Search

Normal bone remodeling depends of a balance between bone forming cells, osteoblasts and bone resorbing cells, the osteoclasts. In chronic arthritides and some inflammatory and autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, there is a great constellation of cytokines produced by pannus that impair bone formation and stimulate bone resorption by inducing osteoclast differentiation and inhibiting osteoblast maturation. Patients with chronic inflammation have multiple causes that lead to low bone mineral density, osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture including circulating cytokines, impaired mobility, chronic administration of glucocorticoids, low vitamin D levels and post-menopausal status in women, among others. Biologic agents and other therapeutic measures to reach prompt remission might ameliorate these deleterious effects. In many cases, bone acting agents need to be added to conventional treatment to reduce the risk of fractures and to preserve articular integrity and independency for daily living activities. A limited number of studies related to fractures in chronic arthritides were published, and future investigation is needed to determine the risk of fractures and the protective effects of different treatments to reduce this risk., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Objectives: To evaluate efficacy and safety of immediate switch from upadacitinib to adalimumab, or vice versa, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with non-response or incomplete-response to the initial therapy., Methods: SELECT-COMPARE randomised patients to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (n=651), placebo (n=651) or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (n=327). A treat-to-target study design was implemented, with blinded rescue occurring prior to week 26 for patients who did not achieve at least 20% improvement in both tender and swollen joint counts ('non-responders') and at week 26 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 ('incomplete-responders') without washout., Results: A total of 39% (252/651) and 49% (159/327) of patients originally randomised to upadacitinib and adalimumab were rescued to the alternate therapy. In both switch groups (adalimumab to upadacitinib and vice versa) and in non-responders and incomplete-responders, improvements in disease activity were observed at 3 and 6 months following rescue. CDAI low disease activity was achieved by 36% and 47% of non-responders and 45% and 58% of incomplete-responders switched to adalimumab and upadacitinib, respectively, 6 months following switch. Overall, approximately 5% of rescued patients experienced worsening in disease activity at 6 months postswitch. The frequency of adverse events was similar between switch groups., Conclusions: These observations support a treat-to-target strategy, in which patients who fail to respond initially (or do not achieve sufficient response) are switched to a therapy with an alternate mechanism of action and experience improved outcomes. No new safety findings were observed despite immediate switch without washout., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RMF has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, EMD-Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB and Viela and is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB. RB has received grants/research support from AbbVie, MSD and Roche and had consultation fees/participation in company-sponsored speaker’s bureau from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche. SH has received research grants and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. GTDT has received a research grant from AbbVie and consulting fees from Amgen. FEVdB has received speaker and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. CZ has received grants/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi. LB has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB and is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB. JE, YL, YS, RD and I-HS are full-time employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., (© 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.)

Objectives: This integrated analysis presents the safety profile of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, at 15 mg and 30 mg once daily in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory data from five randomised, placebo- or active-controlled phase III trials of upadacitinib for patients with RA were analysed and summarised. Exposure-adjusted event rates are shown for placebo (three trials; 12/14 weeks), methotrexate (two trials; mean exposure: 36 weeks), adalimumab (one trial; mean exposure: 42 weeks), upadacitinib 15 mg (five trials; mean exposure: 53 weeks) and upadacitinib 30 mg (four trials; mean exposure: 59 weeks)., Results: 3834 patients received one or more doses of upadacitinib 15 mg (n=2630) or 30 mg (n=1204), for a total of 4020.1 patient-years of exposure. Upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis and urinary tract infection were the most commonly reported TEAEs with upadacitinib. Rates of serious infection were similar between upadacitinib 15 mg and adalimumab but higher compared with methotrexate. Rates of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were higher in both upadacitinib groups versus methotrexate and adalimumab, and rates of gastrointestinal perforations were higher with upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of deaths, malignancies, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were similar across treatment groups., Conclusion: In the phase III clinical programme for RA, patients receiving upadacitinib had an increased risk of herpes zoster and CPK elevation versus adalimumab. Rates of malignancies, MACEs and VTEs were similar among patients receiving upadacitinib, methotrexate or adalimumab., Trial Registration Numbers: SELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873; SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SBC received grants and consultation fees from Amgen, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche and Sandoz. RFvV received grants from AbbVie, Arthrogen, BMS, GSK, Lilly, Pfizer and UCB and personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. KLW received consulting fees and research grants from AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. CAFZ received research grants from Amgen, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier and Roche, participated on advisory boards and speaker’s bureau for Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis and served as a consultant for Pfizer. YT received speaking fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Astellas, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and YL Biologics and received research grants from Asahi-Kasei, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Takeda and UCB. LB received speaking fees, consulting fees and research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB. YZ, NK, BH and JVE are full-time employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options. GRB received speaking or consulting fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., (© 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.)

