Search

Objective Epratuzumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets CD22, modulates B cell signaling without substantial reductions in the number of B cells. The aim of this study was to report the results of 2 phase III multicenter randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trials, the EMBODY 1 and EMBODY 2 trials, assessing the efficacy and safety of epratuzumab in patients with moderately to severely active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods Patients met ≥4 of the American College of Rheumatology revised classification criteria for SLE, were positive for antinuclear antibodies and/or anti–double‐stranded DNA antibodies, had an SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI‐2K) score of ≥6 (increased disease activity), had British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 index (BILAG‐2004) scores of grade A (severe disease activity) in ≥1 body system or grade B (moderate disease activity) in ≥2 body systems (in the mucocutaneous, musculoskeletal, or cardiorespiratory domains), and were receiving standard therapy, including mandatory treatment with corticosteroids (5–60 mg/day). BILAG‐2004 grade A scores in the renal and central nervous system domains were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive either placebo, epratuzumab 600 mg every week, or epratuzumab 1,200 mg every other week, with infusions delivered for the first 4 weeks of each 12‐week dosing cycle, for 4 cycles. Patients across all 3 treatment groups also continued with their standard therapy. The primary end point was the response rate at week 48 according to the BILAG‐based Combined Lupus Assessment (BICLA) definition, requiring improvement in the BILAG‐2004 score, no worsening in the BILAG‐2004 score, SLEDAI‐2K score, or physician's global assessment of disease activity, and no disallowed changes in concomitant medications. Patients who discontinued the study medication were classified as nonresponders. Results In the EMBODY 1 and EMBODY 2 trials of epratuzumab, 793 patients and 791 patients, respectively, were randomized, 786 (99.1%) and 788 (99.6%), respectively, received study medication, and 528 (66.6%) and 533 (67.4%), respectively, completed the study. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary end point between the groups, with the week 48 BICLA response rates being similar between the epratuzumab groups and the placebo group (response rates ranging from 33.5% to 39.8%). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusion In patients with moderate or severely active SLE, treatment with epratuzumab + standard therapy did not result in improvements in response rates over that observed in the placebo + standard therapy group.

To assess the effect of mycophenolate mofetil compared with intravenous pulses of cyclophosphamide on the nonrenal manifestations of lupus nephritis.Patients with active lupus nephritis (renal biopsy class III, IV, or V) were recruited for the study (n = 370) and treated with mycophenolate mofetil (target dosage 3 gm/day) or intravenous cyclophosphamide (0.5-1.0 gm/m(2)/month), plus tapered prednisone, for 24 weeks. Nonrenal outcomes were determined using measures of whole body disease activity, including the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) disease activity index, the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus: National Assessment (SELENA) version of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI), and immunologic variables.Both treatments were effective on whole body disease activity in the systems examined, as indicated by changes in the classic BILAG index. With either treatment, remission was induced, notably in the mucocutaneous, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular/respiratory, and vasculitis systems, and flares were rare, as measured by the SELENA-SLEDAI. Levels of complement C3, C4, and CH50 and titers of anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies were normalized after treatment with either mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide.In addition to the efficacy of both treatments on the renal system, this analysis showed that remission could also be induced in other systems. There was no clear difference in efficacy between mycophenolate mofetil and intravenous cyclophosphamide in ameliorating either the renal or nonrenal manifestations. Mycophenolate mofetil is, therefore, a suitable alternative to cyclophosphamide for the treatment of renal and nonrenal disease manifestations in patients with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis.

Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis, but these therapies have not been compared in an international randomized, controlled trial. Here, we report the comparison of MMF and IVC as induction treatment for active lupus nephritis in a multinational, two-phase (induction and maintenance) study. We randomly assigned 370 patients with classes III through V lupus nephritis to open-label MMF (target dosage 3 g/d) or IVC (0.5 to 1.0 g/m(2) in monthly pulses) in a 24-wk induction study. Both groups received prednisone, tapered from a maximum starting dosage of 60 mg/d. The primary end point was a prespecified decrease in urine protein/creatinine ratio and stabilization or improvement in serum creatinine. Secondary end points included complete renal remission, systemic disease activity and damage, and safety. Overall, we did not detect a significantly different response rate between the two groups: 104 (56.2%) of 185 patients responded to MMF compared with 98 (53.0%) of 185 to IVC. Secondary end points were also similar between treatment groups. There were nine deaths in the MMF group and five in the IVC group. We did not detect significant differences between the MMF and IVC groups with regard to rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, or infections. Although most patients in both treatment groups experienced clinical improvement, the study did not meet its primary objective of showing that MMF was superior to IVC as induction treatment for lupus nephritis.

No abstract available

No abstract available

Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of adalimumab alone or in combination with standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Patients with active RA despite treatment with DMARDs or prior treatment with a tumour necrosis factor antagonist participated in a multicentre, open-label clinical study of adalimumab 40 mg every other week for 12 weeks with an optional extension phase. Patients were allowed to continue with pre-existing traditional DMARDs. Long-term safety results are reported for all patients (4210 patient-years (PYs) of adalimumab exposure). The observed effectiveness results at week 12 are reported using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria. Results: Among the 6610 treated patients, adalimumab was generally well tolerated. Serious infections occurred in 3.1% of patients (5.5/100 PYs, including active tuberculosis, 0.5/100 PYs). Demyelinating disease (0.06%) and systemic lupus erythematosus (0.03%) were rare serious adverse events. The standardised incidence ratio of malignancy was 0.71 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.01). The standardised mortality ratio was 1.07 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.49). At week 12, 69% of patients achieved an ACR20 response, 83% a moderate, and 33% a good EULAR response. Adalimumab was effective in combination with a variety of DMARDs. The addition of adalimumab to antimalarials was comparably effective to the combination of adalimumab and methotrexate. Conclusions: Considering the limitations of an open-label study, adalimumab alone or in combination with standard DMARDs appeared to be well tolerated and effective in 6610 difficult-to-treat patients with active RA treated in clinical practice.

