Targeting inflammatory pathways in axial spondyloarthritis.

The triggers and pathogenesis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) are not yet completely understood. However, therapeutic agents targeting tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin-17 inflammatory pathways have proven successful in suppressing many of the clinical symptoms and signs of axSpA, giving us an indication of which pathways are responsible for initiating and maintaining the inflammation. The mechanisms that eventuate in syndesmophytes and ankyloses are less clear. This review addresses these two critical pathways of inflammation, discussing their nature and these factors that may activate or enhance the pathways in patients with axSpA. In addition, genetic and other markers important to the inflammatory pathways implicated in axSpA are explored, and prognostic biomarkers are discussed. Treatment options available for the management of axSpA and their associated targets are highlighted

Risk of serious adverse effects of biological and targeted drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: To determine possible differences in serious adverse effects among the 10 currently approved biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/ts-DMARDs) for RA.METHODS: Systematic review in bibliographic databases, trial registries and websites of regulatory agencies identified randomized trials of approved b/ts-DMARDs for RA. Network meta-analyses using mixed-effects Poisson regression models were conducted to calculate rate ratios for serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths between each of the 10 drugs and control (i.e. no b/ts-DMARD treatment), based on subjects experiencing an event in relation to person-years. Confidence in the estimates was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE).RESULTS: A total of 117 trials (47 615 patients) were included. SAEs were more common with certolizumab compared with abatacept (rate ratio = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.14), adalimumab (1.36, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.81), etanercept (1.60, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.17), golimumab (1.45, 95% CI: 1.00, 2.08), rituximab (1.63, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.30), tofacitinib (1.44, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.02) and control (1.45, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.87); and tocilizumab compared with abatacept (1.30, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.65), etanercept (1.31, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67) and rituximab (1.34, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.78). No other comparisons were statistically significant. Accounting for study duration confirmed our findings for up to 6 months' treatment but not for longer-term treatment (6-24 months). No differences in mortality between b/ts-DMARDs and control were found. Based on the GRADE approach, confidence in the estimates was low due to lack of head-to-head comparison trials and imprecision in indirect estimates.CONCLUSION: Despite low confidence in the estimates, our analysis found potential differences in rates of SAEs. Our data suggest caution should be taken when deciding among available drugs. OBJECTIVES: To determine possible differences in serious adverse effects among the 10 currently approved biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/ts-DMARDs) for RA.METHODS: Systematic review in bibliographic databases, trial registries and websites of regulatory agencies identified randomized trials of approved b/ts-DMARDs for RA. Network meta-analyses using mixed-effects Poisson regression models were conducted to calculate rate ratios for serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths between each of the 10 drugs and control (i.e. no b/ts-DMARD treatment), based on subjects experiencing an event in relation to person-years. Confidence in the estimates was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE).RESULTS: A total of 117 trials (47 615 patients) were included. SAEs were more common with certolizumab compared with abatacept (rate ratio = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.14), adalimumab (1.36, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.81), etanercept (1.60, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.17), golimumab (1.45, 95% CI: 1.00, 2.08), rituximab (1.63, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.30), tofacitinib (1.44, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.02) and control (1.45, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.87); and tocilizumab compared with abatacept (1.30, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.65), etanercept (1.31, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67) and rituximab (1.34, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.78). No other comparisons were statistically significant. Accounting for study duration confirmed our findings for up to 6 months' treatment but not for longer-term treatment (6-24 months). No differences in mortality between b/ts-DMARDs and control were found. Based on the GRADE approach, confidence in the estimates was low due to lack of head-to-head comparison trials and imprecision in indirect estimates.CONCLUSION: Despite low confidence in the estimates, our analysis found potential differences in rates of SAEs. Our data suggest caution should be taken when deciding among available drugs.SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42014014842

Repository Corticotropin Injection for Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Despite Aggressive Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Withdrawal Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of repository corticotropin injection (RCI) in subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with a corticosteroid and one or two disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: All subjects received open-label RCI (80 U) twice weekly for 12 weeks (part 1); only those with low disease activity [LDA; i.e., Disease Activity Score 28 joint count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) \u3c 3.2] were randomly assigned to receive either RCI (80 U) or placebo twice weekly during the 12-week double-blind period (part 2). The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects who achieved LDA at week 12. Secondary efficacy endpoints included proportions of subjects who maintained LDA during weeks 12 through 24 and achieved Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤ 10 at weeks 12 and 24. Safety was assessed via adverse event reports. RESULTS: Of the 259 enrolled subjects, 235 completed part 1; 154 subjects (n = 77 each for RCI and placebo) entered part 2, and 127 (RCI, n = 71; placebo, n = 56) completed. At week 12, 163 subjects (62.9%) achieved LDA and 169 (65.3%) achieved CDAI ≤ 10 (both p \u3c 0.0001). At week 24, 47 (61.0%) RCI-treated and 32 (42.1%) placebo-treated subjects maintained LDA (p = 0.019); 66 (85.7%) RCI-treated and 50 (65.8%) placebo-treated subjects maintained CDAI ≤ 10 (p = 0.004). No unexpected safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: RCI was effective and generally safe in patients with active RA despite corticosteroid/DMARD therapy. By week 12, \u3e 60% of patients achieved LDA, which was maintained with 12 additional weeks of treatment. Most patients who achieved LDA maintained it for 3 months after RCI discontinuation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02919761

