PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1324828)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Impact of adalimumab on work participation in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of an open-label extension study and a registry-based control group 
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases  2008;68(6):930-937.
Background and objectives:
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) causes considerable disability and often results in loss of work capacity and productivity. This study evaluated the impact of adalimumab, a tumour necrosis factor antagonist with demonstrated efficacy in RA, on long-term employment.
Methods:
Data from an open-label extension study (DE033) of 486 RA patients receiving adalimumab monotherapy who previously did not respond to at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and had baseline work status information were compared with data from 747 RA patients receiving DMARD treatment in a Norway-based longitudinal registry. Primary outcomes included the time patients continued working at least part time and the likelihood of stopping work. Secondary outcomes included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses and disease remission. Outcomes were compared 6, 12 and 24 months after enrolment.
Results:
During a 24-month period, the 158 patients who received adalimumab and were working at baseline worked 7.32 months longer (95% CI 4.8 to 9.1) than did the 180 patients treated with DMARDs, controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. Regardless of baseline work status, patients receiving adalimumab worked 2.0 months longer (95% CI 1.3 to 2.6) and were significantly less likely to stop working than those receiving DMARDs (HR 0.36 (95% CI −0.30 to 0.42) for all patients and 0.36 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.85) for patients working at baseline, respectively). The patients who received adalimumab were also considerably more likely to achieve ACR responses and disease remission than DMARD-treated patients. Patients who achieved EULAR good response and remission were less likely to stop working, but this relationship was only seen in patients receiving DMARDs.
Conclusions:
Patients with RA who received adalimumab experienced considerably longer periods of work and continuous employment, and greater rates of clinical responses, than patients receiving DMARDs. The mechanism by which adalimumab decreases likelihood of stopping work seems to be different from that of DMARD treatment and independent of clinical responses.
doi:10.1136/ard.2008.092734
PMCID: PMC2674552  PMID: 18829616
2.  Safety and effectiveness of adalimumab in a clinical setting that reflects Canadian standard of care for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA): Results from the CanACT study 
Background
This multicenter, open-label, prospective, single cohort study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of adalimumab in a clinical setting reflecting the Canadian standard of care for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Methods
Patients ≥ 18 years of age with a history of active RA ≥ 3 months and fulfilling Canadian requirements for biological therapy received adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week for 12 weeks. Pre-study DMARD treatment regimens, corticosteroids, or NSAIDs were allowed throughout the study. The primary effectiveness outcome measure was the mean change in 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) from baseline to Week 12. Secondary measures included the proportion of patients achieving joint remission (DAS28 < 2.6) and low-disease activity (DAS28 < 3.2) at Week 12, and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR: moderate and good) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR: ACR20, 50, and 70) responses, as well as responses in ACR core components at Weeks 4, 8, and 12. Subgroup analysis included a comparison of patients naïve to biological DMARD (BDMARD) therapy versus BDMARD-experienced patients. Safety was assessed in terms of adverse and serious adverse events.
Results
A total of 879 patients (mean disease duration > 12 years) were enrolled; 772 (87.9%) completed the 12-week period. Adalimumab treatment was associated with rapid and sustained improvements in the signs and symptoms of RA. Significant improvements in mean DAS28 score were observed as early as Week 4. After 12 weeks of adalimumab treatment, 15.3% and 28.9% of patients achieved clinical remission and low-disease activity, respectively. Similarly, significant improvements in ACR core components were observed as early as Week 4, with continued improvements occurring through 12 weeks. Patients naïve to BDMARD therapy demonstrated numerically greater clinical responses when compared with patients who had experienced prior BDMARD therapy, although both subgroups were associated with significant improvements from baseline. The rates and types of adverse events, as well as the results of laboratory measures, demonstrated that adalimumab was generally safe and well-tolerated.
Conclusions
This study demonstrated that, under conditions reflective of the normal clinical practice in Canada, adalimumab is an effective and safe treatment for patients with RA.
Trial registration
NCT00649545.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-261
PMCID: PMC3226526  PMID: 22093579
3.  Efficacy and safety of the fully human anti-tumour necrosis factor α monoclonal antibody adalimumab (D2E7) in DMARD refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 12 week, phase II study 
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases  2003;62(12):1168-1177.
Objectives: To evaluate efficacy, dose response, safety, and tolerability of adalimumab (D2E7) in disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) refractory patients with longstanding, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Methods: During a 12 week, double blind, placebo controlled study, 284 patients were randomly allocated to receive weekly subcutaneous injections of adalimumab 20 mg (n = 72), 40 mg (n = 70), or 80 mg (n = 72) or placebo (n = 70) without concomitant DMARDs.
Results: Adalimumab significantly improved the signs and symptoms of RA for all efficacy measures. ACR20 responses with adalimumab were significant at each assessment versus placebo (p⩽0.01). Additionally, ACR responses with adalimumab were achieved more rapidly than with placebo, with 82/115 (71%) of the ultimate ACR20 response rate to adalimumab treatment achieved at week 2. At week 12, for adalimumab 20, 40, and 80 mg, ACR20 response rates were 50.7%, 57.1%, and 54.2%, respectively, versus 10.0% for placebo (p⩽0.001 for all comparisons); ACR50 rates were 23.9%, 27.1%, and 19.4%, respectively, versus 1.4% for placebo (p⩽0.001 for all comparisons); and ACR70 rates were 11.3%, 10.0%, and 8.3%, respectively, versus 0.0% for placebo (p⩽0.05 for all comparisons). All adalimumab doses significantly improved all ACR core criteria at all assessments. The 40 mg and 80 mg doses provided similar benefit. Adalimumab at all doses was generally well tolerated, with only mild or moderate adverse events. Completion rates were 87% for adalimumab and 67% for placebo.
