Rheumatoid Arthritis: Cohen SB

Furst DE, Halbert RJ, Bingham CO, Fukudome S, Anderson L, Bonafede P, Bray V, Cohen SB, Sherrer YR, St Clair EW, Tesser JR, Weinblatt M, Dubois RW. · Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, 1000 Veteran Ave Rm 32-59, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1670, USA. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #18178593 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of agreement on assessing disease activity in patients with RA and determining when the RA treatment should be changed or continued. A panel of rheumatologists was convened to develop guidelines to assess adequacy of disease control, focusing on the use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. METHODS: The Research and Development/University of California in Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method was used to evaluate disease control adequacy. After a literature review, 108 scenarios were developed to simulate situations most likely to be encountered in clinical practice and rated on a 9-point scale by a 10-member expert panel. RESULTS: Final appropriateness rankings for the scenarios were as follows: 37% 'appropriate', 48% 'inappropriate', and 16% 'neutral'. The panelists felt that patients with disease control in the 'appropriate' range have adequate control with their current therapy, whereas those in the 'inappropriate' range should be considered for a change in therapy. Those in 'neutral' areas should have their therapy reviewed carefully. The panelists recommended that the clinically active joint count should be considered the most important decision factor. In patients with no clinically active joints, regardless of other factors no change in therapy was felt to be warranted. Patients with five or more active joints should be considered inadequately treated, and in patients with one to four active joints other variables must be considered in the decision to change therapy. CONCLUSION: These preliminary guidelines will assist the clinician in determining when a patient's clinical situation warrants therapy escalation and when continuing the current regimen would be appropriate.

Bathon JM, Cohen SB. · No affiliation provided · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18512712 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Cohen SB. · University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Radiant Research, Dallas, Texas 75235, USA. · J Rheumatol Suppl. · Pubmed #16652440 No free full text.

Abstract: Recent reports of data from ongoing trials have contributed substantially to our growing understanding of the potential effectiveness and safety of B cell targeted therapy in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. In addition, the results have addressed practical questions regarding the administration of specific agents. Phase II trials of rituximab (RTX) have provided data supporting efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including more clearly defining the role of glucocorticoids in the treatment and exploring the doses necessary to improve the signs and symptoms of RA. The Phase IIb Dose-Ranging Assessment International Clinical Evaluation of Rituximab in RA (DANCER) trial demonstrated that a significant percentage of patients achieved clinical improvement when treated with different doses of RTX as compared with those given placebo. The Phase III Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA (REFLEX) trial demonstrated efficacy of RTX in patients with a history of nonresponse to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Preliminary results of a small cohort of patients receiving RTX retreatment demonstrated efficacy with repeat administration. Phase II results of another B cell targeted therapy, anti-B lymphocyte stimulator protein, demonstrated efficacy. The efficacy of the agent, belimumab, resulted in an ACR20 response that was significantly higher in patients treated with belimumab versus placebo and in patients with RA. These findings support the hypothesis that B cells play an integral role in the pathogenesis of RA, and this report will review the efficacy results of clinical trials targeting B cells.

Cohen SB. · University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA. · MedGenMed. · Pubmed #16369450 links to  free full text

Abstract: Immune system dysfunction is common to rheumatic disorders, with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) being classic examples. Altered development and function of B cells may play a prominent role. B-cell abnormalities also occur in other rheumatic diseases, eg, Sjogren's syndrome, Behcet's disease, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and dermatomyositis. Hence, B-cell depletion has been investigated as a therapeutic option. Clinical trials in RA and SLE have shown that rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, can profoundly reduce disease activity and is generally well tolerated. Reports of rituximab treatment for ANCA-associated vasculitis and dermatomyositis are also promising. These encouraging results validate the strategy of B-cell depletion in various rheumatic diseases. B-cell depletion with rituximab is under study in larger clinical trials for the purposes of regulatory approval to define more closely its place in RA and SLE treatment paradigms, and smaller clinical trials are ongoing or planned in associated inflammatory diseases.

