Comparison of different definitions to classify remission and sustained remission: 1 year TEMPO results

To assess methods to calculate achieving and sustaining remission in a double blind randomised trial in patients with RA who received etanercept, methotrexate, or an etanercept/methotrexate combination. Remission was defined as DAS <1.6, DAS28 <2.6, and ACR70 response. Sustaining remission was analysed in three ways: (a) analysis of sustained DAS remission, DAS28 remission, or ACR70 response continuously for 6 months; (b) analysis of sustained remission appraised through a continuity rewarded scoring system, which is the weighted sum of all intervals in the study in which patients are in DAS or DAS28 remission; or (c) longitudinal modelling of remission odds using generalised estimating equations. Significantly more patients treated with the etanercept/methotrexate combination reached DAS remission (37%) than those treated with either methotrexate (14%) or etanercept (18%) alone (p <0.01). Results for DAS28 and for the ACR70 response were similar. Agreement between DAS remission and DAS28 remission was good, but agreement between either of these and the ACR70 response was less. Patients in DAS or DAS28 remission had a lower level of disease activity (fewer active joints, lower ESR) than those achieving ACR70 response; the converse was seen using pain VAS. The three methods were comparable for sustainability of remission and showed significant advantage for combination therapy, which increased the number and durability of remission periods. DAS and DAS28 remission results were similar for assessing achieving and sustaining remission in RA, frequently differing from patients classified as ACR70 responders. The three methods of examining duration of remission produced comparable result

Efficacy and safety of leflunomide in DMARD-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of a loading and a fixed-dose regimen.

To assess the efficacy of LEF administered with or without a loading dose in DMARD-naïve patients with early RA. This multicentre, double-blind, randomized clinical trial included adults with RA diagnosed within 6 months (ACR criteria). Patients were randomly selected to receive either a 100 mg loading dose or a 20 mg fixed dose of LEF for 3 days, followed by a 3-month open-label maintenance period of 20 mg LEF qd. The primary outcome criterion was ACR20 response rate at study end in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary criteria were ACR20, ACR50, ACR70 and DAS28 response rates at 1 and 3 months and safety. The intent-to-treat population included 120 patients (median time since diagnosis 0.95 months). The ACR20 response rate at study end was 69.0% (95%CI 60.5%, 77.4%). Response rates were significantly lower (P = 0.025) in the loading-dose group [58.5% (45.2%, 71.8%)] than in the fixed-dose group [77.8% (67.5%, 88.0%)]. Three-month ACR50, ACR70 and DAS28 response rates were 41.4%, 17.7% and 81.7%, respectively, with no significant differences between groups. Adverse events occurred in 53.7% (loading-dose group) and 49.3% (fixed-dose group) of patients, most frequently diarrhoea and elevated hepatic enzymes; these occurred more frequently and earlier in treatment when the loading dose was used. LEF was effective in DMARD-naïve patients with early disease. No incremental benefit was observed with the use of a loading dose, which may be associated with an increased initial rate of adverse events. The advantage of LEF initiation with a loading dose is not confirmed in this population. ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov/, NCT00596206

EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis: report of a task force of the European Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT)

OBJECTIVE: To formulate EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis. METHODS: In accordance with EULAR's “standardised operating procedures”, the task force pursued an evidence based approach and an approach based on expert opinion. A steering group comprised of 14 rheumatologists representing 10 European countries. The group defined the focus of the process, the target population, and formulated an operational definition of “management”. Each participant was invited to propose issues of interest regarding the management of early arthritis or early rheumatoid arthritis. Fifteen issues for further research were selected by use of a modified Delphi technique. A systematic literature search was carried out. Evidence was categorised according to usual guidelines. A set of draft recommendations was proposed on the basis of the research questions and the results of the literature search.. The strength of the recommendations was based on the category of evidence and expert opinion. RESULTS: 15 research questions, covering the entire spectrum of “management of early arthritis”, were formulated for further research; and 284 studies were identified and evaluated. Twelve recommendations for the management of early arthritis were selected and presented with short sentences. The selected statements included recognition of arthritis, referral, diagnosis, prognosis, classification, and treatment of early arthritis (information, education, non‐pharmacological interventions, pharmacological treatments, and monitoring of the disease process). On the basis of expert opinion, 11 items were identified as being important for future research. CONCLUSIONS: 12 key recommendations for the management of early arthritis or early rheumatoid arthritis were developed, based on evidence in the literature and expert consensus

Inhibition of radiographic progression with combination etanercept and methotrexate in patients with moderately active rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with monotherapy

