Rheumatoid Arthritis: Fleischmann RM

Fleischmann RM. · University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, and Metroplex Clinical Research Center, Dallas, TX 75235-5360, USA. · Semin Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18336874 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To review the safety of biologic agents used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other autoimmune diseases, with a focus on rituximab. METHODS: Information was gathered from a search of the PubMed database and from major congress abstract listings through June 2007. RESULTS: Rituximab is approved for treating RA in patients with an inadequate response to TNF inhibitors and is under study in other indications for RA and other autoimmune disorders. The current safety profile of rituximab in RA is known from Phase II and III studies conducted preapproval, treating approximately 750 patients, as well as from long-term extension studies with repeated therapy. Clinical trials have established that the most common adverse events are infusion-associated reactions, seen in 29 to 40% of patients, most of which are mild to moderate and occur following the first rituximab infusion, with incidence and severity decreasing with subsequent infusions. Rates of infections and serious infections to date are within the range expected for RA patients treated with other biologic agents, but the longer term effects of B-cell depletion and the effects of repeated treatment on the risk of infections are uncertain. Information is limited for rituximab safety in other autoimmune disorders but current data do not suggest that there is a significant difference in adverse events from that previously reported. CONCLUSIONS: Rituximab is an important addition to the rheumatologist's armamentarium for the treatment of difficult RA and ongoing trials will determine its utility in other indications for RA and other autoimmune conditions. The true safety profile of rituximab will emerge as larger numbers of patients are treated in routine clinical practice.

Fleischmann RM. · University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75235, USA. · Rheum Dis Clin North Am. · Pubmed #17410698 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Fleischmann RM. · University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Radiant Research, Dallas, Texas, USA. · J Rheumatol Suppl. · Pubmed #15693109 No free full text.

Abstract: Although traditional disease modifying and biological response modifying agents are very useful in controlling disease activity, limiting disease progression, and improving function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), very few patients achieve full remission from treatment with these medications either when given alone or in combination. The combination of methotrexate (MTX) and the biologic agents appears to provide the highest level of response that is presently achievable. A contributory factor to the limited benefit from such regimens in some patients is that patients are unable to continue these medications, either because of lack of efficacy or adverse events. As even the most effective currently available interventions are not ideal in all patients, the search for new therapies -- which may be able to improve on the best possible clinical effect achievable to date -- is therefore necessary, desirable, and justified. One approach to new treatment paradigms for RA is to evaluate the role of B cells in RA and the effect of targeted B cell therapy on clinical outcome, based on a sound rationale and encouraging emerging clinical evidence. This approach will be examined in this and the following articles.

Fleischmann RM, Iqbal I, Stern RL. · University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5939 Harry Hines Boulevard, Suite 400, Dallas, Texas 75235-5360, USA. · Expert Opin Drug Saf. · Pubmed #15335295 No free full text.

Abstract: The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has changed dramatically over the past 15 years with the realisation that earlier, aggressive therapy limits progression. There is evidence that biological response modifiers (BRMs), which target specific cytokines such as TNF-alpha and IL-1, are more effective than traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), especially in combination with methotrexate. Four therapies are approved for use in RA; three target TNF-alpha (etanercept [Enbrel, Amgen Inc.], infliximab [Remicade, Centocor Inc.], and adalimumab [Humira, Abbott]), and one targets IL-1 (anakinra [Kineret, Amgen Inc.]). It is clear from both the clinical trials and postmarketing reports that all four agents have a different safety profile compared with traditional DMARDs. There are several areas of concern with the use of the BRMs, which include serious and opportunistic infections, malignancy/lymphoma, congestive heart failure, demyelination, injection/infusion reactions, development of autoantibodies and lupus-like disease. It is important to be fully aware of the safety profile and differences between BRMs in order to use them appropriately.

Fleischmann RM. · St Paul University Hospital, Department of Rheumatology, Dallas, TX 75235, USA. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #12817093 links to  free full text

Abstract: Anakinra (Kineret; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA) is the first and only recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist available for therapeutic use. It has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Commission for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Anakinra, as an anti-rheumatic therapy, has been assessed in five placebo-controlled clinical trials, either alone or in combination with methotrexate. These trials have shown anakinra to be efficacious and well tolerated by most patients, with the most frequently reported adverse events being mild-to-moderate injection-site reactions that generally resolved rapidly. One of these trials was a large, prospective safety study, which included typical RA patients with a wide variety of co-morbid conditions and receiving concomitant medications. This confirmed that anakinra is a well-tolerated treatment in an RA population representative of that seen by the practising rheumatologist.