Conclusions: Adalimumab given as monotreatment to patients with longstanding, severe RA refractory to traditional DMARDs produced a rapid, sustained response and was safe and well tolerated, with no dose limiting side effects.
doi:10.1136/ard.2003.009563
PMCID: PMC1754401  PMID: 14644854
4.  Efficacy and safety of pateclizumab (anti-lymphotoxin-α) compared to adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis: a head-to-head phase 2 randomized controlled study (The ALTARA Study) 
Introduction
Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and, possibly, lymphotoxin alpha (LTα) signaling contribute to inflammation and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pathogenesis. Pateclizumab (anti-lymphotoxin- alpha; MLTA3698A) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks and depletes anti-LTα. This phase 2, randomized, head-to-head, active- and placebo-controlled trial examined the safety and efficacy of pateclizumab compared to adalimumab in RA patients with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD-IR).
Methods
Patients (n = 214) with active RA (≥6 swollen and tender joints, C-reactive protein ≥10 mg/L) on oral DMARDs were randomized (2:2:1) to receive pateclizumab 360 mg, adalimumab 40 mg, or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint, 4-variable, 28-joint disease activity score erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28(4)-ESR) response, was evaluated at 12 weeks using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with adjustments for concomitant DMARD use and geographic region. Secondary efficacy endpoints included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses at Day 85. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity of pateclizumab were assessed.
Results
Pateclizumab reduced the DAS28(4)-ESR response (−1.89) at 12 weeks, however, this did not reach statistical significance compared to placebo (−1.54), while adalimumab (−2.52) differed significantly from both placebo and pateclizumab. Pateclizumab 12-week ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 response rates (64%, 33%, and 14%) suggested clinical activity but were not statistically significant compared to placebo rates (46%, 24%, and 8%, respectively). CXCL13 serum levels decreased significantly following pateclizumab and adalimumab administration, demonstrating pharmacological target engagement by both drugs. Overall, adverse events (AEs) were comparable among all cohorts. Infections were the most common AE, occurring with comparable frequency in all groups. Serious AEs occurred in 0% of pateclizumab, 5.9% of adalimumab, and 2.3% of placebo patients, with serious infection in 2.3% of adalimumab patients and none in pateclizumab and placebo patients.
Conclusions
Pateclizumab had a good safety profile in patients inadequately responsive to DMARDs, but no statistically significant improvement in RA signs and symptoms after 12 weeks of treatment. Adalimumab demonstrated efficacy and safety comparable to published results in this head-to-head comparison in DMARD-IR RA patients.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01225393, Registered 18 October 2010.
doi:10.1186/s13075-014-0467-3
PMCID: PMC4243296  PMID: 25359150
5.  EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update 
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases  2013;73(3):492-509.
In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA.
doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204573
PMCID: PMC3933074  PMID: 24161836
Rheumatoid Arthritis; DMARDs (synthetic); DMARDs (biologic); Treatment; Early Rheumatoid Arthritis
6.  Rheumatoid arthritis 
Clinical Evidence  2007;2007:1124.
Introduction
Rheumatoid arthritis usually starts as a symmetrical polyarthritis, and its course is marked by flares and remissions. The aims of treatment are to relieve pain and swelling, and to improve function. In addition, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) may reduce disease progression.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have not previously received any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment? How do different drug treatments compare in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have either not responded to or are intolerant of first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to June 2005 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 62 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: adalimumab, anakinra, antimalarial drugs, azathioprine, ciclosporin, corticosteroids, cyclophosphamide, etanercept, infliximab plus methotrexate, leflunomide, methotrexate (alone; or plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine), oral gold, parenteral gold, penicillamine, sulfasalazine.
Key Points
Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disorder that mainly affects the peripheral joints and surrounding tissue. It usually starts as a symmetrical polyarthritis, and its course is marked by flares and remissions.The aims of treatment are to relieve pain and swelling, and to improve function. In addition, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) may reduce disease progression.
The DMARD methotrexate is widely used as first-line treatment in people with rheumatoid arthritis because of consensus about its effectiveness in practice. Sulfasalazine and combined treatment with methotrexate and sulfasalazine are as effective as methotrexate in improving pain, joint swelling, and function in people with early rheumatoid arthritis who have not previously received DMARDs. Antimalarials may improve symptoms and function in DMARD-naïve people, and are reasonably well tolerated, but radiological evidence of erosion is more marked with antimalarials than with sulfasalazine.