Objectives: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we present data from the completed Phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) ORAL Scan (NCT00847613), which evaluated the impact of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through 24 months in patients with active RA and inadequate responses to methotrexate (MTX-IR)., Methods: Patients were randomised 4:4:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg, plus background MTX. Patients receiving placebo advanced to tofacitinib at month 3 (non-responders) or month 6 (remaining patients). Mean changes from baseline in PROs, assessed at months 1-24, included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (visual analogue scale [VAS]), Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS), health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 version 2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep., Results: Overall, 539/797 (67.6%) patients completed 24 months' treatment. At month 3, tofacitinib-treated patients reported signi cant (p<0.05) mean changes from baseline versus placebo across all PROs, and significantly more patients reported improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences versus placebo. Improvements in PROs with tofacitinib were sustained to month 24. Following advancement to tofacitinib, placebo-treated patients generally reported changes of similar magnitude to tofacitinib-treated patients., Conclusions: Patients with RA and MTX-IR receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID plus MTX reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo at month 3, which were sustained through 24 months.

Objective: To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of maintaining baricitinib monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) originally treated with baricitinib monotherapy or switched from methotrexate (MTX) or the combination of baricitinib plus MTX to baricitinib monotherapy., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of patients from the RA-BEGIN study who entered a long-term extension, RA-BEYOND, and were assessed for up to 24 weeks. In RA-BEGIN, MTX-naive patients with early active RA were randomized to MTX monotherapy, baricitinib 4 mg monotherapy, or baricitinib 4 mg plus MTX. At week 52, all patients entering RA-BEYOND received baricitinib 4 mg monotherapy. MTX could be prescribed during RA-BEYOND at the investigator's discretion., Results: Patients in RA-BEYOND who were not rescued in RA-BEGIN (n = 423) were evaluated. Of these, 47% continued baricitinib monotherapy and 53% added MTX, with similar proportions from the 3 original arms. Patients with lower disease activity at the RA-BEYOND baseline generally continued to do well with baricitinib monotherapy as assessed by the Simplified Disease Activity Index, the Clinical Disease Activity Index, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index scores. Patients prescribed MTX had higher disease activity at the RA-BEYOND baseline and had improved disease activity after the addition of MTX. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups., Conclusion: Many patients responded well to continued baricitinib monotherapy or to switching to baricitinib monotherapy from MTX monotherapy or baricitinib plus MTX, showing sustained or improved disease control. The groups of patients who had less disease control on their original therapies showed sustained or improved disease control with the addition of MTX to baricitinib., (© 2019, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) therapy., Methods: In this phase 3, double-blind, 52-week, placebo-controlled study, 290 patients with moderately to severely active RA and inadequate response to MTX were randomly assigned 1:1 to placebo or baricitinib 4-mg once daily, stratified by country (China, Brazil, Argentina) and presence of joint erosions. Primary endpoint measures included American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary endpoints included changes in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts (DAS28)-high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score ≤3.3, mean duration of morning joint stiffness, severity of morning joint stiffness numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10), worst tiredness NRS, and worst joint pain NRS at week 12., Results: Most patients (approximately 80%) were from China. More patients achieved ACR20 response at week 12 with baricitinib than with placebo (58.6% vs. 28.3%; p<0.001). Statistically significant improvements were also seen in HAQ-DI, DAS28-hsCRP, morning joint stiffness, worst tiredness, and worst joint pain in the baricitinib group compared to placebo at week 12. Through week 24, rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, including infections, were higher for baricitinib compared to placebo, while serious adverse event rates were similar between baricitinib and placebo., Conclusions: In patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX, baricitinib was associated with significant clinical improvements as compared with placebo.