Fleischmann RM. · Department of Medicine, St. Paul University Hospital, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas 75235, USA. · J Rheumatol Suppl. · Pubmed #12236619 No free full text.

Abstract: Biologic therapy with anakinra, etanercept, and infliximab effectively reduced the signs and symptoms of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in randomized controlled trials. Clinical efficacy was determined by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria. In patients failing previous disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy, both anakinra and etanercept were significantly more effective than placebo. In patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate (MTX), addition of anakinra, etanercept, or infliximab to stable MTX therapy was significantly more effective than MTX alone. Etanercept has also shown efficacy in early stage, methotrexate-naive patients. Comparisons of the efficacy of these biologics across clinical studies are problematic due to differences in study design, study conduct, and patient populations. Moreover, ACR response rates do not allow comparisons of agents that each achieve these responses relative to placebo. Until comparative clinical studies are conducted, in which 2 biologics are evaluated using the same protocol and patient population, the only conclusion that can be reached from published studies is whether an individual biologic agent is safe and effective. All 3 biologics - anakinra, etanercept, and inflixmab - are effective.

Fleischmann RM. · St. Paul Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75235, USA. · Clin Ther. · Pubmed #10509842 No free full text.

Abstract: Early diagnosis and prompt treatment can improve outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Significant joint damage occurs early in the course of the disease, when RA is most aggressive. Many rheumatologists now advocate an inverted pyramid approach to therapy, in which treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is initiated on diagnosis. The goals of this approach are to preserve patient function and to slow disease progression. Current therapies exhibit varying degrees of efficacy and cumulative toxicity that frequently limit their usefulness, particularly with long-term use. New biologic response modifiers (BRMs) that target specific cells or cytokines involved in the inflammatory response hold great promise for RA therapy because of their improved efficacy and limited toxicity. The first BRM to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in RA is etanercept, a soluble tumor necrosis factor-receptor fusion protein. Etanercept is highly effective in relieving RA symptoms and has a good safety profile. The availability of well-tolerated therapies may encourage clinicians to diagnose and treat RA more promptly, thereby ensuring patients the best possible outcomes.

Burge DJ, Bookbinder SA, Kivitz AJ, Fleischmann RM, Shu C, Bannink J. · Trubion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA. · Clin Ther. · Pubmed #19014836 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: TRU-015 is a small modular immunopharmaceutical protein drug that binds to CD20 and effectively depleted B cells in nonhuman primates. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this clinical study was to determine the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties, immunogenicity, and tolerability of TRU-015 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This Phase I, open-label, dose-escalation clinical study was conducted at 4 medical centers in the United States. Patients with RA who were receiving stable-dose methotrexate were enrolled in 1 of 8 dose groups and received TRU-015 as a single IV dose of 0.015, 0.05, 0.15, 0.5, 1.5, 5, or 15, or 2 IV doses of 15 mg/kg, administered 7 days apart (30 mg/kg). Patients were enrolled in the next higher dose cohort based on the tolerability observed in the prior cohort. Prior to TRU-015 infusion, patients were premedicated with an antihistamine and acetaminophen and may have received a corticosteroid at the investigator's discretion. Serum samples were collected for analysis of PK properties (serum t((1/2))) and neutralizing antibodies to TRU-015; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and a cell-based neutralizing assay were used to evaluate samples from patients. PD response was measured using B-cell (CD19(+)-cell) count using flow cytometry at prespecified time points. Tolerability was assessed during drug infusion and at prespecified time points after infusion using physical examination and laboratory analysis. Patients were followed for >or=4 weeks and until B-cell recovery. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled. Most were female (81%) and white (95%); the mean age was 53 years. Serum t((1/2)) ranged from 12 to 19 days. B-cell depletion generally increased in degree and duration with increasing doses. No neutralizing antibodies to TRU-015 were detected. Mild adverse events (AEs) included back pain, headache, peripheral edema, and upper respiratory infection (5 patients each). Mild urticaria occurred in 1 patient. Grade 3 AEs included hypertension, arthralgia, and urticaria and bronchospasm (1 patient each). No dose-limiting toxicity was found. CONCLUSIONS: In this small population of patients with RA, the C(max) and the AUC appeared to increase in a dose-proportional manner. The mean t((1/2)) ranged from 12 to 19 days. TRU-015 was associated with dose-dependent B-cell depletion and an acceptable tolerability profile.