There is a variety of DMARDs available for second-line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and we found no clear evidence that one is superior. Methotrexate, sulfasalazine, penicillamine , and leflunomide cause similar improvements in symptoms and function when given to people as second-line DMARD treatment, although methotrexate causes fewer adverse effects.The combination of methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine is more effective in reducing measures of disease activity in people receiving second-line treatment than any of the drugs used alone. Adding the cytokine inhibitors infliximab or etanercept to methotrexate is more effective than using methotrexate alone.Although antimalarials and oral gold seem to improve clinical disease activity when given as second-line treatment, they are not as effective as methotrexate or sulfasalazine. Although parenteral gold is more effective than oral gold, it leads to higher levels of toxicity than most of the other commonly used DMARDs. Ciclosporin offers short-term control of rheumatoid arthritis when used as second-line treatment, but is associated with nephrotoxicity.We don′t know whether cyclophosphamide is as effective as other DMARDs for second-line treatment.Cytokine inhibitors may offer an alternative to traditional DMARDs for second line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but more research is needed. Etanercept may be as effective as methotrexate in improving symptoms, function, and radiological evidence of progression, but more evidence for its effect is needed Azathioprine is less effective and is less well tolerated than methotrexate.We don't know whether anakinra or adalimumab are as effective as other DMARDs for second-line treatment.Although widely used for the initial short-term relief of clinical disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis, we don't know how corticosteroids compare with other drugs for first or second-line treatment.
PMCID: PMC2943775  PMID: 19454108
7.  The effectiveness of tofacitinib, a novel Janus kinase inhibitor, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis 
Clinical Rheumatology  2013;32(10):1415-1424.
The aim of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of tofacitinib, a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor, recently approved for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis in patients who have failed previous treatment with methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and other databases till 3 May 2013. All included studies were analyzed with the use of the Review Manager 5.1.0. software according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement protocol. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tofacitinib with placebo were identified. Two of them additionally provided the comparison with adalimumab. However, only eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The overall results of the meta-analysis showed that tofacitinib provided a statistically significant improvement according to the response criteria (ACR20/50/70) after 12 weeks of treatment when compared to placebo (p < 0.00001). Moreover, it was demonstrated that tofacitinib was significantly superior to adalimumab in achieving the ACR50 response criteria at week 12 (p = 0.003). For the safety analysis, there were no statistically significant differences between tofacitinib-, adalimumab-, and placebo-treated patients in respect to the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation due to adverse reactions (p > 0.05). The findings of this systematic review with meta-analysis indicate that tofacitinib monotherapy or with background methotrexate provides early statistically significant and clinically important improvement in rheumatoid arthritis symptoms and has an acceptable safety profile comparable to that of placebo. The results of the present meta-analysis show that the frequency of serious adverse events was not increased after tofacitinib treatment. In addition, tofacitinib might provide an effective treatment option compared to intravenous or subcutaneous biological DMARDs, as suggested by the result of the comparison made regarding tofacitinib vs. adalimumab ACR50 response rate.
doi:10.1007/s10067-013-2329-9
PMCID: PMC3778229  PMID: 23877486
Meta-analysis; Rheumatoid arthritis; Systematic review; Tofacitinib
8.  Efficacy and safety of adalimumab as monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis for whom previous disease modifying antirheumatic drug treatment has failed 
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases  2004;63(5):508-516.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with adalimumab in patients with RA for whom previous DMARD treatment has failed.
Methods: In a 26 week, double blind, placebo controlled, phase III trial, 544 patients with RA were randomised to monotherapy with adalimumab 20 mg every other week, 20 mg weekly, 40 mg every other week, 40 mg weekly, or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was ≥20% improvement in the ACR core criteria (ACR20 response). Secondary efficacy end points included ACR50, ACR70, EULAR responses, and the Disability Index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ DI).
Results: After 26 weeks, patients treated with adalimumab 20 mg every other week, 20 mg weekly, 40 mg every other week, and 40 mg weekly had significantly better response rates than those treated with placebo: ACR20 (35.8%, 39.3%, 46.0%, 53.4%, respectively v 19.1%; p⩽0.01); ACR50 (18.9%, 20.5%, 22.1%, 35.0% v 8.2%; p⩽0.05); ACR70 (8.5%, 9.8%, 12.4%, 18.4% v 1.8%; p⩽0.05). Moderate EULAR response rates were significantly greater with adalimumab than with placebo (41.5%, 48.2%, 55.8%, 63.1% v 26.4%; p⩽0.05). Patients treated with adalimumab achieved better improvements in mean HAQ DI than those receiving placebo (–0.29, –0.39, –0.38, –0.49 v –0.07; p⩽0.01). No significant differences were found between adalimumab and placebo treated patients for serious adverse events, serious infections, or malignancies. Injection site reaction occurred in 10.6% and 0.9% of adalimumab and placebo treated patients, respectively (p⩽0.05).
Conclusion: Among patients with RA for whom previous DMARD treatment had failed, adalimumab monotherapy achieved significant, rapid, and sustained improvements in disease activity and improved physical function and was safe and well tolerated.
doi:10.1136/ard.2003.013052
PMCID: PMC1755008  PMID: 15082480
9.  Systematic review and network meta-analysis of combination and monotherapy treatments in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis: analysis of American College of Rheumatology criteria scores 20, 50, and 70 
Background
Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) extend the treatment choices for rheumatoid arthritis patients with suboptimal response or intolerance to conventional DMARDs. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the relative efficacy of EU-licensed bDMARD combination therapy or monotherapy for patients intolerant of or contraindicated to continued methotrexate.
Methods
Comprehensive, structured literature searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, as well as hand-searching of conference proceedings and reference lists. Phase II or III randomized controlled trials reporting American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria scores of 20, 50, and 70 between 12 and 30 weeks’ follow-up and enrolling adult patients meeting ACR classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with and with an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs were eligible. To estimate the relative efficacy of treatments whilst preserving the randomized comparisons within each trial, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted in WinBUGS using fixed and random-effects, logit-link models fitted to the binomial ACR 20/50/70 trial data.