Background: To determine the burden of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) on patients' work productivity and health related quality of life (HRQoL), and examine the influence of several exposure variables; to analyze the progression of RA over 1 year and its impact on work productivity and HRQoL., Methods: International multicenter prospective survey including patients in 18 centers in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico with diagnosis of RA and aged between 21-55 years. The following standard questionnaires were completed at baseline and throughout a 1-year follow-up: WPAI:RA, WALS, WLQ-25, EQ-5D-3 L and SF-36. Clinical and demographic variables were also collected through interview., Results: The study enrolled 290 patients on baseline visit. Overall mean scores at baseline visit were: WPAI:RA (presenteeism) = 29.5% (SD = 28.8%); WPAI:RA (absenteeism) = 9.0% (SD = 23.2%); WPAI:RA (absenteeism and presenteeism) = 8.6% (SD = 22.6%); WALS = 9.0 (SD = 6.1); WLQ-25 = 7.0% (SD = 5.1%); SF-36 Physical Scale = 39.1 (SD = 10.3) and Mental Scale = 45.4 (SD = 11.3); EQ-5D-3 L VAS = 69.8 (SD = 20.4) and EQ-5D-3 L index = 0.67 (SD = 0.23). Higher educational levels were associated with better results in WLQ-25, while previous orthopedic surgeries reduced absenteeism results of WPAI:RA and work limitations in WLQ-25. Higher disease duration was associated with decreased HRQoL. Intensification of disease activity was associated with decreased work productivity and HRQoL, except in WLQ-25. In the longitudinal analysis, worsening in disease activity was associated with a decrease in both work productivity and HRQoL., Conclusions: RA patients are dealing with workplace disabilities and limitations and loss in HRQoL, and multiple factors seems to be associated with this. Worsening of disease activity further decreased work productivity and HRQoL, stressing the importance of disease tight control.

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.

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., (© 2019 Pfizer Inc. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

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.

Background: Current guidelines on the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend early therapy targeting the achievement of low disease activity (LDA) or clinical remission. Little published information is available on the success of this treatment strategy in Latin America. In a subset analysis of patients from Latin America, we compared efficacy maintenance with etanercept 50 mg once weekly (ETN50) versus placebo (PBO), on a background of methotrexate (MTX) ± other non-biologic, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, in patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had achieved LDA with ETN50., Methods: In the Treat-to-Target trial, adult patients with active RA nonresponsive to MTX were treated with ETN50 for 24 weeks (Period 1). Patients achieving LDA were randomized to receive ETN50 or PBO for 28 additional weeks (Period 2). The proportion of patients maintaining LDA at week 52 and other efficacy and quality-of-life measures were assessed. Descriptive statistics are presented using last observation carried forward imputation of data., Results: Of the 64 patients from Latin America treated in Period 1, 61 (95.3%) achieved LDA. Among patients receiving ETN50, 13/34 remained in LDA and 6/14 maintained remission at week 52 versus 6/27 and 4/10 patients receiving PBO. The median time to flare was 113 days and 33 days for the ETN50 and PBO groups, respectively. In the overall population, adverse events were reported in 37% and 43%, serious adverse events in 1% and 4%, and serious infections in 0% and 2% of patients in the ETN50 and PBO groups, respectively., Conclusions: In patients with RA from Latin America, continuing treatment with ETN50 after achieving LDA appears to result in a higher proportion of patients maintaining LDA and remission compared with switching to PBO. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Registration: NCT01578850.

Background: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in Brazilian patients from Phase 2 (P2) and Phase 3 (P3) global studies of up to 24 months' duration were evaluated., Methods: Data were pooled from Brazilian patients with RA and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs enrolled in P2/P3 tofacitinib studies who received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo, as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate. Efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed over 24 months., Results: Patients (226) from Brazil were treated in tofacitinib global P2/P3 studies. At Month 3, there were improvements in American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response rates, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores with both tofacitinib doses. Improvements from baseline in pain, fatigue, and health-related quality of life with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were reported. Efficacy improvements were sustained up to Month 24. The most frequent class of adverse events was infections and infestations. No cases of tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections were reported., Conclusion: In a Brazilian subpopulation of patients with RA, tofacitinib reduced disease signs and symptoms and improved physical function up to Month 24, with a safety profile consistent with findings from global studies.