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%.

Genovese MC, Bathon JM, Fleischmann RM, Moreland LW, Martin RW, Whitmore JB, Tsuji WH, Leff JA. · Division of Rheumatology, Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15996057 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety, efficacy, and radiographic progression in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) undergoing longterm treatment with etanercept. METHODS: Patients with early RA (disease duration of 3 years or less) who had completed a 2-year efficacy study comparing etanercept and methotrexate (MTX) were followed in an extension where they received 25 mg etanercept twice weekly. Safety was summarized descriptively and compared with data from the efficacy study. Efficacy and radiographic progression were assessed using American College of Rheumatology response criteria, disease activity scores, and Total Sharp Score (TSS). RESULTS: Rates of serious adverse events and serious infections did not increase with longterm exposure to etanercept, and were similar to rates reported for the blinded portion of the efficacy study. Efficacy was sustained in patients who completed 5 years of etanercept treatment at the time of this report (N = 201), even in those who decreased or discontinued use of MTX or corticosteroids. No radiographic progression (change in TSS < or = 0) was seen in 55% of patients with 5-year radiographs; negative change (TSS < 0) was seen in 11%. CONCLUSION: Etanercept treatment in patients with early RA was generally well tolerated for up to 5 years. The results indicate sustained efficacy and decreased rate of radiographic progression. The rate of radiographic progression was low compared with other studies, emphasizing the benefit gained in patients with early aggressive RA who undergo longterm treatment with etanercept.

Baumgartner SW, Fleischmann RM, Moreland LW, Schiff MH, Markenson J, Whitmore JB. · Physician's Clinic of Spokane, Spokane, Washington 99204, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15290731 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare etanercept-induced improvement in disability of patients with recent onset of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to that of patients with established RA. METHODS: Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores were collected over 3 years in 2 groups of patients with RA who were treated with etanercept. The first group consisted of 207 patients with recent onset RA (mean duration of 1 year) who had not previously received methotrexate, and the second group consisted of 464 patients with established RA (mean duration of 12 years) who had failed one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. RESULTS: Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar in the 2 groups, except for HAQ scores and C-reactive protein levels, which were higher in the established RA group. Patients in both groups showed rapid and sustained clinical responses with etanercept therapy, but patients with recent onset RA showed significantly greater improvement in HAQ scores compared with patients with established RA. The difference in magnitude of HAQ score improvement between groups was observed as early as week 2 after initiation of etanercept and persisted throughout the 3-year time frame. At year 3, significantly more patients with recent onset RA had a HAQ score of zero (26%) versus those with established RA (14%, p = 0.0095). CONCLUSION: Although etanercept therapy significantly improved disability scores in both groups, patients with recent onset of RA showed greater benefit in HAQ scores than patients with established RA. These results support prompt treatment of RA at an early stage of disease to minimize patient disability.

