Search

Objectives: To investigate if patients with early rheumatoid arthritis responding insufficiently to initial methotrexate (MTX) and bridging glucocorticoids (GCs) could benefit from early but temporary etanercept introduction as a second remission-induction attempt., Methods: CareRA2020 (NCT03649061) was a 2-year, open-label, multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Treatment-naïve patients started MTX and GC bridging (COBRA-Slim: CS). Within a time window from week (W) 8 until W32, early insufficient responders (28-joint Disease Activity Score - C-reactive Protein (DAS28-CRP) >3.2 between W8 and W32 or ≥2.6 at W32) were randomised to a Standard-CS strategy (adding leflunomide first) or Bio-induction-CS strategy (adding etanercept for 24 weeks). Additional treatment adaptations followed the treat-to-target principle. Longitudinal disease activity (DAS28-CRP) over 104 weeks (primary outcome), achievement of DAS28-CRP <2.6 28 weeks after randomisation, and biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) use at W104 were compared between randomisation groups., Results: Following CS treatment, 142 patients were early responders; 55 early insufficient responders received Standard-CS and 55 Bio-induction-CS. Superiority of Bio-induction-CS over Standard-CS could not be demonstrated (ß=-0.204, (95% CI -0.486 to 0.078), p=0.157) for the primary outcome. More patients on Bio-induction-CS achieved DAS28-CRP <2.6 at 28 weeks after randomisation (59% (95% CI 44% to 72%) vs 44% (95% CI 31% to 59%) in Standard-CS) and they were treated less frequently with b/tsDMARDs at W104 (19/55, 35%) compared with Standard-CS (29/55, 53%)., Conclusion: Half of the patients responded well to initial COBRA-Slim induction therapy. In early insufficient responders, adding etanercept for 6 months did not improve disease control over 104 weeks versus adding leflunomide first. However, temporary introduction of etanercept resulted in improved disease control early after randomisation and less patients on b/tsDMARDs at W104., Trial Registration Number: NCT03649061., Ctr Pilot Approval Belgium: S59474, EudraCT number: 2017-004054-41., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RJ received consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, AbbVie; speakers fee from Novartis; support for meeting/travel from Fresenius Kabi; and participation on advisory board from AbbVie, Amgen, Novartis and Fresenius Kabi. KT received consulting fees and payment/honoraria for speakers/manuscript writing/education from Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, Otsuka, Celltrion, Galapagos, Viatris, UCB and Sandoz. JV received support for meeting/travel from UCB and Novartis. SA received support for meeting/travel from Eli Lilly, payment/honoraria for speakers/manuscript writing/education from Eli Lilly, and was member of Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO) expert panel. AD received consulting fees from Amgen, support for meeting/travel from Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Sanofi and UCB; participation on data safety monitoring board/advisory board from Agmen. MD reported a grant from Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO), and support for meeting/travel from AbbVie, Novartis, Galapagos and UCB. EDM reported a grant from Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO). RW received consulting fees from Galapagos, and payment/honoraria for speakers/manuscript writing/education from Galapagos and Celltrion. PV received institution grants from Pfizer, Galapagos; consulting fees from Galapagos, Sidekick Health, Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim; payment/honoraria for speakers/manuscript writing/education from Eli Lilly, Galapagos and Roularta; support for meeting/travel from AbbVie; participation on data safety monitoring board/advisory board from Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, AbbVie, Celltrion and vice president of the Royal Belgian Society for Rheumatology. The remaining authors declared no disclosures., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To compare the benefits of a tight-control/treat-to-target strategy (TC/T2T) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with those of usual care (UC)., Methods: Pragmatic, prospective, cluster-randomised, controlled, open, 1-year trial (NCT03043846). 