Cohen SB. · Radiant Research--Dallas, TX 75275, USA. · Rheum Dis Clin North Am. · Pubmed #15172046 No free full text.

Abstract: Interleukin-1 (IL-1) is a primary cytokine that is involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis; it contributes to inflammation and joint destruction. Anakinra (Kineret) is an IL-1 receptor antagonist that blocks the biologic activity of IL-1. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in 2001. Anakinra is safe and effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, both as monotherapy and in combination with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.This article reviews the preclinical, clinical, and postmarketing data on the safety and efficacy of anakinra in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and focuses on the pivotal clinical trials that led to FDA approval.

Cohen SB, Rubbert A. · St Paul University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #12817094 links to  free full text

Abstract: The recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, anakinra (Kineret; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA), has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Commission for the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Approval was granted following the extensive evaluation of anakinra in five pivotal clinical trials that assessed its efficacy and safety in RA patients. These studies have indicated that anakinra has a favourable risk-benefit profile, producing rapid and sustained reductions in the signs and symptoms of RA, as measured by improvements in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria, particularly in patient-reported indicators of function and disability. The data from these trials suggest that anakinra is likely to provide a useful therapeutic option to clinicians and also meet the treatment expectations of patients with RA; however, further studies are underway to investigate additional benefits that anakinra may offer, particularly in patients with existing co-morbidities.

Cohen SB, Iqbal I. · St Paul University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. · Int J Clin Pract. · Pubmed #12661795 No free full text.

Abstract: Leflunomide (Arava) was approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis by the regulatory authorities in the US and Europe in 1998. This approval was based on three pivotal randomised clinical trials conducted in the US and Europe. This report will focus on the use of leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis based on the data from these trials as well information on the efficacy and safety learned from post release clinical experience.

Cohen SB, Dore RK, Lane NE, Ory PA, Peterfy CG, Sharp JT, van der Heijde D, Zhou L, Tsuji W, Newmark R, Anonymous00022. · Metroplex Clinical Research Center, Dallas, Texas 75235, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18438830 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: RANKL is essential for osteoclast development, activation, and survival. Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal IgG2 antibody that binds RANKL, inhibiting its activity. The aim of this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study was to evaluate the effects of denosumab on structural damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving methotrexate treatment. METHODS: RA patients received subcutaneous placebo (n = 75), denosumab 60 mg (n = 71), or denosumab 180 mg (n = 72) injections every 6 months for 12 months. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) erosion score at 6 months. RESULTS: At 6 months, the increase in the MRI erosion score from baseline was lower in the 60-mg denosumab group (mean change 0.13; P = 0.118) and significantly lower in the 180-mg denosumab group (mean change 0.06; P = 0.007) than in the placebo group (mean change 1.75). A significant difference in the modified Sharp erosion score was observed as early as 6 months in the 180-mg denosumab group (P = 0.019) as compared with placebo, and at 12 months, both the 60-mg (P = 0.012) and the 180-mg (P = 0.007) denosumab groups were significantly different from the placebo group. Denosumab caused sustained suppression of markers of bone turnover. There was no evidence of an effect of denosumab on joint space narrowing or on measures of RA disease activity. Rates of adverse events were comparable between the denosumab and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: Addition of twice-yearly injections of denosumab to ongoing methotrexate treatment inhibited structural damage in patients with RA for up to 12 months, with no increase in the rates of adverse events as compared with placebo.