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

Although there is strong evidence supporting the short-term efficacy and safety of anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha agents, few studies have examined the long-term effects. We evaluated 511 patients with long-standing refractory rheumatoid arthritis treated with intravenous infusions of infliximab 3 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, and 14 and every 8 weeks thereafter for 4 years. Among the initial 511 patients included in the study, 479 could be evaluated; of these, 295 (61.6%) were still receiving infliximab treatment at year 4 of follow-up. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were lack of efficacy (65 patients, 13.6%), safety (81 patients, 16.9%), and elective change (38 patients, 7.9%). Analysis of disease activity scores (DAS28 [disease activity score based on the 28-joint count]) over time showed that, after the initial rapid improvement during the first 6 to 22 weeks of therapy, a further decrease in disease activity of 0.2 units in the DAS28 score per year was observed. DAS28 scores, measuredat week 14 or 22, were found to predict subsequent discontinuation due to lack of efficacy. In conclusion, long-term maintenance therapy with infliximab 3 mg/kg is effective in producing further reductions in disease activity. Disease activity measured by the DAS28 at week 14 or 22 of infliximab therapy was the best predictor of long-term attrition.

This study is based on an expanded access program in which 511 patients suffering from active refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were treated with intravenous infusions of infliximab (3 mg/kg+methotrexate (MTX)) at weeks 0, 2, 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter. At week 22, 474 patients were still in follow-up, of whom 102 (21.5%), who were not optimally responding to treatment, received a dose increase from week 30 onward. We aimed to build a model to discriminate the decision to give a dose increase. This decision was based on the treating rheumatologist's clinical judgment and therefore can be considered as a clinical measure of insufficient response. Different single and composite measures at weeks 0, 6, 14 and 22, and their differences over time were taken into account for the model building. Ranking of the continuous variables based on areas under the curve of receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, displayed the momentary DAS28 (Disease Activity Score including a 28-joint count) as the most important discriminating variable. Subsequently, we proved that the response scores and the changes over time were less important than the momentary evaluations to discriminate the physician's decision. The final model we thus obtained was a model with only slightly better discriminative characteristics than the DAS28. Finally, we fitted a discriminant function using the single variables of the DAS28. This displayed similar scores and coefficients as the DAS28. In conclusion, we evaluated different variables and models to discriminate the treating rheumatologist's decision to increase the dose of infliximab (+MTX), which indicates an insufficient response to infliximab at 3 mg/kg in patients with RA. We proved that the momentary DAS28 score correlates best with this decision and demonstrated the robustness of the score and the coefficients of the DAS28 in a cohort of RA patients under infliximab therapy.

Selective inhibitors of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) appear to be safer than conventional NSAIDs on the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Amtolmetin guacyl (AMG), a NSAID that inhibits both COX-1 and COX-2, has an anti-inflammatory effect comparable to that of traditional NSAIDs, with a better GI safety profile. The primary end-point of this study was to evaluate the gastrointestinal safety of amtolmetin guacyl in comparison with celecoxib in patients affected with rheumatoid arthritis. The assessment of efficacy was the secondary end-point. This study was a 24-week, randomized, parallel group, double-blind, double dummy, multicentre trial ; 235 patients were enrolled and 180 patients (85 in the AMG group and 95 in the celecoxib group) completed the study. Each patient received twice daily amtolmetin guacyl 600 mg or celecoxib 200 mg. Assessment of safety was performed by upper GI endoscopy, gastrointestinal symptoms evaluation, electrocardiography, blood and urine laboratory tests, adverse events recording. Assessment of efficacy was performed by using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR-20) responder index. Neither amtolmetin guacyl nor celecoxib determined a worsening of baseline gastro-duodenal endoscopy findings. The percentage of patients with normal findings did not significantly change after treatment with both drugs, being virtually identical with AMG (i.e. 75.29%) and increasing from 75.79% to 77.66% with celecoxib. Moreover an evaluation of the other safety parameters did not reveal any difference between the two treatment groups. Therapeutic efficacy was equivalent in both groups, with no statistical difference between the two drugs at all time intervals. In patients affected with rheumatoid arthritis, AMG and celecoxib proved to be equivalent, showing comparable gastrointestinal safety and therapeutic efficacy of treatment.

Two-thirds to three-fourths of patients with either refractory luminal or fistulizing Crohn disease respond to infliximab treatment. The ability or inability to respond seems to persist over time. Biological characteristics and/or genetic background can influence the response to treatment. The aim was to assess the value of C-reactive protein and TNF-alpha serum levels before treatment as well as the TNF -308 gene polymorphism in the prediction of response to infliximab treatment in Crohn disease. Two-hundred-and-twenty-six Crohn disease patients treated in the setting of an expanded access programme to infliximab in Belgium were studied. There were 136 refractory luminal diseases and 90 refractory fistulizing diseases. Luminal diseases were treated with one single infusion; fistulizing diseases with three infusions at weeks 0, 2 and 6. A clinical response to treatment was defined as either a Crohn disease activity index 5 mg/l) than in patients with a normal CRP value (