Furst DE, Schiff MH, Fleischmann RM, Strand V, Birbara CA, Compagnone D, Fischkoff SA, Chartash EK. · Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, 32-59 Rehabilitation Center, 1000 Veteran Avenue, Box 951670, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1670, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #14719195 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study, known as STAR (Safety Trial of Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis), evaluated the safety and efficacy of adalimumab (Humira), a fully human monoclonal tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) antibody, when given with standard antirheumatic therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not adequately responding to such therapies. Standard antirheumatic therapy included traditional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), low dose corticosteroids, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), and/or analgesics. METHODS: In this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 636 patients with RA were randomly assigned to receive adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously (sc) every other week (n = 318) or placebo (n = 318) while continuing standard antirheumatic therapy. The frequencies of adverse events, serious adverse events, severe or life-threatening adverse events, adverse events leading to withdrawal, infection, or serious infection were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were determined by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria. RESULTS: During the study, the majority of patients received concomitant traditional DMARD (83.5%) and/or corticosteroids, NSAID, and/or analgesics (97.3%). Overall, 56.0% of patients continued treatment with one, 23.6% with 2, and 3.9% with > or = 3 traditional DMARD. At 24 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences between the adalimumab and placebo groups in their respective rates of adverse events (86.5% vs 82.7%), serious adverse events (5.3% vs 6.9%), severe or life-threatening adverse events (11.9% vs 15.4%), or those leading to withdrawal (2.8% vs 2.2%). There were also no statistically significant differences in the rates of infections (52.2% vs 49.4%) or serious infections (1.3% vs 1.9%) between the groups. The incidence and types of adverse events did not vary between adalimumab- and placebo-treated patients by the number of concomitant traditional DMARD (0, 1, or 2). Adalimumab-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients achieved statistically superior ACR20 (52.8% vs 34.9%), ACR50 (28.9% vs 11.3%), and ACR70 (14.8% vs 3.5%) response rates at Week 24 (p < or = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that addition of adalimumab 40 mg given sc every other week to concomitant standard antirheumatic therapy is well tolerated and provides significant improvements in signs and symptoms of RA. The data indicate that adalimumab is a safe and effective therapeutic option in patients with active RA who have an inadequate response to standard antirheumatic therapy, including one or more traditional DMARD, corticosteroids, NSAID, and analgesics.

Kremer JM, Weinblatt ME, Bankhurst AD, Bulpitt KJ, Fleischmann RM, Jackson CG, Atkins KM, Feng A, Burge DJ. · The Center for Rheumatology, Albany, New York 12206, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #12794815 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To observe the long-term safety and efficacy of combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to determine whether the addition of etanercept allowed reductions in methotrexate or corticosteroid dosages while maintaining a clinical response. METHODS: Patients with RA who received methotrexate plus etanercept in a previous randomized, placebo-controlled trial were offered the opportunity to enroll in an open-label extension study for further evaluation of treatment with etanercept and methotrexate. RESULTS: Seventy-nine of the 89 patients in the original blinded study enrolled in the extension study, and 65 of these patients continue in the study. Patients have received etanercept therapy for up to 47 months (median 44 months). The types and rate of adverse events noted during the extension trial were similar to those observed in the controlled trial. At the 3-year assessment, 77% of the 57 patients available for evaluation met American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) criteria for improvement in RA, 47% met the ACR50 criteria, and 23% met the ACR70 criteria. Of the 36 patients assessed at 3 years in the extension study, 30 (83%) were able to decrease their dosages of corticosteroids, and 20 (56%) were able to discontinue corticosteroid therapy. At 3 years, the dosage of methotrexate was decreased in 41 of 66 patients (62%), and methotrexate therapy was discontinued in 19 patients (29%). CONCLUSION: In this observational continuation study, the addition of etanercept to background methotrexate provided sustained clinical benefit over a median period of 44 months. With etanercept therapy, there were trends toward dosage reduction or discontinuation of methotrexate and corticosteroids, without apparent worsening of ACR response rates. Compared with the controlled trial, no increases in the rate of adverse events were observed.

Fleischmann RM, Schechtman J, Bennett R, Handel ML, Burmester GR, Tesser J, Modafferi D, Poulakos J, Sun G. · St. Paul University Hospital, Dallas, Texas 75235, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #12687534 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of anakinra (a recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist) in a large population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), typical of those seen in clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 1,414 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with 100 mg of anakinra or placebo, administered daily by subcutaneous injection. Background medications included disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, alone or in combination. The primary end point was safety, which was evaluated by adverse events (including infections), discontinuation from study due to adverse events, and death. RESULTS: Safety was evaluated in 1,399 patients (1,116 in the anakinra group and 283 in the placebo group; 15 patients were randomized but did not receive any study drug) during the initial 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase of this long-term safety study. Baseline demographics, disease characteristics, and concomitant medications were similar between the 2 groups. The study group included patients with numerous comorbid conditions and a wide range of RA disease activity. Serious adverse events occurred at a similar rate in the anakinra group and the placebo group (7.7% and 7.8%, respectively). Serious infectious episodes were observed more frequently in the anakinra group (2.1% versus 0.4% in the placebo group). The rate of withdrawal due to adverse events was 13.4% in the anakinra group and 9.2% in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Results from this large, placebo-controlled safety study demonstrate that anakinra is safe and well tolerated in a diverse population of patients with RA, including those with comorbid conditions and those using multiple combinations of concomitant therapies. Although the frequency of serious infection was slightly higher in the anakinra group, no infection was attributed to opportunistic microorganisms or resulted in death.