Results
The systematic review identified 10,625 citations, and after a review of 2450 full-text papers, there were 29 and 14 eligible studies for the combination and monotherapy meta-analyses, respectively. In the combination analysis, all licensed bDMARD combinations had significantly higher odds of ACR 20/50/70 compared to DMARDs alone, except for the rituximab comparison, which did not reach significance for the ACR 70 outcome (based on the 95% credible interval). The etanercept combination was significantly better than the tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors adalimumab and infliximab in improving ACR 20/50/70 outcomes, with no significant differences between the etanercept combination and certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab. Licensed-dose etanercept, adalimumab, and tocilizumab monotherapy were significantly better than placebo in improving ACR 20/50/70 outcomes. Sensitivity analysis indicated that including studies outside the target population could affect the results.
Conclusion
Licensed bDMARDs are efficacious in patients with an inadequate response to conventional therapy, but tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor combination therapies are not equally effective.
doi:10.2147/BTT.S36707
PMCID: PMC3529627  PMID: 23269860
bDMARD; rheumatoid arthritis; etanercept; systematic review; network metaanalysis; comparative effectiveness
10.  An open-label pilot study of the effectiveness of adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and previous infliximab treatment: relationship to reasons for failure and anti-infliximab antibody status 
Clinical Rheumatology  2008;27(8):1021-1028.
This prospective open-label pilot study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of adalimumab and the relationship to antibodies against infliximab (IFX) in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had been treated previously with IFX and experienced treatment failure owing to lack or loss of response or intolerance. Patients self-administered adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week for 16 weeks, followed by maintenance therapy for up to Week 56. Measures of effectiveness included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, 28-joint Disease Activity Score, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index. Serum IFX concentrations, human antichimeric antibody against IFX (HACA), adalimumab serum concentrations, antiadalimumab antibody, and safety also were assessed. Of the 41 enrolled patients, 37 completed 16 weeks and 30 completed 56 weeks of treatment. Patients experienced clinically meaningful improvements in all measures of RA activity, with greater response rates observed for patients who had experienced loss of initial response to or intolerance of IFX. At Week 16, 46% of patients achieved an ACR20 and 28% achieved an ACR50; 61% achieved an at least moderate and 17% achieved a good EULAR response. Clinical benefit was maintained through Week 56 in all effectiveness parameters. Baseline HACA status did not significantly impact effectiveness. No new safety signals were observed; neither former IFX intolerance status nor baseline HACA status had a clinically relevant impact on adverse event frequency or severity. Adalimumab was effective and well-tolerated in patients with RA who previously failed IFX therapy, irrespective of reason for discontinuation and of HACA status.
doi:10.1007/s10067-008-0866-4
PMCID: PMC2468311  PMID: 18350329
Adalimumab; Infliximab; Rheumatoid arthritis; Treatment failure; Tumor necrosis factor antagonist
11.  Effectiveness and safety of the interleukin 6-receptor antagonist tocilizumab after 4 and 24 weeks in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: the first phase IIIb real-life study (TAMARA) 
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases  2010;70(5):755-759.
Objectives
To confirm the effectiveness and safety of the interleukin 6-receptor antagonist tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a setting close to real-life medical care in Germany.
Methods
A multicentre open-label phase IIIb study was undertaken. Patients with active RA with a 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) >3.2 despite previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were treated with tocilizumab 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving LDAS ≤3.2 at week 24; secondary end points included American College of Rheumatology (ACR), European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) or Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) responses and decrease in acute phase. Analyses in subgroups such as rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive versus RF-negative patients and patients with an inadequate response to treatment with DMARDs (DMARD-IR) versus those with an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists (TNF antagonist-IR) were performed. Safety was assessed by adverse event documentation.
Results
286 patients were treated and 83.6% completed the study. 41.6% had previously been treated with TNF antagonists. 57% of the intention-to-treat patients achieved the primary end point of LDAS, 47.6% achieved DAS remission <2.6 and a EULAR ‘good response’ was achieved by 54.9%; ACR50/70 response rates at week 24 were 50.7% and 33.9%, respectively. The mean±SD decrease in CDAI from baseline to week 24 was 71±29%. C reactive protein levels normalised rapidly within 1 week. Major improvements in fatigue, pain and morning stiffness were observed in the first 4 weeks and further improved until week 24. DAS28, EULAR and ACR responses at week 24 did not differ between RF-positive and RF-negative patients. TNF antagonist-naive patients responded better than patients who had previously failed on TNF antagonists. The safety profile of tocilizumab was comparable to that previously observed in the phase III trial programme. Serious infections were observed in 3.1% of patients.
Conclusions
Tocilizumab is highly effective in a setting close to real-life medical care with a rapid and sustained improvement in signs and symptoms of RA. A manageable safety profile was seen over the 24-week study period.
doi:10.1136/ard.2010.139725
PMCID: PMC3070275  PMID: 21187298
12.  Adalimumab for long-term treatment of psoriatic arthritis: 2-year data from the Adalimumab Effectiveness in Psoriatic Arthritis Trial (ADEPT) 
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases  2008;68(5):702-709.
Objective:
To evaluate the long-term effectiveness and tolerability of adalimumab in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
Methods:
Patients with PsA who completed a 24-week, double-blind study of adalimumab versus placebo were eligible to enroll in an open-label extension study and receive adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week for up to an additional 120 weeks. At the time of this analysis, available efficacy evaluations throughout 2 years of treatment (n  =  245) included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%, 50% and 70% improvement scores, measures of joint disease and skin disease, disability and quality of life; modified total Sharp scores (mTSS) were available for 2.75 years of treatment for patients who received adalimumab in the 24-week study.
