Personal non-commercial use only

ABSTRACT. Objective. To determine whether "continuous" celecoxib is more efficacious than "intermittent" use in preventing osteoarthritis (OA) flares of the knee and/or hip. Methods. A double-blind, randomized, multicenter international study comparing efficacy and safety of continuous (daily) versus intermittent (as required during predefined OA flare) celecoxib 200 mg/day in 858 subjects, aged 18-80 years. The study consisted of 3 periods: (I) screening/washout visit; (II) open-label run-in with celecoxib; and (III) 22-week blinded treatment. Only subjects whose OA flares resolved in Period 2 (without subsequent flare) were randomized. The primary endpoint, number of flares per time of exposure during Period III (number of flares per month), was compared using analysis of variance with treatment as the independent variable. Acetaminophen was available as rescue medication. Results. Of 875 subjects randomized to treatment, 858 subjects received treatment. At randomization > 70% were female; mean age 58.6 years; mean disease duration 6.5 years; total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index mean score 25.8; ~45% had hypertension; and ~20% were using aspirin (for cardiovascular prophylaxis). Subjects receiving continuous treatment reported 42% fewer OA flares/month than intermittent users (p < 0.0001) or 2.0 fewer OA flares over 22 weeks. Statistical and clinically meaningful benefits in secondary outcomes were also evident with continuous treatment. There were no differences in adverse events (AE) or new-onset/aggravated hypertension. Conclusion. Continuous treatment with celecoxib 200 mg/day was significantly more efficacious than intermittent use in preventing OA flares of the hip and knee, without an increase in overall AE, including gastrointestinal disorders and hypertension, during 22 weeks of treatment

Personal non-commercial use only. The Journal of Rheumatology ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00139776

ABSTRACT. Objective. To determine whether "continuous" celecoxib is more efficacious than "intermittent" use in preventing osteoarthritis (OA) flares of the knee and/or hip. Methods. A double-blind, randomized, multicenter international study comparing efficacy and safety of continuous (daily) versus intermittent (as required during predefined OA flare) celecoxib 200 mg/day in 858 subjects, aged 18-80 years. The study consisted of 3 periods: (I) screening/washout visit; (II) open-label run-in with celecoxib; and (III) 22-week blinded treatment. Only subjects whose OA flares resolved in Period 2 (without subsequent flare) were randomized. The primary endpoint, number of flares per time of exposure during Period III (number of flares per month), was compared using analysis of variance with treatment as the independent variable. Acetaminophen was available as rescue medication. Results. Of 875 subjects randomized to treatment, 858 subjects received treatment. At randomization > 70% were female; mean age 58.6 years; mean disease duration 6.5 years; total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index mean score 25.8; ~45% had hypertension; and ~20% were using aspirin (for cardiovascular prophylaxis). Subjects receiving continuous treatment reported 42% fewer OA flares/month than intermittent users (p < 0.0001) or 2.0 fewer OA flares over 22 weeks. Statistical and clinically meaningful benefits in secondary outcomes were also evident with continuous treatment. There were no differences in adverse events (AE) or newonset/aggravated hypertension. Conclusion. Continuous treatment with celecoxib 200 mg/day was significantly more efficacious than intermittent use in preventing OA flares of the hip and knee, without an increase in overall AE, including gastrointestinal disorders and hypertension, during 22 weeks of treatment

Digital wearable insole-based identification of knee arthropathies and gait signatures using machine learning

