A randomized, controlled trial of interferon-β-1a (Avonex(®)) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a pilot study [ISRCTN03626626]

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and possible efficacy of IFN-β-1a for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Twenty-two patients with active RA were enrolled in a phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 30 μg IFN-β-1a by weekly self-injection for 24 weeks. The primary outcome of the study was safety. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at 24 weeks. There were no significant differences in adverse events reported in the two groups. Fewer than 20% of patients in each arm of the study achieved an ACR 20 response at 24 weeks (P = 0.71). Sixty-nine percent of patients receiving IFN-β and 67% receiving placebo terminated the study early, most of them secondary to a perceived lack of efficacy. Overall, IFN-β-1a had a safety profile similar to that of placebo. There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients achieving an ACR 20 response between the two groups

A plain language summary of what clinical studies can tell us about the safety of evobrutinib – a potential treatment for multiple sclerosis

Immunology; Rheumatology; Systemic lupus erythematosusInmunología; Reumatología; Lupus eritematoso sistémicoImmunologia; Reumatologia; Lupus eritematós sistèmicWhat is this summary about?: This summary explains the findings from a recent investigation that combined the results of over 1000 people from three clinical studies to understand the safety of evobrutinib. Evobrutinib is an oral medication (taken by mouth), being researched as a potential treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS). This medication was also investigated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Over 1000 people have taken evobrutinib as part of three separate phase 2 clinical studies. These studies looked at how much of the drug should be taken, how safe the drug is, and how well it might work for treating a certain medical condition. What were the results?: Evobrutinib was well-tolerated by participants in all three studies. The number of side effects reported by participants taking the medication was very similar to those reported by participants taking the placebo (a 'dummy' treatment without a real drug). The most common side effects in clinical studies were urinary tract infections, headache, swelling of the nose and throat, diarrhoea and blood markers of potential liver damage (these returned to normal once the treatment was stopped). What do the results mean?: The safety data from all three clinical studies are encouraging and can be used to inform further research into using evobrutinib in MS.X Montalban has received speaking honoraria and travel expenses for participation in scientific meetings, has been a steering committee member of clinical trials or participated in advisory boards of clinical trials in the past years with Abbvie, Actelion, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Hoffmann-La Roche, Immunic, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medday, Merck, Mylan, Nervgen, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceutical, TG Therapeutics, Excemed, MSIF and NMSS. D Wallace has received consultant fees from Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA (an affiliate of Merck KGaA), Janssen and Merck. MC Genovese is an employee of and has financial interests in Gilead. D Tomic is an employee of Ares Trading SA, Eysins, Switzerland, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, and received stock or an ownership interest from Novartis. D Parsons-Rich was an employee of EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, at the time of the study, and is currently an employee of and has received stock from Pfizer. C Le Bolay and H Guehring are employees of Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. A Kao is an employee of and received stock or an ownership interest from EMD Serono Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, a healthcare business of Merck KGaA. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this work was supported by Merck (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945). This summary was prepared by Lumanity on behalf of, and funded by, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

Antibody response to pneumococcal and influenza vaccination in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving abatacept

Background Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including those treated with biologics, are at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable infections. We evaluated the antibody response to standard 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the 2011–2012 trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in adults with RA receiving subcutaneous (SC) abatacept and background disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Methods Two multicenter, open-label sub-studies enrolled patients from the ACQUIRE (pneumococcal and influenza) and ATTUNE (pneumococcal) studies at any point during their SC abatacept treatment cycle following completion of ≥3 months’ SC abatacept. All patients received fixed-dose abatacept 125 mg/week with background DMARDs. A pre-vaccination blood sample was taken, and after 28 ± 3 days a final post- vaccination sample was collected. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an immunologic response to the vaccine at Day 28 among patients without a protective antibody level to the vaccine antigens at baseline (pneumococcal: defined as ≥2-fold increase in post-vaccination titers to ≥3 of 5 antigens and protective antibody level of ≥1.6 μg/mL to ≥3 of 5 antigens; influenza: defined as ≥4-fold increase in post-vaccination titers to ≥2 of 3 antigens and protective antibody level of ≥1:40 to ≥2 of 3 antigens). Safety and tolerability were evaluated throughout the sub-studies. Results Pre- and post-vaccination titers were available for 113/125 and 186/191 enrolled patients receiving the PPSV23 and influenza vaccine, respectively. Among vaccinated patients, 47/113 pneumococcal and 121/186 influenza patients were without protective antibody levels at baseline. Among patients with available data, 73.9 % (34/46) and 61.3 % (73/119) met the primary endpoint and achieved an immunologic response to PPSV23 or influenza vaccine, respectively. In patients with pre- and post-vaccination data available, 83.9 % in the pneumococcal study demonstrated protective antibody levels with PPSV23 (titer ≥1.6 μg/mL to ≥3 of 5 antigens), and 81.2 % in the influenza study achieved protective antibody levels (titer ≥1:40 to ≥2 of 3 antigens) at Day 28 post-vaccination. Vaccines were well tolerated with SC abatacept with background DMARDs. Conclusions In these sub-studies, patients with RA receiving SC abatacept and background DMARDs were able to mount an appropriate immune response to pneumococcal and influenza vaccines. Trial registration NCT00559585 (registered 15 November 2007) and NCT00663702 (registered 18 April 2008)