18 centres were randomised (1:1). Patients met Axial Spondylo Arthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA, had an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) ≥2.1, received non-optimal treatment by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and were biologic-naive., Interventions: (1) TC/T2T : visits every 4 weeks and prespecified strategy based on treatment intensification until achieving target (ie, ASDAS <2.1); (2) UC: visits every 12 weeks and treatment at the rheumatologist's discretion., Main Outcome: Percentage of patients with a ≥30% improvement on the ASAS-Health Index (ASAS-HI). Other efficacy outcomes and adverse events were recorded. A health economic evaluation was performed., Statistical Analysis: Two-level mixed models were used to estimate efficacy outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for TC/T2T versus UC., Results: 160 patients were included (80/group). Mean (SD) age was 37.9 (11.0) years and disease duration was 3.7 (6.2) years; 51.2% were men. ASDAS at inclusion was 3.0 (0.7), and ASAS-HI was 8.6 (3.7). ASAS-HI improved by ≥30% in 47.3% of the TC/T2T arm and in 36.1% of those receiving UC (non-significant). All secondary efficacy outcomes were more frequent in the TC/T2T arm, although not all statistically significant. Safety was similar in both arms. From a societal perspective, TC/T2T resulted in an additional 0.04 QALY, and saved €472 compared with UC., Conclusion: TC/T2T was not significantly superior to UC for the primary outcome, while many secondary efficacy outcomes favoured it, had a similar safety profile and was favourable from a societal health economic perspective., Trial Registration Number: NCT03043846., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Dr van Tubergen reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants from Pfizer, grants from UCB, grants from Biogen, grants from AbbVie, outside the submitted work. Dr van der Heijde reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma, outside the submitted work; and Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. Dr van Gaalen reports grants from Stichting vrienden van Sole Mio, grants from Stichting ASAS, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants from UCB, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. AB received a research grant to her department from AbbVie, consultation fees from Eli Lilly and Galapagos and a speakers fee from UCB, all paid to her department. Dr Van den Bosch reports personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Galapagos, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from UCB, outside the submitted work. Dr Claudepierre reports personal fees from Roche Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, grants from Roche Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, MSD, AbbVie, Lilly, Celgene, Janssen, BMS, outside the submitted work. Dr Molto reports grants from UCB during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AbbVie, grants and personal fees from UCB, personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Lilly, outside the submitted work. Dr Gossec reports grants from Amgen, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Galapagos, personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, outside the submitted work. Dr Dougados reports grants from UCB, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AbbVie, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Lilly, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work. Dr Dernis, Dr Ruyssen-Witrand, Dr Lenaerts, Dr Lopez-Medina, Dr Sparsa, Dr Starmans-Kool, Dr C Webers, Dr Pouplin, Dr Soubrier and Dr Joos have nothing to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To evaluate changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disability in children with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) or polyarticular JIA treated with tocilizumab., Methods: Secondary analyses of two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of intravenous tocilizumab in children with active systemic JIA or polyarticular JIA were conducted. Patient-reported outcomes of disability (Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire [C-HAQ]), HRQoL (Child Health Questionnaire Parent Form 50 [CHQ-P50], health concepts, physical summary score [CHQ-P50-PhS], psychosocial summary score [CHQ-P50-PsS]), pain, and well-being (100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]) were measured at weeks 0 and 12 for systemic JIA, weeks 16 and 40 for polyarticular JIA, and week 104 for both JIA subgroups., Results: The trial included 112 patients with systemic JIA and 188 patients with polyarticular JIA. In patients with polyarticular JIA, the mean ± SD C-HAQ score decreased from 1.39 ± 0.74 at baseline to 0.67 ± 0.65 at week 16 (P < 0.001). In patients with systemic JIA, the mean ± SD CHQ-P50-PhS improved more with tocilizumab therapy than with placebo at week 12 (7.3 ± 10.2 versus 2.4 ± 10.6) (P < 0.05). Almost all mean CHQ-P50 health concept scores, CHQ-P50-PsS, and CHQ-P50-PhS improved (P ≤ 0.002) by week 104 for patients with systemic JIA. Patients with polyarticular JIA and patients with systemic JIA showed significant reductions in disability (mean ± SD C-HAQ scores of -1.09 ± 0.71 and -1.17 ± 0.80, respectively), improvements in well-being (mean ± SD well-being VAS scores of -43.76 ± 26.61 and -51.53 ± 23.57, respectively), and decreases in pain (mean ± SD pain VAS scores of -41.56 ± 31.06 and -51.26 ± 26.79, respectively) (P < 0.001); in patients with polyarticular JIA and patients with systemic JIA who were treated with tocilizumab, 92.9% of polyarticular JIA patients and 96.8% of systemic JIA patients reported no more than minimal pain (a score of ≤35 mm on the VAS) at week 104., Conclusion: Tocilizumab