Search

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of olokizumab (OKZ), a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 (IL-6) cytokine, versus placebo (PBO) in patients with prior inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IRs).MethodsIn this 24-week multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, the patients were randomised in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneously administered OKZ 64 mg once every 2 weeks (q2w), OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks (q4w) or PBO plus methotrexate. At week 16, the patients on PBO were randomised to receive either OKZ regime. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 12. Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP))ResultsIn 368 patients randomised, ACR20 response rates were 60.9% in OKZ q2w, 59.6% in OKZ q4w and 40.6% in PBO (pDose-related treatment-emergent serious adverse events were 7% in OKZ q2w, 3.2% in OKZ q4w and none in the PBO group.ConclusionsDirect inhibition of IL-6 with OKZ resulted in significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis compared with PBO in TNF-IR patients with a similar safety profile as observed for monoclonal antibodies to the IL-6 receptor.Trial registration numberNCT02760433.

The cytokine interleukin-6 is involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. Olokizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 cytokine directly, is being tested for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.In a 24-week, phase 3, multicenter, placebo- and active-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:2:2:1 ratio) patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate to receive subcutaneous olokizumab at a dose of 64 mg every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks), or placebo; all patients continued methotrexate therapy. The primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (≥20% fewer tender and swollen joints and ≥20% improvement in three of five other domains) at week 12, with each olokizumab dose tested for superiority to placebo. We also tested the noninferiority of each olokizumab dose to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response (noninferiority margin, -12 percentage points in the lower boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between groups).A total of 464 patients were assigned to receive olokizumab every 2 weeks, 479 to receive olokizumab every 4 weeks, 462 to receive adalimumab, and 243 to receive placebo. An ACR20 response at week 12 occurred in 44.4% of the patients receiving placebo, in 70.3% receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 25.9 percentage points; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 17.1 to 34.1), in 71.4% receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 27.0 percentage points; 97.5% CI, 18.3 to 35.2), and in 66.9% receiving adalimumab (difference vs. placebo, 22.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 14.8 to 29.8) (P0.001 for the superiority of each olokizumab dose to placebo). Both olokizumab doses were noninferior to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response at week 12 (difference, 3.4 percentage points [97.5% CI, -3.5 to 10.2] with olokizumab every 2 weeks and 4.5 percentage points [97.5% CI, -2.2 to 11.2] with olokizumab every 4 weeks). Adverse events, most commonly infections, occurred in approximately 70% of the patients who received olokizumab. Antibodies against olokizumab were detected in 3.8% of the patients receiving the drug every 2 weeks and in 5.1% of those receiving it every 4 weeks.In patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving maintenance methotrexate, olokizumab was superior to placebo and noninferior to adalimumab in producing an ACR20 response at 12 weeks. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Supported by R-Pharm; CREDO2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02760407.).

Background/Aims Olokizumab (OKZ) is a new humanised monoclonal antibody targeting IL-6. Here we present the results of the phase III study of OKZ in anti-TNF-IR patients. Methods Patients with moderately to severely active RA who had previously failed TNF inhibitors (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02760433/CREDO3) were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous (SC) injections of OKZ 64 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks (q4w) or placebo (PBO), plus MTX. At week 16, all subjects in the PBO group were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either of OKZ regimes. The primary endpoint was ACR20 response at week 12. Results 368 subjects were randomised according to the protocol and 320 patients (87%) completed the 24-week treatment period. Baseline characteristics were comparable across arms. Both regimens of OKZ were significantly better in primary endpoint: ACR20 were 60.9% (p = 0.0029 in comparison vs. PBO) in OKZ q2w, 59.6% in OKZ q2w (p = 0.0040 in comparison vs. PBO) and 40.6% in PBO. The key efficacy outcomes were maintained throughout the 24-week period of the study. Overall incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were 65.5% in OKZ q2w, 65.0% in OKZ q4w and 50.7% in PBO. Subsequent randomization of PBO arm at week 16 did not change TEAEs incidence rate per treatment group significantly: 64.3% in any OKZ q2w and 59.7% in any OKZ q4w. The majority of TEAEs in all groups were not serious and were of mild or moderate severity. Incidence of treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TESAE) were: 12 (7.0%) subjects in any OKZ q2w; 6 subjects (3.2%) in any OKZ q4w group, all in the first 16 weeks. The most frequently reported TESAEs across all treatment groups were infections and infestations: 2 (1.2%) in OKZ q2w group, 2 (1.1%) in OKZ q4w group. No opportunistic infections including active tuberculosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations or deaths were reported. Conclusion In this global Phase III trial in patients with moderately to severely active RA inadequately controlled by TNF-α inhibitor therapy, treatment with OKZ plus MTX in both regimes (OKZ 64 mg q2w and OKZ 64 mg q4w) was associated with significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of RA compared to PBO plus MTX over a 24-week period. Treatment with OKZ q2w and q4w in this difficult to treat population was well tolerated and consistent with the established safety profile of anti-IL-6 agents. Disclosure E. Feist: Consultancies; R-Pharm, Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi. Honoraria; R-Pharm, Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; R-Pharm, Abbvie, AB2Bio, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB. Grants/research support; Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai. S. Fatenejad: Consultancies; RPharm International. Shareholder/stock ownership; Pfizer. S. Grishin: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm. E. Korneva: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm. M. Luggen: Consultancies; Amgen, Sun Pharmaceuticals, R-Pharm International. Grants/research support; I havAbbvie, R-Pharm, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and GSK. E. Nasonov: Honoraria; Lilly, Abbnie, Prizer, Biocad, R-Pharm. Member of speakers’ bureau; Lilly, Abbnie, Prizer, Biocad, R-Pharm. M. Samsonov: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm.