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of changing from etanercept or methotrexate monotherapy to etanercept plus methotrexate combination therapy on radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: Patients enrolled in this 1-year open-label study previously completed a 3-year blinded study in which they received methotrexate or etanercept monotherapy or the combination of both. All patients received the combination of etanercept 25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly plus oral methotrexate up to 20 mg/week. The primary radiographic endpoint was a change in modified total Sharp score (TSS), as assessed by blinded readers. RESULTS: At baseline, patients previously receiving methotrexate monotherapy (etanercept-added, n = 52) or etanercept monotherapy (methotrexate-added, n = 68) had moderate disease activity levels (mean disease activity score (DAS) of 2.6 and 2.5, respectively), whereas patients previously receiving combination therapy (n = 90) had a low disease activity level (mean DAS of 2.0). The addition of etanercept to methotrexate monotherapy resulted in a significant reduction in radiographic progression (p<0.05). Mean TSS changes in the previous year versus the current year were +1.79 versus +0.25 for the etanercept-added group (p<0.05); +0.51 versus -0.18 for the methotrexate-added group (NS) and +0.42 versus +0.24 for the combination group (NS). CONCLUSION: In these RA patients with on average moderate disease activity despite previous methotrexate monotherapy, combination treatment with etanercept and methotrexate inhibited radiographic progression and improved radiographic outcomes. These data, in conjunction with the previously published clinical data, support the use of combination therapy in RA patients with moderate disease activity

Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. results of the LOFT multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and LOFT extension study

Background: Odanacatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. Previous work has shown that odanacatib increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Methods: The Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study at 388 outpatient clinics in 40 countries. Eligible participants were women aged at least 65 years who were postmenopausal for 5 years or more, with a femoral neck or total hip bone mineral density T-score between −2·5 and −4·0 if no previous radiographic vertebral fracture, or between −1·5 and −4·0 with a previous vertebral fracture. Women with a previous hip fracture, more than one vertebral fracture, or a T-score of less than −4·0 at the total hip or femoral neck were not eligible unless they were unable or unwilling to use approved osteoporosis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral odanacatib (50 mg once per week) or matching placebo. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice recognition system after stratification for previous radiographic vertebral fracture, and treatment was masked to study participants, investigators and their staff, and sponsor personnel. If the study completed before 5 years of double-blind treatment, consenting participants could enrol in a double-blind extension study (LOFT Extension), continuing their original treatment assignment for up to 5 years from randomisation. Primary endpoints were incidence of vertebral fractures as assessed using radiographs collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, yearly, and at final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline and at least one other timepoint, and hip and non-vertebral fractures adjudicated as being a result of osteoporosis as assessed by clinical history and radiograph. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The adjudicated cardiovascular safety endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. Individual cardiovascular endpoints and death were also assessed. LOFT and LOFT Extension are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00529373) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2007-002693-66). Findings: Between Sept 14, 2007, and Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and 8028 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 36·5 months (IQR 34·43–40·15) 4297 women assigned to odanacatib and 3960 assigned to placebo enrolled in LOFT Extension (total median follow-up 47·6 months, IQR 35·45–60·06). In LOFT, cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 3·7% (251/6770) versus 7·8% (542/6910), hazard ratio (HR) 0·46, 95% CI 0·40–0·53; hip fractures 0·8% (65/8043) versus 1·6% (125/8028), 0·53, 0·39–0·71; non-vertebral fractures 5·1% (412/8043) versus 6·7% (541/8028), 0·77, 0·68–0·87; all p&lt;0·0001. Combined results from LOFT plus LOFT Extension for cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 4·9% (341/6909) versus 9·6% (675/7011), HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·42–0·55; hip fractures 1·1% (86/8043) versus 2·0% (162/8028), 0·52, 0·40–0·67; non-vertebral fractures 6·4% (512/8043) versus 8·4% (675/8028), 0·74, 0·66–0·83; all p&lt;0·0001. In LOFT, the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 273 (3·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 245 (3·1%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·95–1·34; p=0·18). New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter occurred in 112 (1·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 96 (1·2%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·18, 0·90–1·55; p=0·24). Odanacatib was associated with an increased risk of stroke (1·7% [136/8043] vs 1·3% [104/8028], HR 1·32, 1·02–1·70; p=0·034), but not myocardial infarction (0·7% [60/8043] vs 0·9% [74/8028], HR 0·82, 0·58–1·15; p=0·26). The HR for all-cause mortality was 1·13 (5·0% [401/8043] vs 4·4% [356/8028], 0·98–1·30; p=0·10). When data from LOFT Extension were included, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in significantly more patients in the odanacatib group than in the placebo group (401 [5·0%] of 8043 vs 343 [4·3%] of 8028, HR 1·17, 1·02–1·36; p=0·029, as did stroke (2·3% [187/8043] vs 1·7% [137/8028], HR 1·37, 1·10–1·71; p=0·0051). Interpretation: Odanacatib reduced the risk of fracture, but was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, specifically stroke, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on the overall balance between benefit and risk, the study's sponsor decided that they would no longer pursue development of odanacatib for treatment of osteoporosis. Funding: Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck &amp; Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA