Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Active immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) has been a critical mitigation tool against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In light of reports of waning protection occurring 6 months after the primary two-dose vaccine series, data are needed on the safety and efficacy of offering a third (booster) dose in persons 16 years of age or older.Methods: In this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned participants who had received two 30-μg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least 6 months earlier to be injected with a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine or with placebo. We assessed vaccine safety and efficacy against Covid-19 starting 7 days after the third dose.Results: A total of 5081 participants received a third BNT162b2 dose and 5044 received placebo. The median interval between dose 2 and dose 3 was 10.8 months in the vaccine group and 10.7 months in the placebo group; the median follow-up was 2.5 months. Local and systemic reactogenicity events from the third dose were generally of low grade. No new safety signals were identified, and no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported. Among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated, Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after dose 3 was observed in 6 participants in the vaccine group and in 123 participants in the placebo group, which corresponded to a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.3% (95% confidence interval, 89.5 to 98.3).Conclusions: A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered a median of 10.8 months after the second dose provided 95.3% efficacy against Covid-19 as compared with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine during a median follow-up of 2.5 months. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591031 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of three dosing and repeat treatment regimens of rituximab (RTX) plus MTX in patients with active RA. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid49) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. METHODS: In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy protrial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years ofage or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 Bg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full- length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. RESULTS: A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21, 728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 10096) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid49 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years ofage or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Current knowledge of the reasons for patients' preference for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment modes is limited. This study was designed to identify preferences for four treatment modes, and to obtain in-depth information on the reasons for these preferences. Patients and Methods: In this multi-national, cross-sectional, qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted with adult patients with RA in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Brazil. Patients' strength of preference was evaluated using a 100-point allocation task (0– 100; 100=strongest) across four treatment modes: oral, self-injection, clinic-injection, and infusion. Qualitative descriptive analysis methods were used to identify, characterize, and summarize patterns found in the interview data relating to reasons for these preferences. Results: 100 patients were interviewed (female, 75.0%; mean age, 53.9 years; mean 11.6 years since diagnosis). Among the four treatment modes, oral administration was allocated the highest mean (standard deviation) preference points (47.3 [33.1]) and was ranked first choice by the greatest percentage of patients (57.0%), followed by self-injection (29.7 [27.7]; 29.0%), infusion (15.4 [24.6]; 16.0%), and clinic-injection (7.5 [14.1]; 2.0%). Overall, 56.0% of patients had a "strong" first-choice preference (ie, point allocation ≥ 70); most of these patients chose oral (62.5%) vs self-injection (23.2%), infusion (10.7%), or clinic-injection (3.6%). Speed and/or ease of administration were the most commonly reported reasons for patients choosing oral (52.6%) or self-injection (55.2%). The most common reasons for patients not choosing oral or self-injection were not wanting to take another pill (37.2%) and avoiding pain due to needles (46.5%), respectively. Conclusion: These data report factors important to patients regarding preferences for RA treatment modes. Patients may benefit from discussions with their healthcare professionals and/or patient support groups, regarding RA treatment modes, to facilitate shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To identify baseline predictors of remission and low disease activity (LDA) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the GLADAR (Grupo Latino Americano De estudio de la Artritis Reumatoide) cohort. Methods: Patients with 1- and 2-year follow-up visits were included. Remission and LDA were defined by DAS28-ESR (< 2.6 and ≤ 3.2, respectively). Baseline predictors examined were gender, ethnicity, age at diagnosis, socioeconomic status, symptoms' duration, DMARDs, RF, thrombocytosis, anemia, morning stiffness, DAS28-ESR (and its components), HAQ-DI, DMARDs and corticosteroid use, and Sharp-VDH score. Multivariable binary logistic regression models (excluding DAS28-ESR components to avoid over adjustment) were derived using a backward selection method (α-level set at 0.05). Results: Four hundred ninety-eight patients were included. Remission and