Background/Aims Olokizumab (OKZ) is a new humanised monoclonal antibody targeting IL-6 directly. Here we present the results of a global randomised clinical trial (RCT) in patients (pts) with RA. Methods This double-blind, placebo (PBO) and active controlled, RCT in pts with moderately to severely active RA despite MTX (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02760407, CREDO2) was carried out in 18 counties. Pts were randomized 2:2:2:1 to receive subcutaneous injections of OKZ 64 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks (q4w), adalimumab (ADA) 40mg q2w or PBO for 24 weeks, plus MTX. After week 24, subjects either rolled over into an open-label study or entered the Safety Follow-Up Period for another 20 weeks. The primary endpoint was ACR 20% (ACR20) response rate at week 12. Secondary endpoints included: percentage of subjects with DAS28-CRP Results 1,648 subjects were randomised to OKZ 64mg q2w (n = 464), OKZ 64mg q4w (n = 479), ADA 40mg (n = 462) or PBO (n = 243). Baseline characteristics were comparable across treatment arms. The vast majority of the pts completed 24 weeks treatment period 421 (90.7%) in q2w, 437 (91.2%) in q4w, 413 (89.4%) in ADA and 208 (85.6%) in PBO arms and enrolled to open-label extension study: 410 (88.4%), 422 (88.1%), 397 (85.9%) and 199 (81.9%) pts, respectively. Both regimens of OKZ were significantly better than PBO in all primary and secondary endpoints. Furthermore, non-inferiority to ADA was demonstrated for the pre-defined endpoints of ACR20 and DAS28-CRP Conclusion In this global Phase III trial, treatment with OKZ plus MTX in both regimes (OKZ 64 mg q2w and OKZ 64 mg q4w) was associated with significant improvements in the signs, symptoms and physical function of RA compared to PBO plus MTX and non-inferior to ADA plus MTX over a 24-week period. OKZ was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. Disclosure E. Feist: Consultancies; R-Pharm, Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi. Honoraria; R-Pharm, Abbvie, AB2Bio, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; R-Pharm, Abbvie, AB2Bio, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB. Grants/research support; Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai. S. Chohan: None. S. Fatenejad: Consultancies; RPharm International. Shareholder/stock ownership; Pfizer. S. Grishin: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm. E. Korneva: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm. E.L. Nasonov: Honoraria; Lilly, Abbnie, Prizer, Biocad, R-Pharm. Member of speakers’ bureau; Lilly, Abbnie, Prizer, Biocad, R-Pharm. A. Rowińska-Osuch: Consultancies; R-Pharm. M. Samsonov: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of olokizumab (OKZ) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate (MTX).MethodsIn this 24-week multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, patients were randomised 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneously administered OKZ 64 mg once every 2 weeks, OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks, or placebo plus MTX. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 12. The secondary efficacy endpoints included percentage of subjects achieving Disease Activity Score 28-joint count based on C reactive protein ResultsA total of 428 patients were randomised. ACR20 responses were more frequent with OKZ every 2 weeks (63.6%) and OKZ every 4 weeks (70.4%) than placebo (25.9%) (pConclusionsTreatment with OKZ was associated with significant improvement in signs, symptoms and physical function of rheumatoid arthritis without discernible differences between the two regimens. Safety was as expected for this class of agents. Low immunogenicity was observed.Trial registration numberNCT02760368.