Cohen SB, Emery P, Greenwald MW, Dougados M, Furie RA, Genovese MC, Keystone EC, Loveless JE, Burmester GR, Cravets MW, Hessey EW, Shaw T, Totoritis MC, Anonymous00118. · Radiant Research, Dallas, Texas 75235, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16947627 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies and to explore the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rituximab in this population. METHODS: We evaluated primary efficacy and safety at 24 weeks in patients enrolled in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA (REFLEX) Trial, a 2-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of rituximab therapy. Patients with active RA and an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF agents were randomized to receive intravenous rituximab (1 course, consisting of 2 infusions of 1,000 mg each) or placebo, both with background MTX. The primary efficacy end point was a response on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks. Secondary end points were responses on the ACR50 and ACR70 improvement criteria, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria at 24 weeks. Additional end points included scores on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index (DI), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) instruments, as well as Genant-modified Sharp radiographic scores at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Patients assigned to placebo (n = 209) and rituximab (n = 311) had active, longstanding RA. At week 24, significantly more (P < 0.0001) rituximab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients demonstrated ACR20 (51% versus 18%), ACR50 (27% versus 5%), and ACR70 (12% versus 1%) responses and moderate-to-good EULAR responses (65% versus 22%). All ACR response parameters were significantly improved in rituximab-treated patients, who also had clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, disability, and health-related quality of life (demonstrated by FACIT-F, HAQ DI, and SF-36 scores, respectively) and showed a trend toward less progression in radiographic end points. Rituximab depleted peripheral CD20+ B cells, but the mean immunoglobulin levels (IgG, IgM, and IgA) remained within normal ranges. Most adverse events occurred with the first rituximab infusion and were of mild-to-moderate severity. The rate of serious infections was 5.2 per 100 patient-years in the rituximab group and 3.7 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: At 24 weeks, a single course of rituximab with concomitant MTX therapy provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in disease activity in patients with active, longstanding RA who had an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF therapies.

Khanna D, Park GS, Paulus HE, Simpson KM, Elashoff D, Cohen SB, Emery P, Dorrier C, Furst DE. · Division of Immunology, Department of Medicine, University of Cincinnati and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0563, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16200612 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of folic acid on the efficacy of methotrexate (MTX) treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at 12 months in 2 phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of leflunomide in which MTX was used as a comparator. METHODS: Analyses were restricted to patients randomized to receive MTX who had rheumatoid factor data. The US study recruited 482 patients with active RA; 179 received at least 1 dose of MTX, and all were mandated to receive 1 mg of oral folic acid once or twice daily. The multinational European study recruited 999 patients with active RA; 489 received at least 1 dose of MTX, and oral folic acid was not required, although 50 received folate after developing an adverse event. Because of similar entry criteria for both studies, the data for patients with available primary outcome data at week 52 were pooled (n = 668), and the patients were grouped by folic acid use (n = 225) and nonuse (n = 443). To account for the significant between-study differences in the MTX groups, baseline covariates were adjusted using propensity scores so that folic acid users could be matched with nonusers. This allowed for a comparison of differences in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% improvement criteria at week 52. RESULTS: At study entry, non-folic acid users had a significantly lower mean body weight, shorter mean RA duration, and higher mean disease activity (measured by joint counts, patient's and physician's global assessments, and acute-phase reactant levels). The mean MTX dosage at week 52 was similar in the 2 RCTs. Using propensity score matching techniques, the proportion of patients achieving an ACR 20% response at week 52 averaged 17% higher in the non-folic acid group than in the folic acid group (range 15-21%). Similarly, the proportion of patients achieving ACR 50% and ACR 70% responses averaged 14% (range 12-16%) and 12% (range 9-14%) higher, respectively, in the non-folic acid group. Adverse events were reported in 93% of US study patients and 94% of the multinational study patients. Elevated liver transaminase levels (above the upper limit of normal) were reported in 29% of the US study patients (majority receiving folic acid) and 62% of the multinational study patients (majority not receiving folic acid). CONCLUSION: After using propensity scores to adjust for differences in the baseline characteristics of folic acid users and non-folic acid users, 9-21% fewer MTX-treated RA patients taking folic acid had ACR 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement at 52 weeks compared with those who did not receive folic acid in the 2 phase III RA clinical trials. As a post hoc analysis, the results of this data analysis should be considered "hypothesis generating" and an impetus for future studies regarding the effects of folic acid on the efficacy of MTX in RA.