LDA/remission were met by 19.3% and 32.5% at the 1-year visit, respectively. For the 280 patients followed for 2 years, these outcomes were met by 24.3% and 38.9%, respectively. Predictors of remission at 1 year were a lower DAS28-ESR (OR 1.17; CI 1.07–1.27; p = 0.001) and HAQ-DI (OR 1.48; CI 1.04–2.10; p = 0.028). At 2 years, only DAS28-ESR (OR 1.40; CI 1.17–1.6; p < 0.001) was a predictor. Predictors of LDA/remission at 1 year were DAS28-ESR (OR 1.42; CI 1.26–1.61; p < 0.001), non-use of corticosteroid (OR 1.74; CI 1.11–2.44; p = 0.008), and male gender (OR 1.77; CI 1.2–2.63; p = 0.036). A lower baseline DAS28-ESR (OR 1.45; CI 1.23–1.70; p < 0.001) was the only predictor of LDA/remission at 2 years. Conclusions: A lower disease activity consistently predicted remission and LDA/remission at 1 and 2 years of follow-up in early RA patients from the GLADAR cohort. Key Points • In patients with early RA, a lower disease activity at first visit is a strong clinical predictor of achieving remission and LDA subsequently. • Other clinical predictors of remission and LDA to keep in mind in these patients are male gender, non-use of corticosteroids and low disability at baseline. • Not using corticosteroids at first visit is associated with a lower disease activity and predicts LDA/remission at 1 year in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this transglobal, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treat-to-target study, the maintenance of efficacy was compared between biologic-and biologic-free-disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combination regimens after low disease activity (LDA) was achieved with biologic DMARD induction therapy. Patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy received open-label etanercept 50 mg subcutaneously once weekly plus methotrexate with or without other conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs for 24 weeks. Patients achieving LDA [disease activity score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) <3.2] at week 24 were randomized to receive etanercept-methotrexate combination therapy or placebo-methotrexate combination therapy, with or without other csDMARDs, for 28 weeks. In the open-label period, 72% of patients achieved DAS28-ESR LDA at week 24. Patients enrolled in the double-blind period had long-standing rheumatoid arthritis and high disease activity at baseline (mean duration, 8.1 years; DAS28-ESR, 6.4). In the etanercept and placebo combination groups, 44% versus 17% achieved DAS28-ESR LDA and 34 versus 13% achieved DAS28-ESR remission at week 52 ( p < 0.001). Adverse events were reported in 37 and 43%, serious adverse events in 0 and 4%, and serious infections in 0 and 2% in these groups, respectively, in the double-blind period. After induction of response with etanercept combination therapy following a treat-to-target approach in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis and high disease activity at baseline, the etanercept combination regimen was significantly more effective in maintaining LDA and remission than a biologic-free regimen. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT01578850. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The purpose of this 24-month phase III study was to examine structural preservation with tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Data from a planned 12-month interim analysis are reported. Methods In this double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, patients receiving background MTX were randomized 4:4:1:1 to tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, tofacitinib at 10 mg twice daily, placebo to tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, and placebo to tofacitinib at 10 mg twice daily. At month 3, nonresponder placebo-treated patients were advanced in a blinded manner to receive tofacitinib as indicated above; remaining placebo-treated patients were advanced at 6 months. Four primary efficacy end points were all analyzed in a step-down procedure. Results At month 6, response rates according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were higher than those for placebo (51.5% and 61.8%, respectively, versus 25.3%; both P < 0.0001). At month 6, least squares mean (LSM) changes in total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were 0.12 and 0.06, respectively, versus 0.47 for placebo ( P = 0.0792 and P ≤ 0.05, respectively). At month 3, LSM changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index score for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were -0.40 (significance not declared due to step-down procedure) and -0.54 ( P < 0.0001), respectively, versus -0.15 for placebo. At month 6, rates of remission (defined as a value <2.6 for the 4-variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate) for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were 7.2% (significance not declared due to step-down procedure) and 16.0% ( P < 0.0001), respectively, versus 1.6% for placebo. The safety profile was consistent with findings in previous studies. Conclusion Data from this 12-month interim analysis demonstrate that tofacitinib inhibits progression of structural damage and improves disease activity in patients with RA who are receiving MTX. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the study which investigated the efficacy of the novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (CP-690,550) as a targeted immunomodulator and disease-modifying therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. In the study, a 6-month double-blind parallel-group phase 3 trial was conducted in 13 countries in North America, Europe and Latin America. It claims that rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic and debilitating autoimmune disease.