Etanercept pharmacokinetics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and psoriasis were assessed separately with distinct models using population pharmacokinetics methods of limited precision. The different model structures and associated significant covariates identified by these earlier methods made it difficult to compare etanercept pharmacokinetics among disease groups. This integrated analysis aimed to establish a framework to evaluate previously established population pharmacokinetic models of etanercept, and to identify consistent and important demographic and disease factors that affected etanercept pharmacokinetics in a diverse population of healthy subjects and patients with RA and AS. In this integrated analysis, cumulative rich and sparse etanercept concentration data from 53 healthy volunteers, 212 patients with RA, and 346 patients with AS were examined and compared using nonlinear mixed effect methodology implemented the in NONMEM VI software package. A more precise estimation method (FOCEi) was employed and compared with the first-order method in population pharmacokinetics model building and evaluation. The integrated analysis found that an optimal population pharmacokinetics model with a 2-compartment structure adequately characterized etanercept pharmacokinetics in all subject groups. Health status or disease type did not significantly affect etanercept pharmacokinetics. In adult patients with RA and AS, age and body weight do not significantly affect etanercept pharmacokinetics.

Objective: To compare the performance of a simplified scoring method for structural damage on radiographs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (the Simple Erosion Narrowing Score or SENS) with the Sharp–van der Heijde Score (SHS) as reference. Method: We used the radiographic data from the Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate with Radiographic Patient Outcomes (TEMPO trial). The SENS was derived from the crude SHS data. Inter-observer reliability for status scores and change scores was determined by intraclass correlation coefficients and by the Smallest Detectable Change method. The ability to discriminate between treatment groups was assessed by the Mann–Whitney U test. Stratifying the sensitivity to change and discriminative ability for different levels of disease severity assessed a potential ceiling effect. Results: Inter-observer reliability was similar for both methods. Intraclass correlation coefficients were higher for status scores than for change scores. The Smallest Detectable Change was 4.98 (1.1% of possible maximum score) for SHS and 2.28 (3.5%) for SENS. Sensitivity of SENS to detect progression above the Smallest Detectable Change, with reference SHS, ranged from 45.0 to 88.7%. Specificity ranged from 81.5 to 97.3%, and the κ coefficient (between-method agreement) ranged from 0.58 to 0.66. Discriminative ability between treatment groups was good and similar for both methods. A ceiling effect could not be detected. Conclusions: With regard to most of the tested properties, the performance of SENS is as good as that of SHS. This confirms that SENS is a valuable method, which may be feasible in clinical practice.

Background: Many studies have examined the relationship between long-term radiographic damage and physical function. However, it is not known if short-term radiographic progression is also associated with physical function. Aim: To investigate the longitudinal relationship between physical function and both the level of radiographic damage and the radiographic progression rate in patients with early or advanced active rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: The database for the 2-year Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate with Radiographic Patient Outcomes (TEMPO) was used for this study. Physical function was measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score at baseline, 6 months and 1 and 2 years. Radiographs of the hands and feet, taken at the same time points, were scored by the van der Heijde-modified Total Sharp Score (TSS). The HAQ score was modelled using generalised mixed linear modelling by TSS or progression in TSS (interval 0–1 year and 1–2 years) adjusted for age, sex, treatment and disease activity. Results: After adjustment for age, sex and disease activity, both TSS and the change in TSS (progression rate) were significant determinants of the HAQ score. When radiographic progression was divided into four categories (negative, zero, minor and greater progression), results showed that HAQ scores tended to be higher with a higher rate of progression. Patients with negative progression scores had lower HAQ scores than patients with positive progression scores. Conclusions: Patients with greater radiographic damage, and those with recent radiographic progression, have a higher degree of disability.