Fleischmann RM, Cohen SB, Moreland LW, Schiff M, Mease PJ, Smith DB, Keenan G, Kremer JM, Anonymous00083. · Radiant Research--Dallas, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX 75235, USA. · Curr Med Res Opin. · Pubmed #16083527 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Infliximab plus methotrexate (MTX) is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Based on the benefit/risk profile of this combination therapy, lower doses of MTX would be preferable when infliximab efficacy can be maintained. We evaluated the ability of patients receiving infliximab plus MTX to achieve and maintain a clinical response while the dose of MTX was tapered. METHODS: Infliximab infusions were administered at a minimum dosage of 3 mg/kg at 8-week intervals (following three loading doses at weeks 0, 2, and 6) to patients who had an inadequate response to MTX. MTX tapering was initiated at week 22 or later when at least a 40% improvement in the combined tender and swollen joint count was achieved; dosages were reduced by 5 mg every 8 weeks to a protocol-specified minimum dosage of 5 mg per week. If the required dosage of MTX after a flare was greater than the baseline dosage, the patient was considered a treatment failure. RESULTS: Of the 210 patients enrolled, 159 (76%) achieved a 40% or better improvement in the combined tender and swollen joint count and had their MTX doses tapered. In these 159 responders, the median (mean) dose of MTX was reduced from 15 (16.5) mg per week at baseline to 5 (7.1) mg per week at week 54. From the time of initial response, 79% of these patients had a zero- or a one-vial increase in infliximab, corresponding to an approximate dose increase of 1 mg/kg, through week 54. CONCLUSION: Approximately 75% of the patients participating in this trial achieved at least a 40% reduction in the combined swollen and tender joint count (correlating with an American College of Rheumatology 20% [ACR20] response in 83% of patients) while reducing the mean MTX dose by 57%.

Cohen SB, Moreland LW, Cush JJ, Greenwald MW, Block S, Shergy WJ, Hanrahan PS, Kraishi MM, Patel A, Sun G, Bear MB, Anonymous00309. · Department of Rheumatology, St Paul Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75235, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #15082469 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of 100 mg daily anakinra (Kineret), a recombinant form of the naturally occurring interleukin 1 receptor antagonist, plus methotrexate (MTX) in reducing the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients with active RA (n = 506) despite current treatment with MTX were enrolled in this multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study. Patients received subcutaneous injections of anakinra 100 mg/day or placebo. They were assessed monthly for 6 months for improvement in signs and symptoms of RA and for adverse events. The primary efficacy measure was the percentage of patients attaining ACR20 response at week 24. RESULTS: Significantly greater proportions of patients treated with anakinra compared with placebo achieved ACR20 (38% v 22%; p<0.001), ACR50 (17% v 8%; p<0.01), and ACR70 (6% v 2%; p<0.05) responses. The response to anakinra was rapid; the proportion of patients with an ACR20 response at the first study assessment (4 weeks) was twice as high with anakinra as with placebo (p<0.005). Clinically meaningful and statistically significant responses were also seen in individual components of the ACR response (for example, Health Assessment Questionnaire, pain, C reactive protein levels, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Anakinra was well tolerated, with a safety profile, similar to that of placebo with one exception: mild to moderate injection site reactions were more common with anakinra than with placebo (65% v 24%). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms previous observations from a dose-ranging study showing that anakinra, in combination with MTX, is an effective and safe treatment for patients with RA who have inadequate responses to MTX alone.

Cohen SB, Woolley JM, Chan W, Anonymous00297. · St. Paul Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12563672 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the benefit of anakinra, a human recombinant form of interleukin 1 receptor antagonist, on the functional status of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite taking maximally tolerated doses of methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: Patients (n = 419) were randomized to receive, in addition to MTX (15 to 25 mg/wk), placebo or anakinra doses of 0.04, 0.1, 0.4, 1, or 2 mg/kg once daily for 24 weeks. Functional status measured on 8 scales (dressing and grooming, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reach, grip, and activities) was evaluated at baseline and every 4 weeks with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). A weighted sum of the scale scores is the HAQ disability index (HAQ-DI). Primary analysis of the HAQ-DI was based on an omnibus test for a positive dose-response relationship between anakinra treatment and change in HAQ-DI from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: Patients receiving anakinra experienced rapid and sizeable improvements in their HAQ-DI scores in a dose-related fashion. For patients receiving either of the 2 highest doses of anakinra, improvements in the HAQ-DI occurred by week 4 that were of a magnitude considered clinically important and statistically significantly superior to placebo. CONCLUSION: In patients with persistence of RA despite MTX therapy, treatment with anakinra results in a rapid improvement in functional status as measured by the HAQ-DI.