Genovese MC, Bathon JM, Martin RW, Fleischmann RM, Tesser JR, Schiff MH, Keystone EC, Wasko MC, Moreland LW, Weaver AL, Markenson J, Cannon GW, Spencer-Green G, Finck BK. · Department of Medicine, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1000 Welch Road #203, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #12115173 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received monotherapy with either etanercept or methotrexate (MTX) for 2 years and to assess the safety of this therapy. METHODS: In the Enbrel ERA (early rheumatoid arthritis) trial, 632 patients with early, active RA were randomized to receive either twice-weekly subcutaneous etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg) or weekly oral MTX (mean dosage 19 mg per week) for at least 1 year in a double-blind manner. Following the blinded phase of the trial, 512 patients continued to receive the therapy to which they had been randomized for up to 1 additional year, in an open-label manner. Radiograph readers remained blinded to treatment group assignment and the chronologic order of images. RESULTS: At 24 months, more 25-mg etanercept patients than MTX patients met American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (72% and 59%, respectively; P = 0.005), and more had no increase in total score and erosion scores on the Sharp scale (P = 0.017 and P = 0.012, respectively). The mean changes in total Sharp score and erosion score in the 25-mg etanercept group (1.3 and 0.66 units, respectively) were significantly lower than those in the MTX group (3.2 and 1.86 units, respectively; P = 0.001). Significantly more patients in the 25-mg etanercept group (55%) than in the MTX group (37%) had at least 0.5 units of improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (P < 0.001). Fewer patients in the etanercept group than in the MTX group experienced adverse events or discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Etanercept as monotherapy was safe and was superior to MTX in reducing disease activity, arresting structural damage, and decreasing disability over 2 years in patients with early, aggressive RA.

Bathon JM, Martin RW, Fleischmann RM, Tesser JR, Schiff MH, Keystone EC, Genovese MC, Wasko MC, Moreland LW, Weaver AL, Markenson J, Finck BK. · Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allegy Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. · N Engl J Med. · Pubmed #11096165 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Etanercept, which blocks the action of tumor necrosis factor, reduces disease activity in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis. Its efficacy in reducing disease activity and preventing joint damage in patients with active early rheumatoid arthritis is unknown. METHODS: We treated 632 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis with either twice-weekly subcutaneous etanercept (10 or 25 mg) or weekly oral methotrexate (mean, 19 mg per week) for 12 months. Clinical response was defined as the percent improvement in disease activity according to the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology. Bone erosion and joint-space narrowing were measured radiographically and scored with use of the Sharp scale. On this scale, an increase of 1 point represents one new erosion or minimal narrowing. RESULTS: As compared with patients who received methotrexate, patients who received the 25-mg dose of etanercept had a more rapid rate of improvement, with significantly more patients having 20 percent, 50 percent, and 70 percent improvement in disease activity during the first six months (P<0.05). The mean increase in the erosion score during the first 6 months was 0.30 in the group assigned to receive 25 mg of etanercept and 0.68 in the methotrexate group (P= 0.001), and the respective increases during the first 12 months were 0.47 and 1.03 (P=0.002). Among patients who received the 25-mg dose of etanercept, 72 percent had no increase in the erosion score, as compared with 60 percent of patients in the methotrexate group (P=0.007). This group of patients also had fewer adverse events (P=0.02) and fewer infections (P= 0.006) than the group that was treated with methotrexate. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with oral methotrexate, subcutaneous [corrected] etanercept acted more rapidly to decrease symptoms and slow joint damage in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis.

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.