Objective. The Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate with Radiographic Patient Outcomes (TEMPO) is a 3-year, double-blind, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy and safety of etanercept, methotrexate, and the combination of etanercept plus methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The results after 1 and 2 years of the study have been previously reported. Here we provide the 3-year clinical and radiographic outcomes and safety of etanercept, methotrexate, and the combination in patients with RA. Methods. In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter TEMPO study, 682 patients received etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, methotrexate ≤20 mg weekly, or the combination. Key efficacy assessments included the Disease Activity Score (DAS) and the DAS in 28 joints. Results. Combination therapy resulted in significantly greater improvement in the DAS and in more patients with disease in remission than either monotherapy. This finding was confirmed by longitudinal analysis; patients receiving combination therapy were more than twice as likely to have disease in remission than those receiving either monotherapy. Independent predictors of remission included male sex, lower disease activity, lower level of joint destruction, and/or better physical function. Combination and etanercept therapy both resulted in significantly less radiographic progression than did methotrexate (P < 0.05). Etanercept and combination treatment were well tolerated, with no new safety findings. Conclusion. Etanercept plus methotrexate showed sustained efficacy through 3 years and remained more effective than either monotherapy, even after adjustment for patient withdrawal. Combination therapy for 3 years led to disease remission and inhibition of radiographic progression, 2 key goals for treatment of patients with RA. © 2007, American College of Rheumatology.

To compare patient reported measures of function, health related quality of life (QoL), and satisfaction with medication among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with methotrexate (MTX), etanercept, or both for up to 1 year.In a 52 week, double blind, clinical trial, patients with active RA were randomised to receive etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, methotrexate up to 20 mg weekly, or combination therapy. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index, EuroQoL health status visual analogue scale (EQ-5D VAS), patient global assessment, and patient general health VAS were administered at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 32, 40, 48, and 52. Satisfaction with the medication was compared at 52 weeks.Of 682 enrolled patients, 522 completed 52 weeks of treatment. Mean improvement from baseline in HAQ score was 0.65, 0.70, and 1.0 for MTX, etanercept, and the combination, respectively. The mean percentage and absolute improvement in the HAQ was significantly higher (p0.01) for combination therapy than for either of the monotherapies. Combination therapy produced significantly more rapid achievement of HAQor =0.5 sustained for 6 months than either of the monotherapies (p0.01). Compared with patients receiving monotherapy, those receiving combination therapy achieved a significantly better (p0.05) health state as measured by the EQ-5D VAS (mean (SD) 63.7 (3.2), 66.8 (3.2), 72.7 (3.1) for MTX, etanercept, and the combination, respectively). Results were similar for other assessments (p0.01). Patients in combination and etanercept groups were significantly more likely (p0.0001, p = 0.0009, respectively) to report satisfaction with the medication.Combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate improved function, QoL, and satisfaction with the medication significantly more than monotherapy.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy, including radiographic changes, and safety of etanercept and methotrexate (MTX), used in combination and alone, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom previous treatment with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug other than MTX had failed. Methods Patients with RA were treated with etanercept (25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly), oral MTX (up to 20 mg weekly), or combination therapy with etanercept plus MTX through a second year, in a double-blinded manner. Clinical response was assessed using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and the Disease Activity Score (DAS), in a modified intent-to-treat analysis with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) and in a population of completers. Radiographs of the hands, wrists, and forefeet were scored for erosions and joint space narrowing at annual intervals. Results A total of 503 of 686 patients continued into year 2 of the study. During the 2 years, significantly fewer patients receiving combination therapy withdrew from the study (29% of the combination therapy group, 39% of the etanercept group, and 48% of the MTX group). Both the LOCF and the completer analyses yielded similar results. The ACR 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses and the remission rates (based on a DAS of

Objective To evaluate different methods of presentation and analysis of radiographic data in a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) randomized controlled trial. Methods A double-blind randomized controlled trial including 682 patients with active RA who were treated with methotrexate, etanercept, or a combination of the 2 drugs was used for this study. Probability plots of the change from baseline to year 1 were produced to visualize progression, and were compared with usual descriptive statistics. The primary analysis of the trial (based on annualized actual mean change from baseline in total Sharp score at 1 year, using linear imputation) was challenged using various ways of handling missing information with alternative imputation methods, and by various statistical analyses including analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and mixed model analysis on both raw and log-transformed data. Results Probability plots provided detailed insight into the differentiated treatment effects between the 3 arms of this study. As adjuncts to formal hypothesis testing, these plots were more useful for presenting data than were summary descriptive statistics or use of preset cutoff points to define lack of progression. Additional analyses presented here support the results obtained with the per-protocol analysis that showed an advantage of the combination treatment compared with the monotherapy arms and for etanercept versus methotrexate alone. Various ways of handling missing information confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, both ANCOVA and mixed model analyses on raw and on log-transformed data produced similar results. Conclusion We suggest a panel of alternative analysis methods and alternative ways of handling missing information to verify that the radiographic results reported in an randomized controlled trial are not influenced by technical factors, such as interpolation, handling of missing data, and choice of statistical tests.