Moreland LW, Cohen SB, Baumgartner SW, Tindall EA, Bulpitt K, Martin R, Weinblatt M, Taborn J, Weaver A, Burge DJ, Schiff MH. · Arthritis Clinical Intervention Program, Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1717-6th Avenue South, Room 068, Birmingham, AL 35294-7201, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #11409115 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with etanercept (Enbrel) in controlled studies of 3 to 6 months' duration had rapid and sustained improvement of their disease, with minimal safety issues. In this study, we examine safety and clinical benefit after longer term treatment with etanercept. METHODS: All adult patients with RA with a previously inadequate response to one or more disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, and who received at least one dose of etanercept as monotherapy in controlled or open label clinical trials were evaluated for safety and clinical benefit. Adverse event rates were compared as was evidence of continued benefit over time. RESULTS: Etanercept continued to be safe and well tolerated in 628 adult patients treated for a median of 25 mo (maximum 43 mo; 1109 patient-years). Nine percent of patients withdrew due to lack of efficacy and 7% due to adverse events. Most adverse events were mild, and no statistically significant increases in frequency of events were seen when patients received etanercept over longer periods of time. Clinical benefit was maintained with longterm therapy. A 100% improvement in individual disease activity measures was achieved by 17% to 28% of the patients. Fifty-five percent of patients who were taking corticosteroids (mean dose at baseline 6.6 mg/day) decreased or discontinued corticosteroid therapy while maintaining control of their arthritis symptoms. CONCLUSION: Etanercept continued to be safe and well tolerated, and its clinical benefit was sustained for a median of 25 mo and for as long as 43 mo in patients with RA.

St Clair EW, Cohen SB, Lee ML, Fleischmann RM, Lee SH, Moreland LW, Olsen NJ, Pratt PW, Yocum DE, Heck L, Winkelhake J, Holcenberg JS, Shulman MJ. · Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #10955324 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and potential clinical efficacy of primary and booster injections of a DR4/1 peptide in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy. METHODS. Subjects with active RA were enrolled in a randomized, placebo controlled, double blind, dose-escalating clinical trial of synthetic DR4/1 peptide containing the shared epitope. The primary injection of the DR4/1 peptide in alum adjuvant was administered at one of 3 doses, 1.3, 4.0, and 13 mg, followed by up to 3 or 4 booster injections every 6 or 8 weeks at the same dose. The primary outcomes were the occurrence of adverse effects and changes in measures of immune function. Clinical efficacy was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for clinical improvement. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were entered into the trial, including 44 who completed the study. In the absence of any observations of a dose response to the DR4/1 peptide injections, the 3 dosage groups were combined for subsequent analysis into 3 groups: patients receiving DR4/1 peptide injections every 6 weeks, patients receiving DR4/1 peptide injections every 8 weeks, and a placebo group. At all doses and each dosing interval the primary and booster injections of synthetic DR4/1 peptide were well tolerated and did not produce any significant changes in lymphocyte counts or evidence of generalized immunosuppression. Analysis of clinical efficacy showed that the 6 week group had trends toward improvement in disease measures. CONCLUSION: Primary and booster injections of the DR4/1 peptide containing the shared epitope were safe and did not broadly suppress immune function.