treatment was associated with significantly reduced disability and pain and improved HRQoL in patients with systemic JIA and polyarticular JIA., (© 2020, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To report the 2-year efficacy and safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) in patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)., Methods: Patients ages 2-17 years with active polyarticular-course JIA, in whom treatment with methotrexate was unsuccessful, received 16 weeks of open-label intravenous TCZ in part 1 (once every 4 weeks: 8 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg for body weight [BW] <30 kg; 8 mg/kg for BW ≥30 kg). Assessments were based on the JIA-American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response (defined as percentage of improvement in ≥3 of the 6 JIA core response variables [CRVs]). Patients with at least a JIA-ACR30 response (defined as ≥30% improvement in ≥3 of the 6 JIA CRVs without worsening in >1 of the remaining JIA CRVs by >30%) at week 16 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive TCZ or placebo in part 2. Patients remained in part 2 until either week 40 or the occurrence of JIA flare. Upon starting part 3, all patients received open-label TCZ. At week 104 of the study, efficacy was assessed using JIA-ACR50/70/90 response rates (defined as 50%, 70%, or 90% improvement, respectively), achievement of inactive disease, and the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score in 71 joints (JADAS-71). Safety was assessed in the all-exposure population per 100 patient-years of exposure., Results: Overall, 188 patients entered part 1, 166 patients entered part 2, and 160 patients entered part 3. By week 104, among the 188 patients in the modified intent-to-treat group who received TCZ, JIA-ACR50/70/90 response rates were 80.3%/77.1%/59.6%, respectively, the median JADAS-71 score decreased from 3.6 at week 40 to 0.7 at week 104, 51.1% of patients had achieved inactive disease, and 31 of 66 patients who had been receiving glucocorticoids discontinued them. Adverse event (AE) and serious AE rates were 406.5 per 100 patient-years and 11.1 per 100 patient-years, respectively. The infection rate was 151.4 per 100 patient-years, and the serious infection rate was 5.2 per 100 patient-years., Conclusion: Patients treated with TCZ for polyarticular-course JIA showed high-level disease control for up to 2 years. The TCZ safety profile was consistent with that previously reported., (© 2020 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: The anti-interleukin-6 receptor-alpha antibody tocilizumab was approved for intravenous (IV) injection in the treatment of patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) aged 2 to 17 years based on results of a randomized controlled phase 3 trial. Tocilizumab treatment in systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) patients younger than 2 was investigated in this open-label phase 1 trial and compared with data from the previous trial in patients aged 2 to 17 years., Methods: Patients younger than 2 received open-label tocilizumab 12 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks (Q2W) during a 12-week main evaluation period and an optional extension period. The primary end point was comparability of pharmacokinetics during the main evaluation period to that of the previous trial (in patients aged 2-17 years), and the secondary end point was safety; pharmacodynamics and efficacy end points were exploratory. Descriptive comparisons for pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy were made with sJIA patients aged 2 to 17 years weighing < 30 kg (n = 38) who received tocilizumab 12 mg/kg IV Q2W in the previous trial (control group)., Results: Eleven patients (mean age, 1.3 years) received tocilizumab during the main evaluation period. The primary end point was met: tocilizumab exposures for patients younger than 2 were within the range of the control group (mean [±SD] μg/mL concentration at the end-of-dosing interval [C min ]: 39.8 [±14.3] vs 57.5 [±23.3]; maximum concentration [C max ] postdose: 288 [±40.4] vs 245 [±57.2]). At week 12, pharmacodynamic measures were similar between patients younger than 2 and the control group; mean change from baseline in Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score-71 was - 17.4 in patients younger than 2 and - 28.8 in the control group; rash was reported by 14.3 and 13.5% of patients, respectively. Safety was comparable except for the incidence of serious hypersensitivity reactions (27.3% in patients younger than 2 vs 2.6% in the control group)., Conclusions: Tocilizumab 12 mg/kg IV Q2W provided pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy in sJIA patients younger than 2 comparable to those in patients aged 2 to 17 years. Safety was comparable except for a higher incidence of serious hypersensitivity events in patients younger than 2 years., Classification: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01455701 . Registered, October 20, 2011, Date of enrollment of first participant: October 26, 2012.