The conventional paradigm to explain systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is that disease results from tissue deposition of pathogenic autoantibodies and immune complexes, secondary to activation of autoreactive B cells in the context of help from alphabeta T cells. Recent work in murine lupus has confirmed this notion and demonstrated that autoantigen-specific alphabeta T cells are absolutely required for full penetrance of disease, with such autoreactive alphabeta T cells, even in Fas-intact mice, likely arising from defects in peripheral tolerance. These studies have also revealed a network of regulation that also involves nonclassical pathogenic and downregulatory alphabeta and gammadelta T cells, suggesting that the lupus immune system involves more complex interactions than the conventional paradigm suggests.

Lupus-prone mice develop a systemic autoimmune disease that is dependent upon the B cell help provided by autoreactive αβ CD4+ T cells. Since autoreactive T cells with high affinity for self peptides are normally deleted in the thymus, their presence in these mice suggests the possibility that intrathymic negative selection may be defective. Here, we directly compared central T cell tolerance in response to a conventional peptide Ag in lupus-prone MRL/MpJ mice with a nonautoimmune strain using an MHC class II-restricted TCR transgene. Our results did not demonstrate any defects after Ag exposure in the induction of intrathymic deletion of immature CD4+CD8+ thymocytes, in TCR down-regulation, or in the number of apoptotic thymocytes in MRL/MpJ compared with nonautoimmune mice. Furthermore, we found that the lpr mutation had no influence upon the Ag-induced thymic deletion of immature thymocytes. These data support the notion that T cell autoreactivity in MRL/MpJ mice is caused by defects in peripheral control mechanisms.

The U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein (sn-RNP) particle, which consists of the U1 small RNA and multiple polypeptides, is a central target of the autoimmune response in systemic lupus erythematosus. Autoantibodies to the individual proteins of the U1 snRNP typically co-occur in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, an observation reconciled by postulating that the intact RNA-protein complex serves as the autoimmunogen and that snRNP-specific autoreactive T cells are necessary for autoantibody production. In this study, we demonstrated that normal mice did not develop antibody responses following immunization with purified self (murine) snRNPs. However, when such mice were coimmunized with self snRNPs in conjunction with the human (foreign) U1 snRNP A protein, they developed autoantibodies directed against individual proteins of the U1 snRNP, in addition to anti-A antibodies; we have previously shown that such mice develop snRNP-specific, autoreactive T cells. Intact snRNPs as a co-immunogen were a prerequisite for antibody expansion, since this response was abrogated by disruption of snRNP particles with pancreatic RNase prior to immunization. These findings indicate that autoreactive helper T cells can drive autoantibody production to the individual proteins of snRNP particles and that such autoantibody responses may require the presence of intact snRNP particles that possess intrastructural B-cell and helper-T-cell determinants. These results also suggest that induction of an immune response to one component of an autoantigenic snRNP complex, possibly through priming with molecular mimics, can induce the diversification of autoantibodies that is characteristic of that found in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

Background: Radiographic progression in clinical trials is assessed by interpreting changes in total radiographic joint score, and the reliability of those scores depends on an evaluation of sum scores. It is not known how consistently changes in individual joints are identified by independent readers and in independent readings. Patients and Methods: 7255 single joints from 178 patients who participated in the Trial of Etanercept and Methothrexate with Radiographic Patient Outcomes (TEMPO) trial were evaluated. Every image was independently scored twice according to the Sharp–van der Heijde method by two independent readers, so that four scores per joint were available. Absolute agreement and consistency of negative and positive erosion change scores across readers and readings were compared on a per-joint level, as well as on a per-patient level. Results: The number of joints showing a change for erosion was very low in this trial: 691/7255 analysed joints had at least one non-zero change score out of four readings. Absolute agreement between readings was remarkably poor: only 12 joints showed a consistently positive or negative change in all four readings. Change scores in opposite directions in the same joint across independent readings were rare (25 joints). Frequency of opposite joint scores in the same patient (mixed change patterns) was reader dependent. Conclusion: Substantial intra and interreader disagreement in scoring change in individual joints is common. Opposite joint scores in the same patient, however, are rare and reader dependent. Notwithstanding these subtle inconsistencies on the individual joint level, the total Sharp score is a useful and discriminatory outcome measure.