Gait is impaired in musculoskeletal conditions, such as knee arthropathy. Gait analysis is used in clinical practice to inform diagnosis and monitor disease progression or intervention response. However, clinical gait analysis relies on subjective visual observation of walking as objective gait analysis has not been possible within clinical settings due to the expensive equipment, large-scale facilities, and highly trained staff required. Relatively low-cost wearable digital insoles may offer a solution to these challenges. In this work, we demonstrate how a digital insole measuring osteoarthritis-specific gait signatures yields similar results to the clinical gait-lab standard. To achieve this, we constructed a machine learning model, trained on force plate data collected in participants with knee arthropathy and controls. This model was highly predictive of force plate data from a validation set (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [auROC] = 0.86; area under the precision-recall curve [auPR] = 0.90) and of a separate, independent digital insole dataset containing control and knee osteoarthritis subjects (auROC = 0.83; auPR = 0.86). After showing that digital insole-derived gait characteristics are comparable to traditional gait measurements, we next showed that a single stride of raw sensor time-series data could be accurately assigned to each subject, highlighting that individuals using digital insoles can be identified by their gait characteristics. This work provides a framework for a promising alternative to traditional clinical gait analysis methods, adds to the growing body of knowledge regarding wearable technology analytical pipelines, and supports clinical development of at-home gait assessments, with the potential to improve the ease, frequency, and depth of patient monitoring

Monoclonal antibodies against GFRα3 are efficacious against evoked hyperalgesic and allodynic responses in mouse join pain models but, one of these, REGN5069, was not effective against pain in a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in patients with osteoarthritis pain

The artemin-GFRα3 signaling pathway has been implicated in various painful conditions including migraine, cold allodynia, hyperalgesia, inflammatory bone pain, and mouse knees contain GFRα3-immunoreactive nerve endings. We developed high affinity mouse (REGN1967) and human (REGN5069) GFRα3-blocking monoclonal antibodies and, following in vivo evaluations in mouse models of chronic joint pain (osteoarthritic-like and inflammatory), conducted a first-in-human phase 1 pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety trial of REGN5069 (NCT03645746) in healthy volunteers, and a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled efficacy and safety trial of REGN5069 (NCT03956550) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain. In three commonly used mouse models of chronic joint pain (destabilization of the medial meniscus, intra-articular monoiodoacetate, or Complete Freund’s Adjuvant), REGN1967 and REGN5069 attenuated evoked behaviors including tactile allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia without discernably impacting joint pathology or inflammation, prompting us to further evaluate REGN5069 in humans. In the phase 1 study in healthy subjects, the safety profiles of single doses of REGN5069 up to 3000 mg (intravenous) or 600 mg (subcutaneous) were comparable to placebo; PK were consistent with a monoclonal antibody exhibiting target-mediated disposition. In the phase 2 study in patients with OA knee pain, two doses of REGN5069 (100 mg or 1000 mg intravenous every 4 weeks) for 8 weeks failed to achieve the 12-week primary and secondary efficacy endpoints relative to placebo. In addition to possible differences in GFRα3 biology between mice and humans, we highlight here differences in experimental parameters that could have contributed to a different profile of efficacy in mouse models versus human OA pain. Additional research is required to more fully evaluate any potential role of GFRα3 in human pain

A phase II single-arm study of irinotecan in combination with temozolomide (TEMIRI) in children with newly diagnosed high grade glioma: a joint ITCC and SIOPE-brain tumour study

A multicenter, two stage phase II study, investigated irinotecan plus temozolomide in children with newly diagnosed high grade glioma. The primary endpoint was tumor response during a two-cycle treatment window, confirmed by external review committee. Patients received oral temozolomide 100 mg/(m 2 day) (days 1-5) and intravenous irinotecan 10 mg/(m2 day) (days 1-5 and 8-12) for two 21-day cycles (three cycles for patients exhibiting objective tumor response). Standard treatment was then administered according to local investigator choice. In total 17 patients were enrolled and treated by local investigators. However, central pathology review found three patients did not have a diagnosis of high grade glioma and another four patients did not have evaluable disease according to independent central radiological review. The primary endpoint was based on the first ten evaluable patients as determined by the external review committee. Recruitment was stopped for futility after there were no complete or partial responses during the two-cycle treatment window in the first ten evaluable patients. Five patients had stable disease, and five progressed. Data for secondary endpoints including; time to tumor progression, time to treatment failure, and overall survival is reported. The safety profile of the treatment showed the combination was tolerable with two patients (11.8 %) having grade three nausea, and one (5.9 %) experiencing a grade four neutropenia, leading to permanent discontinuation from adjuvant treatment. Irinotecan plus temozolomide, although well tolerated did not improve outcome over historical controls in this setting. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York