Objective: This report aims to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and efficacy of subcutaneous golimumab in active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (polyJIA)., Methods: In this three-part randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled withdrawal trial, all patients received open-label golimumab (30 mg/m 2 of body surface area; maximum: 50 mg/dose) every 4 weeks together with weekly methotrexate during Part 1 (weeks 0-16). Patients with at least 30% improvement per American College of Rheumatology Criteria for JIA (JIA ACR30) in Part 1 entered the double-blinded Part 2 (weeks 16-48) after 1:1 randomisation to continue golimumab or start placebo. In Part 3, golimumab was continued or could be restarted as in Part 1. The primary outcome was JIA flares in Part 2; secondary outcomes included JIA ACR50/70/90 responses, clinical remission, PK and safety., Results: Among 173 patients with polyJIA enrolled, 89.0% (154/173) had a JIA ACR30 response and 79.2%/65.9%/36.4% demonstrated JIA ACR50/70/90 responses in Part 1. At week 48, the primary endpoint was not met as treatment groups had comparable JIA flare rates (golimumab vs placebo: 32/78=41% vs 36/76=47%; p=0.41), and rates of clinical remission were comparable (golimumab vs placebo: 10/78=12.8% vs 9/76=11.8%). Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were similar in the treatment groups during Part 2. Injection site reactions occurred with <1% of all injections. PK analysis confirmed adequate golimumab dosing for polyJIA., Conclusion: Although the primary endpoint was not met, golimumab resulted in rapid, clinically meaningful, improvement in children with active polyJIA. Golimumab was well tolerated, and no unexpected safety events occurred., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01230827; Results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HIB has served as a consultant and steering committee member for Janssen Research & Development, a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Takeda and received research support from Novartis, Roche and UCB. NR served on the speaker’s bureau and as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Alter, AstraZeneca, Baxalta Biosimilars, Biogen Idec, Boehringer, BMS, Celgene, CrescendoBio, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Italfarmaco, Janssen, MedImmune, Medac, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Servier, Takeda and UCB Biosciences GmbH. DJL has served as a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen Research & Development and Novartis, as a trial investigator for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Research & Development, Roche, Pfizer and UBC and received research support from the National Institutes of Health. NRP received fees from AbbVie and Roche. FS received research support from Janssen. KM received research support from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche and Deutsche Kinder-Rheumastiftung and fees from AbbVie, Genzyme, Medac, Pfizer and Pharm-Allergan. IN received fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche and grants from Pfizer and Roche. EA received research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche and fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. KEG, ZX, JHL, LK, SLL and MJL are employees of Janssen Research & Development, LLC and own stock in Johnson & Johnson. AM received speaking and consulting fees from AbbVie, Boehringer, Celgene, CrescendoBio, Janssen, MedImmune, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Vertex and Servier. Nothing to disclose: NT, GH, VGC, CAM, AR, DJK, EDS, VP, MRMV, ES, MB, ARK, VK, RJ, WE, IF, BRL., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objectives: Combining disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with glucocorticoids (GCs) is an effective treatment strategy for early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA), yet the ideal schedule and feasibility in daily practice are debated. We evaluated different DMARD combinations and GC remission induction schemes in poor prognosis patients; and methotrexate (MTX) with or without GC remission induction in good prognosis patients, during the first treatment year., Methods: The Care in ERA (CareRA) trial is a 2-year investigator-initiated randomised pragmatic open-label superiority trial comparing remission induction regimens in a treat-to-target approach. DMARD-inexperienced patients with ERA were stratified into a high-risk or low-risk group based upon presence of erosions, disease activity, rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated protein antibodies. High-risk patients were randomised to a COBRA Classic (MTX + sulfasalazine + prednisone step-down from 60 mg), COBRA Slim (MTX + prednisone step-down from 30 mg) or COBRA Avant Garde (MTX + leflunomide + prednisone step-down from 30 mg) scheme. Low-risk patients were randomised to MTX tight step-up (MTX-TSU) or COBRA Slim. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients in 28 joint disease activity score calculated with C-reactive protein remission at week 52 in an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes were safety and effectiveness (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier NCT01172639)., Results: 98 COBRA Classic, 98 COBRA Slim (high risk), 93 COBRA Avant Garde, 47 MTX-TSU and 43 COBRA Slim (low risk) patients were evaluated. Remission was achieved in 64.3% (63/98) COBRA Classic, 60.2% (59/98) COBRA Slim (high risk) and 62.4% (58/93) COBRA Avant Garde patients at W52 (p=0.840); and in 57.4% (27/47) MTX-TSU and 67.4% (29/43) COBRA Slim (low risk) patients (p=0.329). Less adverse events occurred per patient with COBRA Slim (high risk) compared with COBRA Classic or COBRA Avant Garde (p=0.038). Adverse events were similar in MTX-TSU and COBRA Slim (low risk) patients (p=0.871). At W52, 76.0% patients were on DMARD monotherapy, 5.2% used GCs and 7.5% biologicals., Conclusions: MTX with a moderate-dose GC remission induction scheme (COBRA Slim) seems an effective, safe, low-cost and feasible initial treatment strategy for patients with ERA regardless of their prognostic profile, provided a treat-to-target approach is followed., Trial Registration Numbers: EudraCT-number 2008-007225-39 and NCT01172639; Results., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Introduction: Considering a lack of efficacy data in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (eRA) presenting without classical markers of poor prognosis, we compared methotrexate (MTX) with or without step-down glucocorticoids in the CareRA trial., Methods: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients with eRA were stratified into a low-risk group based on prognostic markers that included non-erosiveness, anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and rheumatoid factor negativity and low disease activity (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28(CRP)) ≤3.2). Patients were randomized to 15 mg of MTX weekly (MTX with tight step-up (MTX-TSU)) or 15 mg of MTX weekly with prednisone bridging, starting at 30 mg and tapered to 5 mg daily from week 6 (COmbinatie therapie bij Reumatoïde Artritis (COBRA Slim)). A TSU approach was applied. Outcomes assessed were DAS28(CRP)-determined remission, cumulative disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores and adverse events (AEs) after 16 treatment weeks., Results: We analyzed 43 COBRA Slim and 47 MTX-TSU patients and found that 65.1% in the COBRA Slim group and 46.8% in the MTX-TSU group reached remission (P = 0.081). Mean ± standard deviation area under the curve values of DAS28(CRP) were 13.84 ± 4.58 and 11.18 ± 4.25 for the MTX-TSU and COBRA Slim patients, respectively (P = 0.006). More COBRA Slim patients had an HAQ score of 0 (51.2% versus 23.4%, P = 0.006) at week 16. Therapy-related AEs between groups did not differ., Conclusion: In patients with low-risk eRA, MTX with step-down glucocorticoid bridging seems more efficacious than MTX step-up monotherapy, with a comparable number of AEs observed over the first 16 treatment weeks., Trial Registration: EU Clinical Trials Register Identifier: EudraCT number 2008-007225-39 . Registered 5 November 2008.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of intensive combination strategies with glucocorticoids (GCs) in the first 16 weeks (W) of early rheumatoid arthritis (eRA) treatment, focusing on high-risk patients, in the Care in early RA trial., Methods: 400 disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD)-naive patients with eRA were recruited and stratified into high risk or low risk according to classical prognostic markers. High-risk patients (n=290) were randomised to 1/3 treatment strategies: combination therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis (COBRA) Classic (methotrexate (MTX)+ sulfasalazine+60 mg prednisone tapered to 7.5 mg daily from W7), COBRA Slim (MTX+30 mg prednisone tapered to 5 mg from W6) and COBRA Avant-Garde (MTX+leflunomide+30 mg prednisone tapered to 5 mg from W6). Treatment modifications to target low-disease activity were mandatory from W8, if desirable and feasible according to the rheumatologist. The primary outcome was remission (28 joint disease activity score calculated with C-reactive protein <2.6) at W16 (intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary endpoints were good European League Against Rheumatism response, clinically meaningful health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) response and HAQ equal to zero. Adverse events (AEs) were registered., Results: Data from 98 Classic, 98 Slim and 94 Avant-Garde patients were analysed. At W16, remission was reached in 70.4% Classic, 73.6% Slim and 68.1% Avant-Garde patients (p=0.713). Likewise, no significant differences were shown in other secondary endpoints. However, therapy-related AEs were reported in 61.2% of Classic, in 46.9% of Slim and in 69.1% of Avant-Garde patients (p=0.006)., Conclusions: For high-risk eRA, MTX associated with a moderate step-down dose of GCs was as effective in inducing remission at W16 as DMARD combination therapies with moderate or high step-down GC doses and it showed a more favourable short-term safety profile., Eudract Number: 2008-007225-39., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apremilast, a novel, orally available small molecule that specifically targets phosphodiesterase 4, in the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA)., Methods: This phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included the following: a 12-week treatment phase, with patients receiving placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice per day, or apremilast 40 mg once per day; a 12-week treatment-extension phase, with patients in the placebo group re-randomized to receive apremilast; and a 4-week observational phase after treatment cessation. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 12. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, vital signs, laboratory parameters, and electrocardiograms., Results: Of the 204 patients with PsA who were randomized to a treatment group, 165 completed the treatment phase. At the end of the treatment phase (week 12), 43.5% of patients receiving apremilast 20 mg twice per day (P < 0.001) and 35.8% of those receiving 40 mg once per day (P = 0.002) achieved an ACR20 response, compared with 11.8% of those receiving placebo. At the end of the treatment-extension phase (week 24), >40% of patients in each group (patients receiving apremilast 20 mg twice per day, patients receiving apremilast 40 mg once per day, and patients in the placebo group re-randomized to receive apremilast) achieved the ACR20 level of improvement. Most patients in the treatment phase (84.3%) and treatment-extension phase (68.3%) reported ≥ 1 AE. Diarrhea, headache, nausea, fatigue, and nasopharyngitis were reported most frequently; most events were mild or moderate. No clinically relevant laboratory or electrocardiographic abnormalities were reported., Conclusion: Treatment with apremilast at a dosage of 20 mg twice per day or 40 mg once per day demonstrated efficacy in comparison with placebo and was generally well tolerated in patients with active PsA. The balance of efficacy, tolerability, and safety supports further study of apremilast in PsA., (Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of infliximab in the treatment of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA)., Methods: This was an international, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. One hundred twenty-two children with persistent polyarticular JRA despite prior methotrexate (MTX) therapy were randomized to receive infliximab or placebo for 14 weeks, after which all children received infliximab through week 44. Patients received MTX plus infliximab 3 mg/kg through week 44, or MTX plus placebo for 14 weeks followed by MTX plus infliximab 6 mg/kg through week 44., Results: Although a higher proportion of patients in the 3 mg/kg infliximab group than in the placebo group had achieved responses according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Pediatric 30 (Pedi 30) criteria for improvement at week 14 (63.8% and 49.2%, respectively), the between-group difference in this primary efficacy end point was not statistically significant (P = 0.12). By week 16, after the crossover from placebo to infliximab 6 mg/kg when all patients were receiving infliximab, an ACR Pedi 30 response was achieved in 73.2% of all patients. By week 52, ACR Pedi 50 and ACR Pedi 70 responses had been reached in 69.6% and 51.8%, respectively, of patients. Infliximab was generally well tolerated, but the safety profile of infliximab 3 mg/kg appeared less favorable than that of infliximab 6 mg/kg, with more frequent occurrences of serious adverse events, infusion reactions, antibodies to infliximab, and newly induced antinuclear antibodies and antibodies to double-stranded DNA observed with the 3 mg/kg dose., Conclusion: While infliximab at 3 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg showed durable efficacy at 1 year, achievement of the primary efficacy end point at 3 months did not differ significantly between infliximab-treated and placebo-treated patients. Safety data indicated that the 6-mg/kg dose may provide a more favorable risk/benefit profile. These results warrant further investigation in children with JRA.

Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of parenteral methotrexate (MTX) at an intermediate dosage (15 mg/m(2)/week) versus a higher dosage (30 mg/m(2)/week) in patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) who failed to improve while receiving standard dosages of MTX (8-12.5 mg/m(2)/week)., Methods: In the screening phase, 595 patients who were newly started on a standard dose of MTX were followed up for 6 months. Subsequently, the nonresponders, defined according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) pediatric 30% improvement criteria (pediatric 30), were randomized to receive an intermediate dose or higher dose of parenteral MTX for an additional 6 months. Improvement in the screening and randomization phase was defined by the ACR pediatric 30 response, as well as by the 50% and 70% response levels (ACR pediatric 50 and ACR pediatric 70, respectively)., Results: In the screening phase, after receiving standard doses of MTX, 430 patients (72%) improved according to the ACR pediatric 30, while 360 (61%) met the ACR pediatric 50 and 225 (38%) met the ACR pediatric 70; among these patients, 69 (12%) also met the definition of complete disease control. Of the 133 nonresponders, 80 were randomized to receive an intermediate dose or higher dose of MTX. In the randomization phase, the ACR pediatric 30 response rate was 25 of 40 children (62.5%) in the intermediate-dose group versus 23 of 40 children (57.5%) in the higher-dose group. An ACR pediatric 50 response rate was attained by 23 patients (57.5%) receiving an intermediate dose versus 22 (55%) in the higher-dose group. An ACR pediatric 70 response rate was seen in 18 children (45%) receiving an intermediate dose versus 19 (47.5%) receiving a higher dose. Five children (12.5%) in the intermediate-dose group versus 4 (10%) receiving the higher dose of MTX also met the definition of complete disease control. None of the intergroup differences in response rate were significant. There were no significant differences in the frequency of adverse events or laboratory abnormalities between the 2 randomized groups., Conclusion: This study shows that the plateau of efficacy of MTX in JIA is reached with parenteral administration of 15 mg/m(2)/week and that a further increase in dosage is not associated with any additional therapeutic benefit. MTX should be administered for up to 9-12 months to appreciate its full therapeutic effect.