International audience; Rationale: An efficacious medical therapy for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) remains elusive. Objectives: To explore the efficacy and safety of etanercept in the treatment of IPF. Methods: This was a randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter exploratory trial in subjects with clinically progressive IPF. Primary endpoints included changes in the percentage of predicted FVC and lung cliff using capacity for carbon monoxide corrected for hemoglobin (D-LCOHB) and change in the alveolar to arterial oxygen pressure difference P(A-a)(O2) at rest from baseline over 48 weeks. Measurements and Main Results: Eighty-eight subjects received subcutaneous etanercept (25 mg) or placebo twice weekly as their sole treatment for IPF. No differences in baseline demographics and disease status were detected between treatment groups; the mean time from first diagnosis was 13.6 months and mean FVC was 63.9% of predicted. At 48 weeks, no significant differences in efficacy end points were observed between the groups. A nonsignificant reduction in disease progression was seen in several physiologic, functional, and quality-of-life endpoints among subjects receiving etanercept. There was no difference in adverse events between treatment groups. Conclusions: In this exploratory study in patients with clinically progressive IPF, etanercept was well tolerated. Although there were no differences in the predefined endpoints, a decreased rate of disease progression was observed on several measures. Further evaluation of TNF antagonists in the treatment of IPF may be warranted.

Objective To determine the relationship between disease activity and radiographic progression of joint destruction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with methotrexate (MTX), those treated with etanercept, and those treated with the combination of MTX plus etanercept. Methods Baseline, 12-month, and 24-month data from the Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate with Radiographic and Patient Outcomes database were analyzed. The dependent variable was the 1-year change in the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score (Sharp score); therefore, 2 interval changes per patient were available. Interval change in the Sharp score was modeled by time (years), treatment, disease activity, and the interaction (disease activity × treatment). Disease activity was reflected by the time-averaged Disease Activity Score (taDAS) and the time-averaged C-reactive protein (taCRP) level, which were calculated per 1-year interval. Generalized mixed linear modeling (GMLM) was used to adjust for within-patient correlation. Results GMLM confirmed a significant interaction between treatment and the taCRP level and taDAS with respect to the change in Sharp score (P = 0.012 and P = 0.03, respectively). In patients treated with MTX alone, radiographic progression increased with an increasing taCRP level or taDAS, although progression rates were low in patients whose disease was in remission and in those with low-to-moderate disease activity. This relationship was less clear in patients treated with etanercept and was absent in those who received combination therapy. Conclusion Combination therapy with MTX plus etanercept uncouples the classic relationship between disease activity and radiographic progression in patients with RA.

To compare the efficacy and safety of etanercept and sulfasalazine, alone and in combination, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite sulfasalazine treatment.A double-blind, randomised study in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable sulfasalazine (2-3 g/day) treatment. The primary end point was a 20% response by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria at 24 weeks.At baseline, the three treatment groups (sulfasalazine, n = 50; etanercept, n = 103; etanercept and sulfasalazine, n = 101) were comparable for demographic variables and disease activity. Lack of efficacy was the primary reason for discontinuation (sulfasalazine, n = 12; etanercept, n = 1; etanercept and sulfasalazine, n = 4; p0.001). Significantly more patients receiving etanercept, alone or in combination (74% for each), achieved ACR 20 responses at 24 weeks than those receiving sulfasalazine (28%; p0.01). Similarly, more patients in the etanercept groups achieved ACR 50 and ACR 70 responses than those in the sulfasalazine group (p0.01). In the groups receiving etanercept, significant differences in the ACR core components were observed by week 2 compared with those receiving sulfasalazine alone (p0.01). The incidences of several common adverse events (headache, nausea, asthenia) were lower with etanercept alone than with the combination (p0.05), but infections and injection site reactions were higher with etanercept alone (p0.05). The safety profiles of both etanercept treatment groups were comparable with previous experience of etanercept.For all efficacy variables assessed, etanercept alone or in combination with sulfasalazine resulted in substantial and similar improvement in disease activity from baseline to week 24 compared with sulfasalazine alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite their sulfasalazine treatment. All three treatments were generally well tolerated.

Tissue ischemia generates potentially immunogenic peptides of autoantigens in the autoimmune disease, scleroderma.

To evaluate different methods of presentation and analysis of radiographic data in a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) randomized controlled trial.A double-blind randomized controlled trial including 682 patients with active RA who were treated with methotrexate, etanercept, or a combination of the 2 drugs was used for this study. Probability plots of the change from baseline to year 1 were produced to visualize progression, and were compared with usual descriptive statistics. The primary analysis of the trial (based on annualized actual mean change from baseline in total Sharp score at 1 year, using linear imputation) was challenged using various ways of handling missing information with alternative imputation methods, and by various statistical analyses including analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and mixed model analysis on both raw and log-transformed data.Probability plots provided detailed insight into the differentiated treatment effects between the 3 arms of this study. As adjuncts to formal hypothesis testing, these plots were more useful for presenting data than were summary descriptive statistics or use of preset cutoff points to define lack of progression. Additional analyses presented here support the results obtained with the per-protocol analysis that showed an advantage of the combination treatment compared with the monotherapy arms and for etanercept versus methotrexate alone. Various ways of handling missing information confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, both ANCOVA and mixed model analyses on raw and on log-transformed data produced similar results.We suggest a panel of alternative analysis methods and alternative ways of handling missing information to verify that the radiographic results reported in an randomized controlled trial are not influenced by technical factors, such as interpolation, handling of missing data, and choice of statistical tests.

Objective: To assess methods to calculate achieving and sustaining remission in a double blind randomised trial in patients with RA who received etanercept, methotrexate, or an etanercept/methotrexate combination. Methods: Remission was defined as DAS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential impact of concurrent weekly oral methotrexate administration on the pharmacokinetics of etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a phase 3B trial. As part of a double-blind randomized trial of 682 patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received etanercept (25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly), methotrexate (weekly oral dose, median weekly dose: 20 mg), or etanercept (25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly) plus methotrexate (weekly oral dose, median weekly dose: 20 mg), serum etanercept concentrations were measured in a subset of patients. Serum samples for 98 randomly selected patients (48 receiving etanercept-alone treatment, 50 receiving etanercept plus methotrexate combination treatment) were analyzed to assess the pharmacokinetics of etanercept. A single blood sample was drawn from each patient at baseline and at the week 24 visit. Given the variable sampling time for patients in both groups, a population pharmacokinetic analysis using NONMEM was conducted for etanercept. A final covariate population pharmacokinetic model was constructed based on previously obtained etanercept data from both healthy subjects (n = 53) and patients with RA (n = 212) in 10 prior clinical trials. The predictive performance of the final model was assessed by both bootstrap and data-splitting validation approaches. The final model was then used to estimate Bayesian pharmacokinetic parameters for the patients in both treatments in the current trial. The potential effect of the concurrent administration of methotrexate on the pharmacokinetics of etanercept was examined by comparing the clearance values between 2 treatments using statistical criteria. A population 2-compartment model with first-order elimination from the central compartment and with either zero-order (intravenous administration) or first-order (subcutaneous administration) input was selected based on the data from the prior 10 etanercept clinical studies. The following pharmacokinetic parameters (typical value +/- standard error) were estimated: clearance (CL: 0.072 +/- 0.005 L/h), volume of distribution in the central compartment (V(c): 5.97 +/- 0.45 L), volume of distribution in the peripheral compartment (V(p): 2.05 +/- 0.32 L), intercompartment clearance (Q: 0.0645 +/- 0.0093 L/h), first-order absorption rate constant (k(a): 0.0282 +/- 0.0039 1/h), and absolute bioavailability for subcutaneous administration (F: 0.626 +/- 0.056). Interindividual variability of the pharmacokinetic parameters was quantified for CL (25.1%), V(c) (41.7%), k(a) (53.1%), and F (24.2%). Residual variability consisted of combined additive (11.4 ng/mL) and proportional error (49.9%). Both age (< 17 years) and body weight (< 60 kg) were found to be important covariates on CL. The results of both validation tests indicated the adequate predictive performance of the population model. Based on the bioequivalence criteria, the Bayesian-estimated clearance for patients receiving etanercept alone (mean: 0.070 L/h) was comparable to that for patients receiving a combination of etanercept and methotrexate (mean = 0.066 L/h). The pharmacokinetics of etanercept were not altered by the concurrent administration of methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, no etanercept dose adjustment is needed for patients taking concurrent methotrexate.