Moreland LW, Schiff MH, Baumgartner SW, Tindall EA, Fleischmann RM, Bulpitt KJ, Weaver AL, Keystone EC, Furst DE, Mease PJ, Ruderman EM, Horwitz DA, Arkfeld DG, Garrison L, Burge DJ, Blosch CM, Lange ML, McDonnell ND, Weinblatt ME. · Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 35294-7201, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #10075615 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: In a phase II study, etanercept (recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor [p75]:Fc fusion protein) safely produced rapid, dose-dependent improvement in rheumatoid arthritis over 3 months. OBJECTIVE: To confirm the benefit of etanercept therapy of longer duration and simplified dosing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with blinded joint assessors. SETTING: 13 North American centers. PATIENTS: 234 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. INTERVENTION: Twice-weekly subcutaneous injections of etanercept, 10 or 25 mg, or placebo for 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end points were 20% and 50% improvement in disease activity according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses at 3 and 6 months. Other end points were 70% ACR responses at 3 and 6 months and other measures of disease activity at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Etanercept significantly reduced disease activity in a dose-related fashion. At 3 months, 62% of the patients receiving 25 mg of etanercept and 23% of the placebo recipients achieved 20% ACR response (P < 0.001). At 6 months, 59% of the 25-mg group and 11% of the placebo group achieved a 20% ACR response (P < 0.001); 40% and 5%, respectively, achieved a 50% ACR response (P < 0.01). The respective mean percentage reduction in the number of tender and swollen joints at 6 months was 56% and 47% in the 25-mg group and 6% and -7% in the placebo group (P < 0.05). Significantly more etanercept recipients achieved a 70% ACR response, minimal disease status (0 to 5 affected joints), and improved quality of life. Etanercept was well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Etanercept can safely provide rapid, significant, and sustained benefit in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

Weinblatt ME, Kremer JM, Bankhurst AD, Bulpitt KJ, Fleischmann RM, Fox RI, Jackson CG, Lange M, Burge DJ. · Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA. · N Engl J Med. · Pubmed #9920948 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Patients treated with methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis often improve but continue to have active disease. This study was undertaken to determine whether the addition of etanercept, a soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor (p75):Fc fusion protein (TNFR:Fc), to methotrexate therapy would provide additional benefit to patients who had persistent rheumatoid arthritis despite receiving methotrexate. METHODS: In a 24-week, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 89 patients with persistently active rheumatoid arthritis despite at least 6 months of methotrexate therapy at a stable dose of 15 to 25 mg per week (or as low as 10 mg per week for patients unable to tolerate higher doses) to receive either etanercept (25 mg) or placebo subcutaneously twice weekly while continuing to receive methotrexate. The primary measure of clinical response was the American College of Rheumatology criteria for a 20 percent improvement in measures of disease activity (ACR 20) at 24 weeks. RESULTS: The addition of etanercept to methotrexate therapy resulted in rapid and sustained improvement. At 24 weeks, 71 percent of the patients receiving etanercept plus methotrexate and 27 percent of those receiving placebo plus methotrexate met the ACR 20 criteria (P<0.001); 39 percent of the patients receiving etanercept plus methotrexate and 3 percent of those receiving placebo plus methotrexate met the ACR 50 criteria (for a 50 percent improvement) (P<0.001). Patients receiving etanercept plus methotrexate had significantly better outcomes according to all measures of disease activity. The only adverse events associated with etanercept were mild injection-site reactions, and no patient withdrew from the study because of adverse events associated with etanercept. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with persistently active rheumatoid arthritis, the combination of etanercept and methotrexate was safe and well tolerated and provided significantly greater clinical benefit than methotrexate alone.

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.

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.

Fleischmann RM, Stern RL, Iqbal I. · University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Radiant Research - Dallas, 5939 Harry Hines Boulevard, Suite 400, Dallas, TX 75235-5360, USA. · Mod Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17029055 No free full text.

Abstract: Recent advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology, aggressive treatment, and early detection of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have changed the clinical, pathologic, and functional outcomes in patients with RA. Early aggressive treatment of RA has now become the norm in clinical practice rather than the use of the traditional pyramid approach of the last half of the twentieth century. Early treatment with monotherapy of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biologics, combination traditional DMARD therapy and, especially, combination of biologic therapy and methotrexate, have revolutionized the treatment of RA, producing significant improvement in clinical, radiographic, and functional outcomes not seen previously. For the individual patient, we still cannot determine which medication or combination of medications will give the most complete response. There have been a number of recent, well-designed clinical trials that have tried to answer this question. Herein we review the evidence-based medicine that addresses these issues.