Objective: Tofacitinib has been investigated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in phase III studies in which concomitant glucocorticoids (GC) were allowed. We analyzed the effect of GC use on efficacy outcomes in patients with RA receiving tofacitinib and/or methotrexate (MTX) or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in these studies., Methods: Our posthoc analysis included data from 6 phase III studies (NCT01039688; NCT00814307; NCT00847613; NCT00853385; NCT00856544; NCT00960440). MTX-naive patients or patients with inadequate response to csDMARD or biological DMARD received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily alone or with csDMARD, with or without concomitant GC. Patients receiving GC (≤ 10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent) before enrollment maintained a stable dose throughout. Endpoints included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response rates, rates of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA; CDAI ≤ 10) and remission (CDAI ≤ 2.8), and changes from baseline in CDAI, 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28-4)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), pain visual analog scale (VAS), and modified total Sharp score., Results: Of 3200 tofacitinib-treated patients, 1258 (39.3%) received tofacitinib monotherapy and 1942 (60.7%) received tofacitinib plus csDMARD; 1767 (55.2%) received concomitant GC. ACR20/50/70 response rates, rates of CDAI LDA and remission, and improvements in CDAI, DAS28-4-ESR, HAQ-DI, and pain VAS with tofacitinib were generally similar with or without GC in monotherapy and combination therapy studies. GC use did not appear to affect radiographic progression in tofacitinib-treated MTX-naive patients. MTX plus GC appeared to inhibit radiographic progression to a numerically greater degree than MTX alone., Conclusion: Concomitant use of GC with tofacitinib did not appear to affect clinical or radiographic efficacy. MTX plus GC showed a trend to inhibit radiographic progression to a greater degree than MTX alone.

Background: This study evaluates patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a double-blind, phase III study of baricitinib as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with no or minimal prior conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and naïve to biological DMARDs., Methods: Patients were randomized 4:3:4 to MTX administered once weekly (N = 210), baricitinib monotherapy (4 mg once daily (QD), N = 159), or combination of baricitinib (4 mg QD) and MTX (baricitinib + MTX, N = 215). PROs included the Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS), worst joint pain, worst tiredness, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), Short Form 36 version 2, Acute (SF-36); and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) Health State Profile. Comparisons were assessed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and logistic regression models., Results: Compared to MTX, patients in both baricitinib groups reported greater improvement (p ≤ 0.01) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, fatigue, worst join pain, SF-36 physical component score, and EQ-5D at weeks 24 and 52. For the SF-36 mental component score, patients in both baricitinib groups reported statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.01) at week 52 compared to MTX-treated patients. Statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.05) were observed with the WPAI-RA for the baricitinib groups vs. MTX at week 24 and for the WPAI-RA daily activity and work productivity measures for baricitinib + MTX at week 52., Conclusions: In this study, baricitinib alone or in combination with MTX, when used as initial therapy, resulted in significant improvement compared to MTX in the majority of the pre-specified PRO measures., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01711359 . Registered on 18 October 2012.

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.

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., (© 2016 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Rheumatology.)

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 (R(2) = 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., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objectives: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have shown diminished clinical response following an inadequate response (IR) to ≥1 previous bDMARD. Here, tofacitinib was compared with placebo in patients with an IR to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs; bDMARD-naive) and in patients with an IR to bDMARDs (bDMARD-IR)., Methods: Data were taken from phase II and phase III studies of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo, as monotherapy or with background methotrexate or other csDMARDs. Efficacy endpoints and incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) of special interest were assessed., Results: 2812 bDMARD-naive and 705 bDMARD-IR patients were analysed. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups within subpopulations. Across subpopulations, improvements in efficacy parameters at month 3 were generally significantly greater for both tofacitinib doses versus placebo. Clinical response was numerically greater with bDMARD-naive versus bDMARD-IR patients (overlapping 95% CIs). Rates of safety events of special interest were generally similar between tofacitinib doses and subpopulations; however, patients receiving glucocorticoids had more serious AEs, discontinuations due to AEs, serious infection events and herpes zoster. Numerically greater clinical responses and incidence rates of AEs of special interest were generally reported for tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily versus tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (overlapping 95% CIs)., Conclusions: Tofacitinib demonstrated efficacy in both bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-IR patients with RA. Clinical response to tofacitinib was generally numerically greater in bDMARD-naive than bDMARD-IR patients. The safety profile appeared similar between subpopulations., Trial Registration Numbers: (NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385)., (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/)