Results:
After 24 weeks of double-blind treatment, the mean change in mTSS was −0.2 for the adalimumab group (N  =  144) and 1.0 for the placebo group (N  =  152; p<0.001), and outcomes for all individual ACR component variables were significantly improved in adalimumab compared with placebo-treated patients. Compared with 24-week responses, inhibition of radiographic progression and improvements in joint disease were maintained in most patients during long-term, open-label adalimumab treatment. Also, improvements in skin disease were maintained, with >20% of patients achieving the strict criterion of psoriasis area and severity index 100. The nature and frequency of adverse events during long-term adalimumab treatment were consistent with the safety profile during short-term treatment.
Conclusions:
The clinical and radiographic efficacy of adalimumab demonstrated during short-term treatment was sustained during long-term treatment. Adalimumab has a favourable risk–benefit profile in patients with PsA.
Trial registration number:
NCT00195689.
doi:10.1136/ard.2008.092767
PMCID: PMC2663711  PMID: 18684743
13.  Safety and effectiveness of adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over 5 years of therapy in a phase 3b and subsequent postmarketing observational study 
Introduction
Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had failed at least one disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) were treated with adalimumab (ADA) in the ReAct study with the option to continue treatment for 5 years in ReAlise. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of ADA as prescribed from the first injection in ReAct to the last observation in ReAlise.
Methods
Patients received ADA alone or in combination with DMARDs according to usual clinical care practices. Adverse events (AEs) were tabulated by five time windows after the first ADA injection. Effectiveness measures included achievement of low disease activity (LDA), defined as Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤11, or remission, (REM), defined as SDAI ≤3.3.
Results
Of the 6,610 ReAct patients, 3,435 (52%) continued in ReAlise. At baseline in ReAct, mean age was 54 years, mean DAS28 was 6.0 and mean HAQ DI was 1.64. The mean treatment duration was 1,016 days, representing 18,272 patient-years (PYs) of ADA exposure. Overall incidence rates of serious AEs and serious infections were 13.8 and 2.8 events (E)/100 PYs, respectively. Serious AEs occurred most frequently in the first 6 months and deceased thereafter. Standardised mortality ratio was 0.71 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.87) and standardised incidence ratio for malignancies was 0.64 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.76). LDA was achieved by 50% and REM by 21% of patients at last observation.
Conclusions
Results of this large observational study of ADA in routine clinical practice were consistent with controlled trials, with no new safety concerns during a follow-up of more than 5 years. Effectiveness of ADA was maintained during long-term observation.
Trial registration
NCT00448383, NCT00234884
doi:10.1186/ar4452
PMCID: PMC3979145  PMID: 24460746
14.  Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: Findings of a phase IIIb, multinational, prospective, randomized study 
Arthritis and Rheumatism  2013;65(1):28-38.
Objective
There is a need for comparative studies to provide evidence-based treatment guidance for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, this study was undertaken as the first head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept and SC adalimumab, both administered along with background methotrexate (MTX), for the treatment of RA.
Methods
Patients with active RA who were naive to treatment with biologic agents and had an inadequate response to MTX were randomly assigned to receive 125 mg SC abatacept weekly or 40 mg SC adalimumab biweekly, both given in combination with MTX, in a 2-year study. The primary end point was treatment noninferiority, assessed according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response (ACR20) at 1 year.
Results
Of the 646 patients who were randomized and treated, 86.2% receiving SC abatacept and 82% receiving SC adalimumab completed 12 months of treatment. At 1 year, 64.8% of patients in the SC abatacept group and 63.4% in the SC adalimumab group demonstrated an ACR20 response; the estimated difference between groups was 1.8% (95% confidence interval −5.6%, 9.2%), thus demonstrating the noninferiority of abatacept compared to adalimumab. All efficacy measures showed similar results and kinetics of response between treatments. The rate of radiographic nonprogression (defined as a total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score [SHS] less than or equal to the smallest detectable change) was 84.8% for SC abatacept–treated patients and 88.6% for SC adalimumab–treated patients, while the mean change from baseline in the total SHS was 0.58 and 0.38, respectively. In the SC abatacept and SC adalimumab groups, the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was 10.1% and 9.1%, respectively, and the rate of serious infections was 2.2% and 2.7%, respectively. In patients treated with SC abatacept, the frequency of discontinuations due to AEs was 3.5% and discontinuations due to SAEs was 1.3%, while in patients treated with SC adalimumab, the frequencies were 6.1% and 3%, respectively. Injection site reactions occurred in 3.8% of patients receiving SC abatacept compared to 9.1% of patients receiving SC adalimumab (P = 0.006).
Conclusion
The results demonstrate that SC abatacept and SC adalimumab have comparable efficacy in patients with RA, as shown by similar kinetics of response and comparable inhibition of radiographic progression over 1 year of treatment. The safety was generally similar, other than the occurrence of significantly more local injection site reactions in patients treated with SC adalimumab.
doi:10.1002/art.37711
PMCID: PMC3572583  PMID: 23169319
15.  A randomised efficacy and discontinuation study of etanercept versus adalimumab (RED SEA) for rheumatoid arthritis: a pragmatic, unblinded, non-inferiority study of first TNF inhibitor use: outcomes over 2 years 
BMJ Open  2012;2(6):e001395.
