Search

Efficacy against herpes zoster and immune responses to the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine plateaued at high levels between 5.1 and 7.1 years (mean) post-vaccination, suggesting that its clinical benefit in older adults is sustained for at least 7 years post-vaccination. Background This ongoing follow-up study evaluated the persistence of efficacy and immune responses for 6 additional years in adults vaccinated with the glycoprotein E (gE)-based adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) at age >= 50 years in 2 pivotal efficacy trials (ZOE-50 and ZOE-70). The present interim analysis was performed after >= 2 additional years of follow-up (between 5.1 and 7.1 years [mean] post-vaccination) and includes partial data for year (Y) 8 post-vaccination. Methods Annual assessments were performed for efficacy against herpes zoster (HZ) from Y6 post-vaccination and for anti-gE antibody concentrations and gE-specific CD4[2+] T-cell (expressing >= 2 of 4 assessed activation markers) frequencies from Y5 post-vaccination. Results Of 7413 participants enrolled for the long-term efficacy assessment, 7277 (mean age at vaccination, 67.2 years), 813, and 108 were included in the cohorts evaluating efficacy, humoral immune responses, and cell-mediated immune responses, respectively. Efficacy of RZV against HZ through this interim analysis was 84.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.9-89.8) from the start of this follow-up study and 90.9% (95% CI, 88.2-93.2) from vaccination in ZOE-50/70. Annual vaccine efficacy estimates were >84% for each year since vaccination and remained stable through this interim analysis. Anti-gE antibody geometric mean concentrations and median frequencies of gE-specific CD4[2+] T cells reached a plateau at approximately 6-fold above pre-vaccination levels. Conclusions Efficacy against HZ and immune responses to RZV remained high, suggesting that the clinical benefit of RZV in older adults is sustained for at least 7 years post-vaccination., Zoster-049 Study Groupopen access

Summary: 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 wi, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Peter C Taylor, 1 Neil Betteridge, 2 T Michelle Brown, 3 John Woolcott, 4 Alan J Kivitz, 5 Cristiano Zerbini, 6 Diane Whalley, 7 Oyebimpe Olayinka-Amao, 3 Connie Chen, 8 Palle Dahl, 9 Dario Ponce de Leon, 10 David Gruben, 11 Lara Fallon 12 1Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 2Neil Betteridge Associates, London, UK; 3Patient-Centered Outcomes Assessment Group, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; 4Patient and Health Impact, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Pfizer Inc, Collegeville, PA, USA; 5Altoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, PA, USA; 6Department of Rheumatology, Centro Paulista De Investigação Clinica, São Paulo, Brazil; 7Patient-Centered Outcomes Assessment Group, RTI Health Solutions, Manchester, UK; 8Xeljanz, Rheumatology, Inflammation & Immunology Medical Affairs, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA; 9Medical Affairs, International Developed Markets, Inflammation & Immunology, Pfizer Inc, Ballerup, Denmark; 10Medical Affairs Latin-America, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA; 11Statistical Research and Data Science Center, Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA; 12Global Medical Affairs, Pfizer Inc, Montreal, QC, CanadaCorrespondence: Peter C TaylorBotnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LD, UKTel +441865 227323Email peter.taylor@kennedy.ox.ac.ukPurpose: 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-p

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management involves improving clinical outcomes and quality of life (QOL). Golimumab is used as add-on therapy for patients who have failed disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). This GO-MORE subanalysis investigated relationships between patient and physician expectations and outcomes.

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.