Etanercept and methotrexate are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but no data exist on concurrent initiation or use of the combination compared with either drug alone. We aimed to assess combination treatment with etanercept and methotrexate versus the monotherapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.In a double-blind, randomised, clinical efficacy, safety, and radiographic study, 686 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated to treatment with etanercept 25 mg (subcutaneously twice a week), oral methotrexate (up to 20 mg every week), or the combination. Clinical response was assessed by criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The primary efficacy endpoint was the numeric index of the ACR response (ACR-N) area under the curve (AUC) over the first 24 weeks. The primary radiographic endpoint was change from baseline to week 52 in total joint damage and was assessed with the modified Sharp score. Analysis was by intention to treat.Four patients did not receive any drug; thus 682 were studied. ACR-N AUC at 24 weeks was greater for the combination group compared with etanercept alone and methotrexate alone (18.3%-years [95% CI 17.1-19.6] vs 14.7%-years [13.5-16.0], p0.0001, and 12.2%-years [11.0-13.4], p0.0001; respectively). The mean difference in ACR-N AUC between combination and methotrexate alone was 6.1 (95% CI 4.5-7.8, p0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was 2.5 (0.8-4.2, p=0.0034). The combination was more efficacious than methotrexate or etanercept alone in retardation of joint damage (mean total Sharp score -0.54 [95% CI -1.00 to -0.07] vs 2.80 [1.08 to 4.51], p0.0001, and 0.52 [-0.10 to 1.15], p=0.0006; respectively). The mean difference in total Sharp score between combination and methotrexate alone was -3.34 (95% CI -4.86 to -1.81, p0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was -27 (-3.81 to -0.74, p=0.0469). The number of patients reporting infections or adverse events was similar in all groups.The combination of etanercept and methotrexate was significantly better in reduction of disease activity, improvement of functional disability, and retardation of radiographic progression compared with methotrexate or etanercept alone. These findings bring us closer to achievement of remission and repair of structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis.

Objective To investigate the reason for grouping of antibodies against small nuclear RNP (snRNP) particles, which are major autoantigens in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods Mice were immunized with biochemically purified native snRNP particles or recombinant proteins, followed by assessment of antibody and T cell responses. Since mouse (self) snRNPs are not immunogenic in mice, a eukaryotic expression vector was constructed to induce high-level expression of the human U1 snRNP-associated A protein in murine cells. Native chimeric (mouse/human) snRNP particles were used to immunize normal mice of both H-2k and H-2b backgrounds. We also disrupted the native snRNPs by digestion with ribonuclease and used this mixture of proteins to immunize mice. Results Immunization with native chimeric snRNPs resulted in the development of antibodies against a set of snRNP-associated proteins, a response which was accompanied by breakdown in T cell tolerance to mouse snRNPs in mice immunized with chimeric snRNPs. We also demonstrated that the ordered production of these antibodies was due to the fact that snRNP-associated proteins are grouped together in snRNP particles, since disruption of the particles resulted in development of antibodies in a random order, distinct from antibodies seen with intact particles. Conclusion Our findings directly demonstrate that the pattern of development of antibodies to native snRNPs is similar to that which is commonly observed in SLE, and that disruption of the particles results in disappearance of this ordered pattern. These results suggest that the autoimmune response to snRNPs, and possibly to other autoantigens, in lupus is a specific reaction similar to that seen in a typical immune response to foreign immunogens.

1 The Lancet. Depressing research. Lancet 2004; 363: 1335. 2 Keller MB, Ryan ND, Strober M, et al. Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomised, controlled trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiat 2001; 40: 762–72. 3 Milin RP, Simeon J, Spenst WP. Doubleblind study of paroxetine in adolescents with unipolar major depression. Annual Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) Annual Meeting; Chicago, IL, USA; Oct 19–21, 1999; NR67: 104–05. 4 Wagner KD, Wetherhold E, Carpenter DJ, et al. Safety and tolerability of paroxetine in children and adolescents: pooled results from five multicenter, placebo-controlled trials. American Academy of Children and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) Annual Meeting; San Francisco, CA, USA; Oct 22-27, 2002.