Objective
To compare adalimumab versus etanercept in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to test the hypothesis that adalimumab was not inferior to etanercept in terms of drug continuation by a margin of 15% after 52 weeks of treatment.
Design
Pragmatic, randomised, parallel group, multicentre, unblinded and non-inferiority trial. Randomisation stratified by baseline use of methotrexate.
Participants
125 adults with active RA despite treatment with two disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs), including methotrexate randomised (1 : 1) to adalimumab 40 mg alternate weeks or etanercept 50 mg weekly, added to existing medication.
Measurements
The primary outcome was proportion of patients continuing treatment after 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included: disease activity score using 28 joints (DAS28), treatment satisfaction (TSQM V.2), health status (Euroqol-5D), drug toxicity and persistence with therapy after 2 years.
Results
Persistence with therapy was 65% for adalimumab versus 56.7% for etanercept (one-sided 95% CI for proportion still taking adalimumab minus proportion on etanercept ≥−7.9%); demonstrating non-inferiority at the 15% margin. After 2 years these figures were: adalimumab 58.3% and etanecept 43.3% (CI ≥−1.7%). The proportion of good, moderate and non-responders based on DAS28-C reactive protein, after 52 weeks, were 26.3%, 33.3% and 40.4%, respectively, for adalimumab versus 16.7%, 31.7% and 51.7%, respectively, for etanercept (p=0.158). Baseline median EQ-5D scores improved from 0.52 to 0.69 for adalimumab and from 0.52 to 0.64 for etanercept (p=0.046) after 52 weeks. Global satisfaction, effectiveness, side effects and convenience scores based on the TSQM were similar for both drugs. Fourteen serious adverse events occurred including two deaths from myocardial infarction, one patient with ovarian cancer and one with acute myeloid leukaemia.
Conclusions
Clinicians choosing a first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor for active RA, despite trying two DMARDs including methotrexate, may choose either adalimumab or etanercept in the knowledge that these drugs are similarly effective.
Clinical trial registration number
EU Clinical Trials Register 2006-006275-21/GB.
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001395
PMCID: PMC3532970  PMID: 23148339
Rheumatology
16.  Safety, effectiveness, and pharmacokinetics of adalimumab in children with polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis aged 2 to 4 years 
Clinical Rheumatology  2014;33(10):1433-1441.
The objective of this study was to assess the safety of adalimumab in patients aged 2 to <4 years old or ≥4 years old weighing <15 kg with moderately to severely active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Clinical effectiveness and pharmacokinetics (PK) of adalimumab were also evaluated. This was an international, multicenter, open-label, phase 3b study in 32 patients with active JIA that were treated with adalimumab 24 mg/m2 (maximum = 20 mg/dose) every other week up to 120 weeks, with or without concomitant methotrexate. Adverse events (AEs) were summarized for completed visits. Efficacy endpoints included American College of Rheumatology pediatric (PedACR) 30/50/70/90 responses and JIA core components. Adalimumab serum trough concentrations were measured in a subset of patients. Among the patients, 88 % were female. Baseline mean age, weight, and JIA duration were 3 years, 13 kg, and 12 months, respectively; 39 % had elevated C-reactive protein. AE incidence rates included any AEs (29/32, 91 %), serious AEs (5/32, 16 %), infectious AEs (25/32, 78 %), and serious infections (3/32, 9 %). No deaths, malignancies, or opportunistic infections were reported. Growth was not adversely impacted. At week 96, 92 % of patients achieved PedACR30, and 77 % achieved PedACR70. Improvements in JIA core components were observed. Mean steady-state serum adalimumab trough concentrations were 7–8 μg/mL at weeks 12 and 24. Adalimumab was well tolerated in JIA patients aged 2 to <4 years old or ≥4 years old weighing <15 kg. The efficacy and PK of adalimumab were comparable to those seen in older JIA patients.
doi:10.1007/s10067-014-2498-1
PMCID: PMC4161937  PMID: 24487484
Adalimumab; Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis; Safety
17.  Tumor necrosis factor alpha drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and metaanalysis of efficacy and safety 
Background
To analyse available evidence on the efficacy and safety of anti-TNFα drugs (infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab) for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Methods
We searched systematically for randomised controlled clinical trials on treatment of RA with anti-TNFα drugs, followed by a systematic review with metaanalysis. Trials were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) efficacy response criteria were used. Safety parameters provided by the trials were also assessed. Positive and undesired effects were estimated using combined relative risks (RR), number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH). Heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochrane's Q and I2 statistics.
Results
Thirteen trials (7087 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The combined RR to achieve a therapeutic response to treatment with recommended doses of any anti-TNFα drug was 1.81 (95% CI 1.43–2.29) with a NNT of 5 (5–6) for ACR20. NNT for ACR50 [5 (5–6)] and ACR70 [7 (7–9)] were similar. Overall therapeutic effects were also similar regardless of the specific anti-TNFα drug used and when higher than recommended doses were administered. However, lower than recommended doses elicited low ACR70 responses (NNT 15). Comparison of anti-TNFα drugs plus methotrexate (MTX) with MTX alone in patients with insufficient prior responses to MTX showed NNT values of 3 for ACR20, 4 for ACR50 and 8 for ACR70. Comparison of anti-TNFα drugs with placebo showed a similar pattern. Comparisons of anti-TNFα drugs plus MTX with MTX alone in patients with no previous resistance to MTX showed somewhat lower effects. Etanercept and adalimumab administered as monotherapy showed effects similar to those of MTX. Side effects were more common among patients receiving anti-TNFα drugs than controls (overall combined NNH 27). Patients receiving infliximab were more likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH 24) and to suffer severe side effects (NNH 31), infections (NNH 10) and infusion reactions (NNH 9). Patients receiving adalimumab were also more likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH 47) and to suffer injection site reactions (NNH 22). Patients receiving etanercept were less likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH for control versus etanercept 26) but more likely to experience injection site reactions (NNH 5).