Yocum DE, Allard S, Cohen SB, Emery P, Flipo RM, Goobar J, Jayawardena S, Job-Deslandre C, Jubb RW, Krüger K, Lopes Vaz A, Manger B, Mur E, Nygaard H, Weiner SM, Rainer F, Sack MR, Schiff MH, Schnitzer TJ, Trigg LB, Whatmough I, Schmidt AG. · Arizona Arthritis Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #10725065 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, tolerability and efficacy of the new oral microemulsion formulation of cyclosporin A (CyA; Sandimmun Neoral) and the original CyA formulation (Sandimmun), in patients with severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), over a 12-month period. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicentre study, patients were randomized to treatment with Neoral or Sandimmun, starting with 2.5 mg/kg/day, with dose adjustments after 4 weeks. Primary efficacy criteria included patients' assessment of disease activity. Pharmacokinetic and safety assessments were performed at regular intervals. RESULTS: Compared with Sandimmun, Neoral showed a consistent trend towards greater clinical efficacy from week 12 onwards, including a significant difference in patients' assessment of disease activity at the study end-points. A significantly lower increase in dose from baseline was observed with Neoral at week 24. Pharmacokinetic assessments at week 24 showed increased absorption and decreased variability with Neoral. No differences in safety were found between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: These observations indicate that Neoral is as safe and at least as effective as Sandimmun and have important implications for patient management given the increasing role for CyA in the treatment of severe, active RA.

Cohen SB, Cohen MD, Cush JJ, Fleischmann RM, Mease PJ, Schiff MH, Simon LS, Weaver AL. · The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Office of Continuing Education, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390-9059. · J Rheumatol Suppl. · Pubmed #19193621 No free full text.

Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, multisystem, inflammatory disorder of the joints that affects about 1% of the world population. The ultimate goals of therapy include remission of disease and prevention of joint damage. Reaching these goals has become a realistic outcome for an increasing number of patients as treatment options have expanded over the past 3 decades. In addition to older therapies, such as methotrexate (MTX), other disease modifying drugs (DMARD), and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, newer biologic treatments have become available. For the substantial number of patients who experience an inadequate response to standard medications, biologic response modifiers (BRM) provide an important therapeutic alternative. The availability of multiple treatment options in the absence of clear definitions or criteria for remission and inadequate response, however, makes clinical decisions about measuring outcomes, predicting response to treatment, and prescribing pharmacologic therapies challenging. In this program, distinguished rheumatologists weigh the evolving body of clinical evidence to draw sound conclusions and resolve key issues in managing inadequate response to treatment and in achieving optimal outcomes in RA.

Cohen SB, Cheng TT, Chindalore V, Damjanov N, Burgos-Vargas R, Delora P, Zimany K, Travers H, Caulfield JP. · Metroplex Clinical Research, Dallas, Texas 75235, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #19180516 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of pamapimod (a selective inhibitor of the alpha-isoform of p38 MAP kinase) as monotherapy in comparison with methotrexate (MTX) treatment in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups and received 12 weeks of double-blind treatment. One group received MTX (7.5 mg/week with planned escalation to 20 mg/week), and 3 groups received pamapimod (50, 150, or 300 mg) once daily. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at 12 weeks. Secondary end points included ACR50 and ACR70 responses, change from baseline in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), categorical analyses of DAS28/European League Against Rheumatism response, and change from baseline in each parameter of the ACR core set of measures. Safety monitoring included recording of adverse events (AEs), laboratory testing, immunology assessments, administration of electrocardiograms, and assessment of vital signs. RESULTS: Patients assigned to receive MTX and pamapimod had similar demographics and baseline characteristics. At week 12, fewer patients taking pamapimod had an ACR20 response (23%, 18%, and 31% in the 50-, 150-, and 300-mg groups, respectively) compared with patients taking MTX (45%). Secondary efficacy end points showed a similar pattern. AEs were typically characterized as mild and included infections, skin disorders, and dizziness. Pamapimod was generally well tolerated, but the 300-mg dose appeared to be more toxic than either the 2 lower doses or MTX. CONCLUSION: The present results showed that pamapimod was not as effective as MTX in the treatment of active RA.