Abstract: Background: The MOTION (Monthly Oral Therapy with Ibandronate for Osteoporosis Intervention) study reported that once-monthly ibandronate was noninferior to once-weekly alendronate in terms of increasing bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine and total hip over 12 months. On analysis of secondary and exploratory end points in MOTION, which included trochanter and femoral neck BMD, monthly ibandronate was found to be noninferior to weekly alendronate. The coprimary, secondary, and exploratory BMD end points from MOTION have been previously reported. Objective: This report presents additional results from the MOTION study, including response rates in terms of lumbar spine and total hip BMD gains above baseline; findings from a comparison of serum concentrations of bone turnover markers; and tolerability analysis, including adverse events that led to withdrawal and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. Methods: MOTION was a 12-month (with 15-day follow-up), randomized, multinational, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, nonin-feriority study in postmenopausal women aged 55 to <85 years with osteoporosis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 150-mg-monthly oral ibandronate and weekly alendronate-matched placebo, or 70-mg-weekly oral alendronate and monthly ibandronate-matched placebo, for 12 months. At baseline, day 7 of treatment, 3 and 6 months, 6 months + 7 days, and 12 months, serum concentrations of markers of bone resorption (C-telopeptide of the a chain of type 1 collagen [sCTX]) and bone formation (serum N-terminal propeptides of type 1 collagen) were measured in a subset of the total trial population. At baseline and month 12, BMD was measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Exploratory analyses of patients whose spine, total hip, and trochanter BMD at 12 months were above baseline (responders) were also performed. Results: A total of 1760 women were enrolled (ibandronate, 887 patients; alendronate, 873). The median changes in the trough concentrations of sCTX were −75.5% with monthly ibandronate and −81.2% with weekly alendronate. The percentage of patients with mean lumbar spine and total hip BMD gains above baseline (responders) were 90% and 87%, respectively, for ibandronate and 92% and 90%, respectively, for alendronate. GI adverse events were reported in ≤30% of patients per group during this 1-year study. Conclusion: The data from these postmenopausal women with osteoporosis suggest that once-monthly 150-mg ibandronate therapy provided clinically comparable efficacy in terms of BMD response, reductions in bone turnover, and GI tolerability similar to that of weekly 70-mg alendronate. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The original version of this article, unfortunately, contained an error. The first and family name of Loreto Massardo was interchanged and is now presented correctly in this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In order to better understand the perspectives of patients and physicians regarding the treatment and management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), we present and compare results from a patient-based and a physician-based survey developed by the RA NarRAtive advisory panel.Methods: The RA NarRAtive initiative is directed by a global advisory panel of 39 healthcare providers and patient organization leaders from 17 countries. A survey of patients self-reporting a diagnosis of RA and a physician-based survey, designed by the advisory panel, were fielded online by Harris Poll from September 2014 to April 2016, and from August 2015 to October 2015, respectively.Results: We present findings from 1805 patients whose RA was primarily managed by a rheumatologist, and 1736 physicians managing patients with RA. Results confirmed that RA carries a substantial disease burden; half of the patients surveyed reported stopping participation in certain activities as a result of their disease. While 90% of physicians were satisfied with their communications with their patients regarding RA treatment, 61% of patients felt uncomfortable raising concerns or fears with their physician. Of the patients providing responses, 52% felt that improved dialogue/discussion would optimize their RA management, and 68% of physicians wished that they and their patients talked more about their RA goals and treatment. Overall, 88% of physicians agreed that patients involved in making treatment decisions tend to be more satisfied with their treatment experience.Conclusion: The results of these surveys highlight the impact of RA on patients, and a discrepancy between patient and physician views on communication. Further research, focused on improving patient-physician dialogue, shared goal-setting, and treatment planning, is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to the article "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," by Kremer and colleagues in July 2009 issue, is presented.