Process for preparing tapes from thermoplastic polymers and carbon fibers

The instant invention involves a process for use in preparing tapes or rovings, which are formed from a thermoplastic material used to impregnate longitudinally extended bundles of carbon fibers. The process involves the steps of (a) gas spreading a tow of carbon fibers; (b) feeding the spread tow into a crosshead die; (c) impregnating the tow in the die with a thermoplastic polymer; (d) withdrawing the impregnated tow from the die; and (e) gas cooling the impregnated tow with a jet of air. The crosshead die useful in the instant invention includes a horizontally extended, carbon fiber bundle inlet channel, means for providing melted polymer under pressure to the die, means for dividing the polymeric material flowing into the die into an upper flow channel and a lower flow channel disposed above and below the moving carbon fiber bundle, means for applying the thermoplastic material from both the upper and lower channels to the fiber bundle, and means for withdrawing the resulting tape from the die

Patient‐Reported Outcomes From a Two‐Year Head‐to‐Head Comparison of Subcutaneous Abatacept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/122413/1/acr22763_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/122413/2/acr22763.pd

An International, Web-Based, Prospective Cohort Study to Determine Whether the Use of ACE Inhibitors prior to the Onset of Scleroderma Renal Crisis Is Associated with Worse Outcomes—Methodology and Preliminary Results

Background. To describe the methodology of a study designed to determine whether systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients with incident scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) on angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors prior to the onset of SRC have worse outcomes. Methods. Prospective, international cohort study of SRC subjects identified through an ongoing web-based survey. Every second Friday afternoon, an e-mail was sent to 589 participating physicians to identify new cases of SRC. Death or dialysis at one year after the onset of SRC will be compared in patients exposed or not to ACE inhibitors prior to the onset of SRC. Results. Fifteen months after the start of the survey, we had identified 76 incident cases of SRC. Of these, 66 (87%) had a hypertensive SRC and 10 (13%) a normotensive SRC. Twenty-two percent (22%) of the patients were on an ACE inhibitor immediately prior to the onset of the SRC. To date, we have collected one-year follow-up data on approximately 1/3 of the cohort. Of these, over 50% have died or remain on dialysis at one year. Conclusion. An international, web-based cohort study design is a feasible method of recruiting a substantial number of patients to study an infrequent vascular manifestation of SSc

Agreements and Discrepancies between FDA Reports and Journal Papers on Biologic Agents Approved for Rheumatoid Arthritis:<i>A Meta-Research Project</i>

BACKGROUND:Sponsors that seek to commercialize new drugs apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which independently analyzes the raw data and reports the results on its website. OBJECTIVES:This study sought to determine if there are differences between the FDA assessments and journal reports on biologic agents developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS:Available data on FDA-approved drugs were extracted from the website, and a systematic literature search was conducted to identify matching studies in peer-reviewed medical journals. Outcome measures were the American College of Rheumatology response criteria ACR20 (efficacy) and withdrawal due to adverse events (safety). As effect size odds ratios were estimated for each active trial arm vs. control arm (i.e. for both sources: FDA and journal report), followed by calculation of the ratios of the FDA and journal report odds ratios. A ratio of odds ratios not equal to 1 was categorized as a discrepancy. RESULTS:FDA reports were available for 8 of 9 FDA-approved biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis; all identified trials (34) except one were published in peer-reviewed journals. Overall, discrepancies were noted for 20 of the 33 evaluated trials. Differences in the apparent benefit reporting were found in 39% (24/61) pairwise comparisons and in 11 cases these were statistically significant; the FDA report showed greater benefit than the journal publication in 15 comparisons and lesser benefit in 9. Differences in the reported harms were found in 51% (28/55) pairwise comparisons and were statistically significant in 5. The "signal" in FDA reports showed a less harmful effect than the journal publication in 17 comparisons whereas a more harmful effect in 11. The differences were attributed to differences in analytic approach, patient inclusion, rounding effect, and counting discrepancies. However, no differences were categorized as critical. CONCLUSION:There was no empirical evidence to suggest biased estimates between the two sources. Increased and detailed transparency in publications would improve the understanding and credibility of published results. Further, the FDA report was found to be a useful source when data are missing in the published report (i.e. reporting bias)