Greenberg JD, Kishimoto M, Strand V, Cohen SB, Olenginski TP, Harrington T, Kafka SP, Reed G, Kremer JM, Anonymous00054. · New York University Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY 10003, USA. · Am J Med. · Pubmed #18501236 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to investigate responsiveness according to whether patients satisfy eligibility criteria from randomized controlled trials of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists in a multicentered US cohort. METHODS: Biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were prescribed TNF antagonists (n=465) in the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America registry were included. Patients were stratified by whether they met eligibility criteria from 3 major TNF antagonist trials. Two cohorts were examined: Cohort A (n=336) included patients with complete American College of Rheumatology response criteria except acute phase reactants, and cohort B (n=129) included patients with complete response criteria. Study outcomes included modified American College of Rheumatology 20% and 50% improvement responses (cohort A) and standard American College of Rheumatology improvement (cohort B). RESULTS: A minority of patients (5.4%-19.4%) prescribed TNF antagonists met trial eligibility criteria and predominantly had high disease activity (78.5%-100%). For patients who met eligibility criteria in cohort A, rates of 20% improvement (52.3%-63.6%) and 50% improvement (30.8%-45.5%) were achieved. Among patients failing to meet eligibility criteria, rates of 20% improvement (16.2%-20.4%) and 50% improvement (8.9%-10.8%) were consistently inferior (P<.05 all comparisons). For cohort B, similar differences were observed. CONCLUSION: This multicentered US cohort study demonstrates that the majority of patients receiving TNF antagonists would not meet trial eligibility criteria and achieve lower clinical responses. These findings highlight the tradeoff between defining treatment responsive populations and achieving results that can be generalized for broader patient populations.

Zhou H, Jang H, Fleischmann RM, Bouman-Thio E, Xu Z, Marini JC, Pendley C, Jiao Q, Shankar G, Marciniak SJ, Cohen SB, Rahman MU, Baker D, Mascelli MA, Davis HM, Everitt DE. · Clinical Pharmacology & Experimental Medicine, Centocor Research & Development, 200 Great Valley Parkway, Malvern, PA 19355, USA. · J Clin Pharmacol. · Pubmed #17322150 No free full text.

Abstract: Golimumab is a fully human antitumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) monoclonal antibody that is being developed for intravenous and subcutaneous administration. To assess the pharmacokinetics and safety of the intravenous formulation of golimumab, 36 adult subjects with rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to receive a single infusion of placebo or golimumab (0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 6, or 10 mg/kg). Serum concentrations of golimumab were determined using a validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method. In addition to the noncompartmental analysis and compartmental modeling, a population pharmacokinetics analysis using NONMEM was also conducted. Both the maximum serum concentration and the area under the serum concentrationtime curve appeared to increase in a dose-proportional manner. The median half-life ranged from 7 to 20 days. A 2-compartment population pharmacokinetic model adequately described the pharmacokinetics of golimumab. The following pharmacokinetic parameters (typical value [% coefficient of variation]) were estimated from the population pharmacokinetic model: clearance (CL: 0.40 [10.1%] L/d), volume of distribution in the central compartment (V(c): 3.07 [6.4%] L), intercompartmental clearance (Q: 0.42 [15.5%] L/d), and volume of distribution in the peripheral compartment (V(p): 3.68 [11.8%] L). Interindividual variability of the pharmacokinetic parameters was quantified for CL (44.3%), V(c) (25.5%), Q (44.6%), and V(p) (44.6%). Residual variability was estimated to be 15.0%. Body weight was found to be an important covariate on V(c). Golimumab was generally well tolerated. The pharmacokinetics of golimumab appeared to be linear over the dose range evaluated in this study.