Conclusion
Anti-TNFα drugs are effective in RA patients, with apparently similar results irrespective of the drug administered. Doses other than those recommended are also beneficial. The main factor influencing therapeutic efficacy is the prior response to DMARD treatment. The effect of treatment with etanercept or adalimumab does not differ from that obtained with MTX. The published safety profile for etanercept is superior but the fact that no patients are treated with higher than recommended doses requires explanation.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-9-52
PMCID: PMC2377247  PMID: 18419803
18.  Adalimumab in the treatment of arthritis 
Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) has been implicated in a number of arthritic disease states, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Adalimumab is the first fully human, high-affinity, recombinant immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) anti-TNF monoclonal antibody. Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate or standard antirheumatic therapies, or as monotherapy, is effective in the treatment of adults with active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Adalimumab is also effective in the treatment of patients with moderately to severely active psoriatic arthritis, improving both joint and skin manifestations of the disease as well as disability due to joint damage. In the Adalimumab Trial Evaluating Long-term Efficacy and Safety in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ATLAS), adalimumab significantly reduced the signs and symptoms of active ankylosing spondylitis and established a sustained clinical response in patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug therapy. Overall, across these indications, adalimumab demonstrated a rapid onset of action, sustained efficacy with long-term treatment, and was well-tolerated, with few patients discontinuing treatment because of adverse events. The safety profile was similar to other TNF antagonists. Inhibition of TNF activity by adalimumab also significantly improved physical functioning and quality of life measures.
PMCID: PMC1936294  PMID: 18360621
Adalimumab; TNF antagonists; rheumatoid arthritis; psoriatic arthritis; ankylosing spondylitis
19.  Double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial with adalimumab for treatment of juvenile onset ankylosing spondylitis (JoAS): significant short term improvement 
Arthritis Research & Therapy  2012;14(5):R230.
Introduction
While adalimumab is licensed for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), open uncontrolled studies suggest therapeutic efficacy of TNF-inhibitors in juvenile onset AS (JoAS).
Methods
A total of 32 patients aged 12 to 17 years with severe, active and refractory JoAS were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel study of 12 weeks, followed by open-label adalimumab until week 24 for all patients. ASAS40 was used as the primary, and ASAS20, PedACR and single items were used as the secondary outcome measures for the intention to treat population.
Results
A total of 17 patients were randomized to receive adalimumab 40 mg/2 weeks and 15 patients received placebo. Two patients (one of each group) discontinued prematurely due to insufficient efficacy and were labeled as non-responders. In the double-blind part, more patients on adalimumab achieved an ASAS40 at week 4 (41%), week 8 (53%) and week 12 (53%) than on placebo (20%, 33%, 33%), while differences at week 8 only reached borderline significance (P = 0.05). Also, at 4, 8 and 12 weeks ASAS20/PedACR30/70 response rates were higher in the adalimumab group (53%/53%/29%; 59%/76%/41%; 53%/65%/53%) compared to placebo (27%/27%/7%; 27%/33%/13%; 33%/40%/27%). In the adalimumab group a significant decrease of all disease activity parameters was noted at week 12 and was even more pronounced at week 24. At week 12 the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease activity spinal inflammation score decreased by 65% (P <0.001), the back pain score decreased by 50% (P <0.005), the Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) score decreased by 47% (P <0.02), while the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (CHAQ-DI) score improved by 65% (P <0.005). ANCOVA analysis demonstrated superiority of adalimumab over placebo for the physician global assessment of disease activity, parents' global assessment of subject's overall well-being, active joint count (all P <0.05) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (P <0.01).
During the 12-week controlled phase, 29 AEs occurred in 10 patients on placebo compared to 27 AEs in 11 patients on adalimumab. Injection site reactions were the most common adverse events. There were 17 various infections occurring in the double-blind phase, 8 on placebo, 9 on adalimumab and a further 19 in the open label period.
Conclusions
Adalimumab was well tolerated and highly effective in a double-blind randomized trial in patients with JoAS. Treatment effects rapidly occurred and persisted for at least 24 weeks of treatment.
Trial registration
EudraCT 2007-003358-27.
doi:10.1186/ar4072
PMCID: PMC3580542  PMID: 23095307
20.  Adalimumab and methotrexate is more effective than adalimumab alone in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis: results from a 6‐month longitudinal, observational, multicentre study 
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases  2006;65(10):1379-1383.
Objectives
To compare the effectiveness of adalimumab monotherapy and adalimumab and methotrexate (MTX) combination therapy in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis.
Methods
Data from an ongoing longitudinal observational study in Norway were used to compare response to treatment with two different adalimumab regimens (monotherapy, n = 84; combination with MTX, n = 99). Patients were assessed with measures of disease activity, health status and utility scores. Within‐group changes were analysed from baseline to follow‐up at 3 and 6 months and the changes were compared between groups after adjustment for the propensity score. The groups were also compared for the proportions of patients achieving European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good response, Disease Activity Score (DAS)28 remission and treatment terminations.