Continued inhibition of structural damage over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with rituximab in combination with methotrexate

Background Rituximab inhibited structural damage at 1 year in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had had a previous inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. Objective To assess structural damage progression through 2 years. Methods Intention-to-treat patients with one post-baseline radiograph (rituximab n = 281; placebo n = 187) received background methotrexate (MTX) and were randomised to rituximab (2 x 1000 mg infusions, 2 weeks apart) or placebo; patients were eligible for rituximab re-treatment every 6 months. By week 104, 82% of the placebo population had received >= 1 dose of rituximab. Radiographic end points included the change in total Sharp score (TSS), erosion and joint space narrowing scores at week 104. Results At week 104, significantly lower changes in TSS (1.14 vs 2.81; p < 0.0001), erosion score (0.72 vs 1.80; p < 0.0001) and joint space narrowing scores (0.42 vs 1.00; p < 0.0009) were observed with rituximab plus MTX vs placebo plus MTX. Within the rituximab group, 87% who had no progression of joint damage at 1 year remained non-progressive at 2 years. Conclusions Rituximab plus MTX demonstrated significant and sustained effects on joint damage progression in patients with RA and a previously inadequate response to TNF inhibitor

Exploratory analyses of the association of MRI with clinical, laboratory and radiographic findings in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

Characterisation of the safety profile of evobrutinib in over 1000 patients from phase II clinical trials in multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus: an integrated safety analysis

Immunology; Multiple sclerosis; RheumatologyInmunología; Esclerosis múltiple; ReumatologíaImmunologia; Esclerosi múltiple; ReumatologiaObjective Analyse the integrated safety profile of evobrutinib, a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), using pooled data from multiple sclerosis (MS), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) trials. Methods Phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial data were analysed (N=1083; MS: n=213, 48 weeks (W); RA: n=390, 12W; SLE: n=480, 52W). The analysis included all patients who received ≥1 dose of evobrutinib (25 mg or 75 mg once daily, or 50 mg or 75 mgtwice daily) or placebo. Descriptive statistics and exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIR) were used to report treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results Data from 1083 patients were pooled: evobrutinib, n=861; placebo, n=271 (sum >1083 due to MS trial design: n=49 received both placebo (W0–24) and evobrutinib 25 mg (W25–48)); median follow-up time (pt-years): evobrutinib, 0.501; placebo, 0.463. Across indications, the proportion of patients with TEAEs and the EAIR were similar for evobrutinib and placebo (66.2% (247.6 events/100 pt-years) vs 62.4% (261.4 events/100 pt-years)). By indication, the EAIR (events/100 pt-years) of TEAEs for evobrutinib versus placebo were: MS: 119.7 vs 148.3; RA: 331.8 vs 306.8; SLE: 343.0 vs 302.1. Two fatal events occurred (in SLE). The serious infections EAIR was 2.7 and 2.1 events/100 pt-years for evobrutinib and placebo. For previously reported BTKi-class effects, the EAIR of transient elevated alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase TEAEs (events/100 pt-years) with evobrutinib versus placebo was 4.8 vs 2.8/3.5 vs 0.7, respectively. IgG levels were similar in evobrutinib/placebo-treated patients. Conclusions This is the first BTKi-integrated safety analysis that includes patients with MS. Overall, evobrutinib treatment (all doses) was generally well tolerated across indications.The trial was sponsored by Merck Healthcare KGaA (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945)

