Drug retention rates and relevant risk factors for drug discontinuation due to adverse events in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving anticytokine therapy with different target molecules

Objective: To compare reasons for discontinuation and drug retention rates per reason among anticytokine therapies, infliximab, etanercept and tocilizumab, and the risk of discontinuation of biological agents due to adverse events (AE) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Method: This prospective cohort study included Japanese RA patients who started infliximab (n=412, 636.0 patientyears (PY)), etanercept (n=442, 765.3 PY), or tocilizumab (n=168, 206.5 PY) as the first biological therapy after their enrolment in the Registry of Japanese Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients for Long-term Safety (REAL) database. Drug retention rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. To compare risks of drug discontinuation due to AE for patients treated with these biological agents, the Cox proportional hazard model was applied. Results: The authors found significant differences among the three therapeutic groups in demography, clinical status, comorbidities and usage of concomitant drugs. Development of AE was the most frequent reason for discontinuation of biological agents in the etanercept and tocilizumab groups, and the second most frequent reason in the infliximab group. Discontinuation due to good control was observed most frequently in the infliximab group. Compared with etanercept, the use of infliximab (HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.51) and tocilizumab (HR 1.98; 95% CI 1.04 to 3.76) was significantly associated with a higher risk of discontinuation of biological agents due to AE. Conclusions: Reasons for discontinuation are significantly different among biological agents. The use of infliximab and tocilizumab was significantly associated with treatment discontinuation due to AE compared with etanercept

Hitomi (ASTRO-H) X-ray Astronomy Satellite

The Hitomi (ASTRO-H) mission is the sixth Japanese x-ray astronomy satellite developed by a large international collaboration, including Japan, USA, Canada, and Europe. The mission aimed to provide the highest energy resolution ever achieved at E  >  2  keV, using a microcalorimeter instrument, and to cover a wide energy range spanning four decades in energy from soft x-rays to gamma rays. After a successful launch on February 17, 2016, the spacecraft lost its function on March 26, 2016, but the commissioning phase for about a month provided valuable information on the onboard instruments and the spacecraft system, including astrophysical results obtained from first light observations. The paper describes the Hitomi (ASTRO-H) mission, its capabilities, the initial operation, and the instruments/spacecraft performances confirmed during the commissioning operations for about a month

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of escitalopram in patients with social anxiety disorder in Japan

Objective: This randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram (10 and 20mg/day) in Japanese patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD). Research design and methods: Patients aged 18-64 years with a primary diagnosis of DSM-IV-TR defined SAD, a Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale Japanese version (LSAS-J) total score ≥60 and a Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) score ≥4 at baseline were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to placebo, escitalopram 10mg or 20mg. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to Week 12 in the LSAS-J total score for both escitalopram 10mg and 20mg versus placebo (ANCOVA, FAS, LOCF), using a hierarchical testing procedure. Pre-specified secondary endpoints included LSAS-J sensitivity analyses. Clinical trial registration: This study has the www.japic.or.jp identifier: JapicCTI-121842. Results: For the primary efficacy endpoint, the difference from placebo in the LSAS-J was -3.9 (p=0.089) for escitalopram 10mg. Since the superiority of escitalopram 10mg over placebo was not confirmed, an analysis without multiplicity adjustment was made, which showed a difference for escitalopram 20mg versus placebo of -9.8 (p<0.001). In pre-specified sensitivity analyses, the difference versus placebo was -4.9 (p=0.035) (ANCOVA, FAS, OC) and -5.0 (p=0.028) (MMRM, FAS) (escitalopram 10mg) and -10.1 (p<0.001) (ANCOVA, FAS, OC) and -10.6 (p<0.001) (MMRM, FAS) (escitalopram 20mg). Common adverse events (incidence ≥5% and significantly different from placebo) were somnolence, nausea and ejaculation disorder. Conclusion: Escitalopram was efficacious, safe and well tolerated by patients with SAD in Japan. Study limitations are discussed including patient characteristics

Comparison of efficacy of once daily multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day and 4.8 g/day with other 5-aminosalicylic acid preparation in active ulcerative colitis: a randomized, double-blind study

Background/AimsThis study compared the efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day and 4.8 g/day with controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day.MethodsIn this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 251 patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis received multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once daily (Multimatrix-2.4), 4.8 g/day once daily (Multimatrix-4.8), or controlled-release (time-dependent) mesalazine 2.25 g/day 3 times daily (Time-2.25) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the ulcerative colitis-disease activity index (UC-DAI) score.ResultsThe mean change in the UC-DAI score and standard deviation in the per protocol set was −1.9±2.5 for Multimatrix-2.4 and −2.4±2.8 for Time-2.25. The difference between Multimatrix-2.4 and Time-2.25 was 0.3 (two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.5 to 1.1), thus non-inferiority was not demonstrated based on the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (1.0). In the full analysis set, the difference between Multimatrix-4.8 and Time-2.25 was −1.2 (two-sided 95% CI, −2.0 to −0.5), and the mean change in UC-DAI score in the FAS was −3.3 (two-sided 95% CI, −3.9 to −2.8) for Multimatrix-4.8 and −1.9 (two-sided 95% CI, −2.5 to −1.3) for Multimatrix-2.4, indicating that Multimatrix-4.8 was more effective than Time-2.25 and Multimatrix-2.4. There was no difference among the treatment groups in terms of safety.ConclusionsThis study showed that the efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day was comparable to controlled release mesalazine 2.25 g/day, although non-inferiority was not demonstrated. Importantly, this was the first study to indicate that multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day was more effective than 2.4g/day with no associated safety concerns

Comparison of efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day once-daily with other high-dose mesalazine in active ulcerative colitis: a randomized, double-blind study

Background/Aims: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of high-dose multimatrix mesalazine once-daily (QD) compared to another form of high-dose mesalazine.Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 280 patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC) received multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day QD or pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day three times daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in the UC-Disease Activity Index (UC-DAI) at the end of the treatment period.Results: The change in the UC-DAI (mean±standard deviation) in the per-protocol set was −2.6±2.47 in the multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day group (n=134) and −1.8±2.64 in the pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day group (n=129). The difference in the mean change between the 2 groups was −0.7 (two-sided 95% confidence interval, −1.3 to −0.1). The noninferiority of multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day to pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day was verified within the noninferiority margin (1.1). The superiority of multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day to pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day was also investigated and confirmed in the full analysis set, according to the study protocol. In subgroup analyses, the effectiveness of multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day was consistent in all subgroups. There was no difference in safety between the 2 treatment groups.Conclusions: Multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day has higher efficacy and shows no difference in safety in mildly to moderately active UC, in comparison with pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day