Objective: To assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for tofacitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in a 6-month, phase III, randomized controlled trial., Methods: Patients ages ≥18 years with active RA with an inadequate response to ≥1 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and receiving stable background methotrexate were randomized 2:2:1:1 to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily at month 3. PROs measured at month 3 included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI), Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2; acute), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and MOS Sleep Scale., Results: Patients received tofacitinib 5 mg (n = 133) or 10 mg (n = 134) or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 mg (n = 66) or 10 mg (n = 66). HAQ DI (reported previously), PtGA (P < 0.0001), and SF-36v2 physical and mental component summary (P < 0.05) scores were improved for both tofacitinib doses versus placebo. Furthermore, improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important difference were more frequently reported by tofacitinib-treated patients versus placebo for PtGA (P < 0.05), pain (P < 0.0001), HAQ DI (P < 0.05), SF-36v2 physical and mental component summary scores (P < 0.05), and FACIT-F (P < 0.001 for 5 mg twice daily). No statistical differences were observed in the MOS Sleep Scale., Conclusion: Tofacitinib treatment resulted in significant, clinically meaningful improvements in multiple PROs versus placebo over 3 months of treatment in patients with active RA and a previous inadequate response to TNFi., (Copyright © 2015 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: 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., Methods: GO-MORE was an open-label, multinational, prospective study in biologic agent-naive patients with active RA despite DMARD treatment. Patients received 50 mg subcutaneous golimumab monthly for 6 months. At baseline and month 3, patients rated treatment expectations for the following 3 months using 5-point scales (where 1 = good and 5 = poor). Outcomes were compared among expectation tertiles: most positive, intermediate, and least positive. At baseline and month 3, physicians predicted patient disease state 3 months later., Results: At baseline, 3,280 efficacy-evaluable patients with moderate (21.3%) or high (78.7%) disease activity had mean ± SD disease duration of 7.6 ± 7.9 years, mean ± SD Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI) score of 1.44 ± 0.67, and mean ± SD EuroQol 5-domain (EQ-5D) score of 0.42 ± 0.33. Patients reported high treatment expectations (mean 1.43); 95.9% expected golimumab to be better than current treatment. Patients with fewer DMARD failures, higher disease activity, shorter disease duration, younger age, and female sex reported higher expectations (P < 0.05 for all). After 6 months, patients with the most positive expectations had higher remission rates (P < 0.0001) and greater HAQ DI (P < 0.0001) and EQ-5D (P < 0.0001) score improvements. At baseline, physicians expected 29.6% and 59.2% of patients to attain remission and low disease activity, respectively, after 3 months., Conclusion: Patients had high expectations for golimumab treatment. Patients with more positive expectations had greater remission rates, improvements in function, and QOL., (Copyright © 2014 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