Breedveld FC, Weisman MH, Kavanaugh AF, Cohen SB, Pavelka K, van Vollenhoven R, Sharp J, Perez JL, Spencer-Green GT. · Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, C4-R Postbox 9600, Leiden 2300 RC, The Netherlands. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16385520 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of adalimumab plus methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX monotherapy or adalimumab monotherapy in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had not previously received MTX treatment. METHODS: This was a 2-year, multicenter, double-blind, active comparator-controlled study of 799 RA patients with active disease of < 3 years' duration who had never been treated with MTX. Treatments included adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week plus oral MTX, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week, or weekly oral MTX. Co-primary end points at year 1 were American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement (ACR50) and mean change from baseline in the modified total Sharp score. RESULTS: Combination therapy was superior to both MTX and adalimumab monotherapy in all outcomes measured. At year 1, more patients receiving combination therapy exhibited an ACR50 response (62%) than did patients who received MTX or adalimumab monotherapy (46% and 41%, respectively; both P < 0.001). Similar superiority of combination therapy was seen in ACR20, ACR70, and ACR90 response rates at 1 and 2 years. There was significantly less radiographic progression (P < or = 0.002) among patients in the combination treatment arm at both year 1 and year 2 (1.3 and 1.9 Sharp units, respectively) than in patients in the MTX arm (5.7 and 10.4 Sharp units) or the adalimumab arm (3.0 and 5.5 Sharp units). After 2 years of treatment, 49% of patients receiving combination therapy exhibited disease remission (28-joint Disease Activity Score <2.6), and 49% exhibited a major clinical response (ACR70 response for at least 6 continuous months), rates approximately twice those found among patients receiving either monotherapy. The adverse event profiles were comparable in all 3 groups. CONCLUSION: In this population of patients with early, aggressive RA, combination therapy with adalimumab plus MTX was significantly superior to either MTX alone or adalimumab alone in improving signs and symptoms of disease, inhibiting radiographic progression, and effecting clinical remission.

Hansen KE, Hildebrand JP, Genovese MC, Cush JJ, Patel S, Cooley DA, Cohen SB, Gangnon RE, Schiff MH. · Division of Rheumatology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15170921 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To describe the degree of clinical benefit in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who receive infliximab therapy after lack of efficacy with etanercept. METHODS: In a retrospective study among 6 centers primarily designed to assess the safety of infliximab in combination with leflunomide, a standardized chart review form was used to collect data on 93 patients with RA. During that study, it was noted that some of these patients had switched from etanercept to infliximab. In this study, we compared the response of subjects switching from etanercept to infliximab (n = 20) to that of subjects receiving infliximab with no prior tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy (n = 73). RESULTS: The swollen and tender joint count, patient and physician global assessments, morning stiffness, and C-reactive protein all improved substantially in both groups, with no statistical difference in the degree of benefit between the groups. At the time of chart review, switchers had received a statistically higher dose of infliximab than controls (4.4 vs 3.19 mg/kg; p = 0.006) with a total of 5.7 and 5 infusions, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, previous lack of efficacy with etanercept did not predict lack of efficacy with infliximab. Indeed, the degree of clinical improvement was similar in both groups, although switchers were receiving a higher dose of infliximab at the time of chart review. Our findings suggest that clinical response may differ between anti-TNF agents, and lack of response to one agent may not predict a lack of response to another.

Cohen SB, Strand V, Aguilar D, Ofman JJ. · Radiant Research, Dallas, Texas 75235, USA. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #14997006 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patient-reported outcomes may differentiate treatment response better than physician-reported outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients being treated with anakinra. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted using data obtained from three separate randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 1007). Outcomes from 6-month assessments were grouped into four categories: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria, patient-reported measures (patient-reported pain, patient global assessment, and assessment of physical function using the Health Assessment Questionnaire), physician-reported measures (tender and swollen joint counts and physician global assessment), and laboratory tests (C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Effect sizes were calculated using changes from baseline and pooled standard deviations for each of these types of outcome. RESULTS: Active treatment with anakinra was superior to placebo by ACR(20) responses in all three RCTs. Effect sizes for patient-reported outcomes were greater than for physician-reported outcomes, and also greater than ACR(20) in three of five anakinra cohorts. Across the RCTs, placebo responses were greater with physician-reported than with patient-reported outcomes. In the two studies evaluating patients with longer-standing disease, differences between pooled effect sizes for patient-reported and physician-reported outcomes were even more pronounced. CONCLUSIONS: In three pivotal RCTs, active treatment with anakinra resulted in greater improvements in patient-reported than physician-reported outcomes compared with placebo. These observations confirm those previously reported from RCTs evaluating conventional DMARDs, demonstrating better discrimination of treatment effect with patient-reported outcomes.