Interleukin-6 receptor blockade or TNFa inhibition for reducing glycaemia in patients with RA and diabetes: post hoc analyses of three randomised, controlled trials

Background: Diabetes is common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Interleukin (IL)-6 is implicated in both the pathogenesis of RA and in glucose homeostasis; this post hoc analysis investigated the effects of IL-6 receptor vs. tumour necrosis factor inhibition on glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with RA with or without diabetes. Methods: Data were from two placebo-controlled phase III studies of subcutaneous sarilumab 150/200 mg q2w + methotrexate or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and a phase III monotherapy study of sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs. adalimumab 40 mg q2w. Patients with diabetes were identified by medical history or use of antidiabetic medication (patients with HbA1c ? 9% were excluded from all three studies). HbA1c was measured at baseline and weeks 12/24. Safety and efficacy were assessed in RA patients with or without diabetes. Results: Patients with diabetes (n = 184) were older, weighed more and exhibited higher RA disease activity tan patients without diabetes (n = 1928). Regardless of diabetes status, in patients on background csDMARDs, least squares (LS) mean difference (95% CI) in change from baseline in HbA1c for sarilumab 150 mg/200 mg vs. placebo at week 24 was ? 0.28 (? 0.40, ? 0.16; nominal p < 0.0001) and ? 0.42 (? 0.54, ? 0.31; nominal p < 0.0001), respectively. Without csDMARDs, LS mean difference for sarilumab 200 mg vs. adalimumab 40mg at week 24 was ? 0.13 (? 0.22, ? 0.04; nominal p = 0.0043). Greater reduction in HbA1c than placebo or adalimumab was observed at week 24 with sarilumab in patients with diabetes and/or baseline HbA1c ? 7%. There was no correlation between baseline/change from baseline in HbA1c and baseline/change from baseline in C-reactive protein, 28-joint Disease Activity Score, or haemoglobin, nor between HbA1c change from baseline and baseline glucocorticoid use. Medical history of diabetes or use of diabetes treatments had limited impact on safety and efficacy of sarilumab and was consistent with overall phase III findings in patients with RA. Conclusions: In post hoc analyses, sarilumab was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c than csDMARDs or adalimumab, independent of sarilumab anti-inflammatory effects. Prospective studies are required to further assess these preliminary findings. Trial registration: ClinTrials.gov NCT01061736: date of registration February 03, 2010; ClinTrials.gov NCT01709578: date ofregistration October 18, 2012; ClinTrials.gov NCT02332590: date of registration January 07, 2015. Arthritis Research & Therapy (2020) 22:20

Lymphocyte Cc Chemokine Receptor 9 and Epithelial Thymus-Expressed Chemokine (Teck) Expression Distinguish the Small Intestinal Immune Compartment: Epithelial Expression of Tissue-Specific Chemokines as an Organizing Principle in Regional Immunity

The immune system has evolved specialized cellular and molecular mechanisms for targeting and regulating immune responses at epithelial surfaces. Here we show that small intestinal intraepithelial lymphocytes and lamina propria lymphocytes migrate to thymus-expressed chemokine (TECK). This attraction is mediated by CC chemokine receptor (CCR)9, a chemoattractant receptor expressed at high levels by essentially all CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes in the small intestine. Only a small subset of lymphocytes in the colon are CCR9+, and lymphocytes from other tissues including tonsils, lung, inflamed liver, normal or inflamed skin, inflamed synovium and synovial fluid, breast milk, and seminal fluid are universally CCR9−. TECK expression is also restricted to the small intestine: immunohistochemistry reveals that intense anti-TECK reactivity characterizes crypt epithelium in the jejunum and ileum, but not in other epithelia of the digestive tract (including stomach and colon), skin, lung, or salivary gland. These results imply a restricted role for lymphocyte CCR9 and its ligand TECK in the small intestine, and provide the first evidence for distinctive mechanisms of lymphocyte recruitment that may permit functional specialization of immune responses in different segments of the gastrointestinal tract. Selective expression of chemokines by differentiated epithelium may represent an important mechanism for targeting and specialization of immune responses