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., (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: 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., (Copyright © 2013 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis is a heterogeneous chronic disease, and no therapeutic agent has been identified which is universally and persistently effective in all patients. We investigated the effectiveness of tofacitinib (CP-690,550), a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor, as a targeted immunomodulator and disease-modifying therapy for rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: We did a 6-month, double-blind, parallel-group phase 3 study at 82 centres in 13 countries, including North America, Europe, and Latin America. 399 patients aged 18 years or older with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1:1 ratio with an automated internet or telephone system to receive twice a day treatment with: tofacitinib 5 mg (n=133); tofacitinib 10 mg (n=134); or placebo (n=132), all with methotrexate. At month 3, patients given placebo advanced to either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day (n=66) or 10 mg twice a day (n=66). Primary endpoints included American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response rate, mean change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and rates of disease activity score (DAS)28-4(ESR) less than 2·6 (referred to as DAS28<2·6), all at month 3. The full analysis set for the primary analysis included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00960440., Findings: At month 3, ACR20 response rates were 41·7% (55 of 132 [95% CI vs placebo 6·06-28·41]; p=0·0024) for tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day and 48·1% (64 of 133; [12·45-34·92]; p<0·0001) for tofacitinib 10 mg twice a day versus 24·4% (32 of 131) for placebo. Improvements from baseline in HAQ-DI were -0·43 ([-0·36 to -0·15]; p<0·0001) for 5 mg twice a day and -0·46 ([-0·38 to -0·17]; p<0·0001) for 10 mg twice a day tofacitinib versus -0·18 for placebo; DAS28<2·6 rates were 6·7% (eight of 119; [0-10·10]; p=0·0496) for 5 mg twice a day tofacitinib and 8·8% (11 of 125 [1·66-12·60]; p=0·0105) for 10 mg twice a day tofacitinib versus 1·7% (two of 120) for placebo. Safety was consistent with phase 2 and 3 studies. The most common adverse events in months 0-3 were diarrhoea (13 of 267; 4·9%), nasopharyngitis (11 of 267; 4·1%), headache (11 of 267; 4·1%), and urinary tract infection (eight of 267; 3·0%) across tofacitinib groups, and nausea (nine of 132; 6·8%) in the placebo group., Interpretation: In this treatment-refractory population, tofacitinib with methotrexate had rapid and clinically meaningful improvements in signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and physical function over 6 months with manageable safety. Tofacitinib could provide an effective treatment option in patients with an inadequate response to TNFi., Funding: Pfizer., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab (OCR) with methotrexate (MTX) in MTX-naive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients., Methods: In a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial, patients received placebo+MTX (MTX; n=210), OCR 200 mg×2+MTX (OCR 200; n=200) or OCR 500 mg×2+MTX (OCR 500; n=203). OCR/placebo (two intravenous infusions) was given on days 1 and 15, with fixed re-treatment scheduled at weeks 24/26, 52/54 and 76/78. Due to early termination of OCR dosing, there was no formal primary end point analysis (change from baseline in modified total Sharp score (ΔmTSS) at week 104). Analyses are reported for week 52 outcomes., Results: At week 52, treatment with OCR+MTX compared with MTX alone reduced progression of joint damage (mean (SD) change in ΔmTSS: OCR 200, 0.66 (4.51); OCR 500, 0.27 (2.91); MTX alone, 1.59 (4.82); p=0.001 and p=0.003, respectively vs MTX alone) and improved clinical signs and symptoms (American College of Rheumatology 20 response: OCR 200, 73.0%; OCR 500, 71.0%; MTX alone, 57.5%; p<0.005 for each OCR vs MTX alone). Serious infection rates per 100 patient-years were similar with OCR 200 and MTX alone (2.6 (95% CI 0.9 to 6.1) and 3.0 (1.1 to 6.5), respectively), but higher with OCR 500 (7.1 (3.9 to 11.9))., Conclusions: OCR 200 mg and 500 mg with MTX in MTX-naive patients with RA were effective in inhibiting joint damage progression and improving RA signs and symptoms. OCR 500 mg with MTX was associated with an increased rate of serious infections.

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

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of three dosing and repeat treatment regimens of rituximab (RTX) plus MTX in patients with active RA., Methods: Patients with active RA despite stable MTX (10-25 mg/week) were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment regimens comprising two courses of RTX given 24 weeks apart: 2 x 500 and 2 x 500 mg; 2 x 500 and 2 x 1000 mg (dose escalation); and 2 x 1000 and 2 x 1000 mg. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving ACR20 at Week 48., Results: At Week 48, ACR20 responses were not statistically significantly different between the dose regimens. Compared with RTX 2 x 500 mg (n = 134) or dose escalation (n = 119), ACR and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) outcomes in the RTX 2 x 1000 mg group (n = 93) were consistently higher, with significantly more patients achieving EULAR responses (P = 0.0495). At Week 48, rituximab 2 x 1000 mg was associated with a higher proportion of patients who, following retreatment, maintained or improved their Week 24 responses. Dose escalation from 2 x 500 to 2 x 1000 mg did not appear to be associated with improved outcomes compared with continual 2 x 500 mg. All RTX regimens demonstrated comparable safety., Conclusions: RTX 2 x 500 and 2 x 1000 mg could not be clearly differentiated, although some efficacy outcomes suggest improved outcomes in the rituximab 2 x 1000 mg group. Retreatment from Week 24 resulted in a sustained suppression of disease activity through to Week 48.