Bathon JM, Fleischmann RM, Van der Heijde D, Tesser JR, Peloso PM, Chon Y, White B. · Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16465653 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of etanercept treatment in elderly (age > or = 65 yrs) and younger adult subjects (age < 65 yrs) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Subset analyses were used to describe the safety and efficacy of etanercept in elderly and younger subjects treated for early and disease modifying antirheumatic drug-resistant or late-stage RA (ERA and LRA) in one of 4 randomized controlled clinical studies (N = 1353) or 2 longterm extensions (N = 1049). RESULTS: Rates of serious adverse events tended to be higher in elderly than younger subjects; however, rates of safety events observed in elderly etanercept-treated subjects did not exceed rates in elderly placebo or methotrexate (MTX)-treated subjects. With regard to efficacy measures [American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70], elderly subjects tended to have somewhat less robust responses to treatment than younger subjects. However, for both age groups, treatment with etanercept resulted in improved efficacy and function compared with control treatment, and combination therapy with etanercept plus MTX resulted in greater efficacy than either etanercept or MTX used alone. Efficacy responses of elderly subjects were sustained for up to 6 years. Radiographic progression (measured using modified Sharp Score) after one year of treatment was lower in subjects treated with both etanercept and MTX compared with subjects treated with either agent used alone, and this pattern was similar in both age groups. CONCLUSION: Consistent with responses in younger subjects, elderly subjects with RA treated with etanercept experienced significant improvement in disease activity and function without incurring additional safety concerns.

Fleischmann RM, Tesser J, Schiff MH, Schechtman J, Burmester GR, Bennett R, Modafferi D, Zhou L, Bell D, Appleton B. · University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Radiant Research, 5939 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75235, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16396977 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety profile of anakinra after extended exposure in a diverse clinical trial population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: A six month, randomised, double blind phase comparing anakinra (100 mg/day) with placebo was followed by open label anakinra treatment for up to three years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Concomitant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, and other disease modifying antirheumatic drugs were permitted. RESULTS: In all 1346 patients with rheumatoid arthritis received anakinra for up to three years. Patients had varying levels of disease severity, concomitant drug use, and comorbid conditions. Cumulative, exposure adjusted event (EAE) rates for all adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and deaths were similar during each year of anakinra treatment; the overall rate (0 to 3 years) was similar to that observed for controls during the blinded phase. The most frequent AEs were injection site reactions (122.26 events/100 patient-years), rheumatoid arthritis progression (67.80 events/100 patient-years), and upper respiratory infections (26.09 events/100 patient-years). The EAE rate of serious infections was higher for patients treated with anakinra for 0 to 3 years (5.37 events/100 patient-years) than for controls during the blinded phase (1.65 events/100 patient-years). However, if the patient was not receiving corticosteroid treatment at baseline, the serious infection rate was substantially lower (2.87 event/100 patient-years). The overall incidence of malignancies was consistent with expected rates reported by SEER. Neutralising antibodies developed in 25 patients, but appeared to be transient in 12; neutralising antibody status did not appear related to occurrence of malignancies or serious infections. There were no clinically significant trends in laboratory data related to anakinra. CONCLUSION: Anakinra is safe and well tolerated for up to three years of continuous use in a diverse population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Fleischmann RM, Baumgartner SW, Tindall EA, Weaver AL, Moreland LW, Schiff MH, Martin RW, Spencer-Green GT. · University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12672185 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Approximately 3% of the US population over the age of 65 years has rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared the safety and efficacy of etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with RA who were > or = 65 years to those < 65 years in open-label and double-blind, randomized clinical trials. METHODS: Patients from 4 double-blind, randomized controlled trials and 5 open-label trials were included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were grouped by age (< 65 or > or = 65 yrs) at time of study entry. All patients received etanercept subcutaneously twice weekly. Improvement in signs and symptoms was assessed by the proportion of patients who achieved the American College of Rheumatology definition of improvement (ACR 20). The ACR 50 and ACR 70 responses were calculated in an analogous fashion. Safety was assessed at regularly scheduled visits. RESULTS: Of 1128 patients enrolled in etanercept trials, 197 (17%) were > or = 65 years of age. Clinical response was rapid and sustained and did not differ between age groups. At one year, 69% of patients < 65 years and 66% of patients > or = 65 years met the ACR 20. Forty percent of the patients > or = 65 years met the ACR 50 and 17% met the ACR 70. Etanercept was well tolerated. Although injection site reactions, headache, and rhinitis occurred somewhat more frequently in younger patients, the overall rates and types of other adverse events were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: Etanercept is a new treatment option for older patients with RA and has substantial benefit and comparable safety regardless of patient age.