%)) (p = 0.081). Comparable numbers in each group were ACR 20% responders; the ACR 50% response rate was significantly higher in the leflunomide plus sulfasalazine group (8.9%) than in the placebo plus sulfasalazine group (0%) (p = 0.038). The safety profiles of both groups were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Patient numbers are small and firm conclusions cannot be reached, but a non-significant benefit is indicated for combining leflunomide with sulfasalazine compared with switching to sulfasalazine alone in patients inadequately responding to leflunomide.

Inter- and intrareader variability in the interpretation of two radiographic classification systems for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the inter- and intrareader variability for interpretation of a modified Larsen's radiographic classification system for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) focused on osteochondral lesions and a conventional Larsen's classification system, compared to a reference MR scoring system of corresponding images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-five radiographs of 60 children with JRA, performed within a short interval of time from the MR examinations, were independently evaluated by three experienced radiologists, three diagnostic imaging residents and three rheumatologists, in two separate sessions, according to the two different classification methods, blinded to the corresponding MR images.

RESULTS

The inter- and intrareader concordance rates between the two radiographic classification systems and the MR-related radiographs were respectively poor and poor/moderate. The interobserver range of weighted kappa values for the conventional and the modified Larsen's system respectively was 0.25-0.37 vs 0.19-0.39 for radiologists, 0.25-0.37 vs 0.18-0.30 for residents and 0.19-0.51 vs 0.17-0.29 for rheumatologists. The intrareader rate ranged from 0.17-0.55 for radiologists, 0.2-0.56 for residents, and 0.14-0.59 for rheumatologists.

CONCLUSION

Although the proposal of a new radiographic classification system for JRA focused on osteochondral abnormalities sounds promising, the low inter- and intrareader concordance rates with an MR-related radiographic system makes the clinical applicability of such a radiographic system less suitable.

Comparison of low-dose rofecoxib versus 1000 mg naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis. Results of two randomized treatment trials of six weeks duration

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg once daily to naproxen 500 mg twice daily in patients > or = 40 years of age with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA).

METHOD

Two identical 6-week, randomized, double-blind studies were conducted (1 in Africa, Australia, Europe, Canada, Mexico, & South America; 1 in Asia). Primary endpoints were pain walking on a flat surface, patient global assessment of response to therapy, and investigator global assessment of disease status.

RESULTS

Overall, 944 patients participated. For all efficacy endpoints, treatment effects for rofecoxib and naproxen were comparable and seen at the first measures of efficacy. Both compounds were generally well-tolerated, with an improved gastrointestinal safety profile for rofecoxib versus naproxen. CONCLUSIONS In these studies, rofecoxib 12.5 mg once daily (the lowest indicated dose) and naproxen 500 mg twice daily showed similar treatment effects in OA patients. Rofecoxib and naproxen were generally well tolerated.

Beta 2 microglobulin serum levels and prediction of survival in AL amyloidosis

To study the relation between beta 2 microglobulin (beta 2M) and survival in AL amyloidosis, we measured the serum level of beta 2M in 80 patients with AL amyloidosis diagnosed within 1 year of evaluation, who had received no therapy. Patients had a median age of 61 years and 52% were male. Major clinical manifestations were renal disease in 25 patients (31%), cardiomyopathy in 23 patients (29%), and neuropathy or other organ involvement in 32 patients (41%). The beta 2M level, measured by an ELISA assay in serum samples collected at the time of evaluation, ranged from 1.69 to 10 mg/ml (mean = 4.57); in 56% of the patients beta 2M > 4 mg/ml. The patients with a beta 2M < or = 4 mg/ml had serum creatinine levels lower than those with beta 2M > 4 (1.43 vs 2.67 mg/dl; p = 0.02). Survival from study entry was analyzed overall by the level of beta 2M, adjusting for creatinine level and clinical stratum. We found the beta 2M level to be predictive of survival (median survival 16.1 months for beta 2M < or = 4 mg/ml vs 8.0 months for beta 2M > 4 mg/ml, p = 0.044). Thus a beta 2M level less than 4 mg/ml indicated a longer time of survival.

Past and Present Habitual Physical Activity and Its Relationship With Bone Mineral Density in Men Aged 50 Years and Older in Brazil

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between habitual physical activity (HPA) during life and bone mineral density (BMD) in men aged 50 years and older.

METHODS

A total of 326 men aged 50 years and older, volunteers living in São Paulo city, Brazil, were studied. BMD was measured in the whole body, femoral neck, Ward's triangle, trochanter, and lumbar spine (L2-L4) with a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometer. The HPA data were collected with questionnaires inquiring about physical exercise and occupational physical activity in the past and during the past 12 months and leisure and locomotor physical activity in the preceding 12 months. The relationship between BMD and HPA was analyzed using multiple linear regression models adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI).

RESULTS

Practice of physical exercise in the past 10-20 years and leisure and locomotor physical activity in the preceding 12 months showed a significant positive correlation with BMD of whole body, femoral neck, trochanter, and lumbar spine, and this association was independent of age and BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

HPA can contribute to preserving BMD in men aged 50 years and older in Brazil, when it is practiced in the past 10-20 years and even in the present.