Context and Objectives: Osteoporosis has frequently been observed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The present study was undertaken in order to evaluate factors associated with osteoporosis among women with rheumatoid arthritis., Design and Setting: Cross-sectional study, carried out in a public hospital in São Paulo., Methods: The participants were 83 women with rheumatoid arthritis (53.7 +/- 10.0 years old). Bone mineral density (BMD) and body composition were measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. The patients were divided into three groups according to BMD: group 1, normal BMD (n = 24); group 2, osteopenia (n = 38); and group 3, osteoporosis (n = 21). Tests were performed to compare differences in means and correlations, with adjustments for age, duration of disease and cumulative corticosteroid. The relationships between clinical factors, physical activity score, dietary intake, body composition and biochemical parameters were analyzed using linear regression models., Results: Mean calcium, vitamin D and omega-6 intakes were lower than the recommendations. Associations were found between BMD and age, disease duration, parathyroid hormone concentration and fat intake. The linear regression model showed that being older, with more years of disease and lower weight were negatively correlated with BMD [Total femur = 0.552 + 0.06 (weight) + 0.019 (total physical activity) - 0.05 (age) - 0.003 (disease duration); R(2) = 48.1; P < 0.001]., Conclusion: The present study indicates that nutritional factors and body composition are associated with bone mass in women with rheumatoid arthritis.

Objective: To determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of 3 different dosages of CP-690,550, a potent, orally active JAK inhibitor, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom methotrexate, etanercept, infliximab, or adalimumab caused an inadequate or toxic response., Methods: Patients (n = 264) were randomized equally to receive placebo, 5 mg of CP-690,550, 15 mg of CP-690,550, or 30 mg of CP-690,550 twice daily for 6 weeks, and were followed up for an additional 6 weeks after treatment. The primary efficacy end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response rate at 6 weeks., Results: By week 6, the ACR20 response rates were 70.5%, 81.2%, and 76.8% in the 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg twice daily groups, respectively, compared with 29.2% in the placebo group (P < 0.001). Improvements in disease activity in CP-690,550-treated patients compared with placebo were seen in all treatment groups as early as week 1. ACR50 and ACR70 response rates significantly improved in all treatment groups by week 4. The most common adverse events reported were headache and nausea. The infection rate in both the 15 mg twice daily group and the 30 mg twice daily group was 30.4% (versus 26.2% in the placebo group). No opportunistic infections or deaths occurred. Increases in mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and increases in mean serum creatinine level (0.04-0.06 mg/dl) were seen in all CP-690,550 treatment arms., Conclusion: Our findings indicate that CP-690,550 is efficacious in the treatment of RA, resulting in rapid, statistically significant, and clinically meaningful reductions in the signs and symptoms of RA. Further studies of CP-690,550 in RA are warranted.

Objective: The RELIEF investigation was a 48-week, multicenter, international study comprising 2 phases. Results from the first phase, a 24-week open-label cohort study that evaluated the safety and efficacy of leflunomide, as well as predisposing factors to treatment response, are reported here., Methods: Patients received leflunomide 100 mg once daily for 3 days, followed by 20 mg once daily thereafter. All adverse events were documented. Efficacy variables were the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria using the Disease Activity Score (DAS 28) responder rate and the response rate according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. At Week 24, baseline data were analyzed to determine predictive factors for treatment response., Results: A total of 969 patients were entered in the trial. No adverse events that have not previously been seen with leflunomide were reported. Among 968 evaluable patients, 673 (69.6%) completed 24 weeks of treatment and were responders according to DAS 28 response rate, and 587 (60.6%) completed 24 weeks of treatment and were responders according to ACR 20%. Thus, there was a high correlation between the EULAR and ACR criteria in determining treatment response. In addition, 240 (24.8%) patients had a low DAS 28 (< or = 3.2) and 123 (12.7%) patients fulfilled the disease remission criteria (DAS 28 < 2.6) at the end of the study., Conclusion: This study demonstrates that leflunomide is well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that seen previously in Phase III studies, and confirms the efficacy of leflunomide across a range of patient categories.