Results
The improvement from baseline was significant for all measures in the adalimumab and MTX group, but only for DAS28, joint counts, two Short‐form Health Survey with 36 questions (SF‐36) dimensions and patient's and investigator's global assessment in the monotherapy group. All between‐group differences were numerically in favour of combination therapy and significant for C reactive protein, joint counts, DAS28, Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire, investigator's global assessment, four SF‐36 dimensions and Short Form 6D at 6 months. More patients in the combination therapy group reached EULAR good response (p<0.001) and remission (p = 0.07). At 6 months, 80.8% of the patients in the combination therapy group and 59.5% in the monotherapy group remained on treatment (p = 0.002). More withdrawals in the monotherapy group were due to adverse events.
Conclusions
Our results were consistent across several categories of end points and suggest that adalimumab combined with MTX is effective in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated in daily clinical practice and is superior to adalimumab monotherapy.
doi:10.1136/ard.2006.051540
PMCID: PMC1798316  PMID: 16679432
21.  Adalimumab effectively reduces the signs and symptoms of active ankylosing spondylitis in patients with total spinal ankylosis 
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases  2007;67(9):1218-1221.
Objective:
To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of adalimumab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and total spinal ankylosis (TSA).
Design:
Patients (n = 315) with active AS were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to receive adalimumab 40 mg every other week or placebo for 24 weeks followed by open-label adalimumab for up to 5 years. Two-year efficacy and safety data for 11 patients with investigator-defined TSA were evaluated. The primary end point was the ASsessment in AS International Working Group criteria for 20% improvement (ASAS20) at Week 12. On or after Week 12, ASAS20 non-responders could switch to open-label adalimumab. Other efficacy measurements included ASAS40, ASAS 5/6, ASAS partial remission, and 50% improvement in the Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI 50).
Results:
6 of 11 TSA patients were randomised to adalimumab and 5 to placebo. At Week 12, 50% of the adalimumab-treated patients achieved an ASAS20 response and 33% achieved an ASAS40, ASAS 5/6 and BASDAI 50. No placebo-treated patients achieved any response criteria at Week 12. 4 placebo- and 2 adalimumab-treated patients switched to open-label adalimumab before Week 24. After 1 year of adalimumab treatment, 8 of 11 patients achieved an ASAS20 response. After 2 years, 6 of the remaining 8 patients with TSA reported an ASAS20 response. There were no serious adverse events or adverse event-related study discontinuations.
Conclusion:
In patients with TSA, adalimumab treatment resulted in rapid and clinically significant improvement in the signs and symptoms of active disease. Adalimumab effectiveness and safety were sustained for at least 2 years.
Trial registration number:
NCT00085644.
doi:10.1136/ard.2007.082529
PMCID: PMC2564805  PMID: 18056755
22.  Tocilizumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to DMARDs and/or TNF inhibitors: a large, open-label study close to clinical practice 
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases  2012;71(12):1950-1954.
Objective
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab in clinical practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses (IR) to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or both DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFis).
Methods
Patients—categorised as TNFi-naive, TNFi-previous (washout) or TNFi-recent (no washout) —received open-label tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) every 4 weeks ± DMARDs for 24 weeks. Adverse events (AEs) and treatment discontinuations were monitored. Efficacy end points included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) and European League Against Rheumatism responses.
Results
Overall, 1681 (976 TNF-naive, 298 TNFi-previous and 407 TNFi-recent) patients were treated; 5.1% discontinued treatment because of AEs. The AE rate was numerically higher in TNFi-recent (652.6/100 patient-years (PY)) and TNFi-previous (653.6/100PY) than in TNFi-naive (551.1/100PY) patients. Serious AE rates were 18.0/100PY, 28.0/100PY and 18.6/100PY; serious infection rates were 6.0/100PY, 6.8/100PY and 4.2/100PY, respectively. At week 4, 36.5% of patients achieved ACR20 response and 14.9% DAS28 remission (<2.6); at week 24, 66.9%, 46.6%, 26.4% and 56.8% achieved ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 responses and DAS28 remission, respectively. Overall, 61.6% (TNFi-naive), 48.5% (TNFi-previous) and 50.4% (TNFi-recent) patients achieved DAS28 remission.
Conclusions
In patients with RA who were DMARD-IR/TNFi-IR, tocilizumab ± DMARDs provided rapid and sustained efficacy without unexpected safety concerns.
doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-201087
PMCID: PMC3595980  PMID: 22615456
23.  Adalimumab, a human anti-TNF monoclonal antibody, outcome study for the prevention of joint damage in Japanese patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: the HOPEFUL 1 study 
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases  2013;73(3):536-543.
Objectives
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab+methotrexate (MTX) in Japanese patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had not previously received MTX or biologics.
Methods
This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study evaluated adalimumab 40 mg every other week+MTX 6–8 mg every week versus MTX 6–8 mg every week alone for 26 weeks in patients with RA (≤2-year duration). The primary endpoint was inhibition of radiographic progression (change (Δ) from baseline in modified total Sharp score (mTSS)) at week 26.
Results
A total of 171 patients received adalimumab+MTX (mean dose, 6.2±0.8 mg/week) and 163 patients received MTX alone (mean dose, 6.6±0.6 mg/week, p<0.001). The mean RA duration was 0.3 years and 315 (94.3%) had high disease activity (DAS28>5.1). Adalimumab+MTX significantly inhibited radiographic progression at week 26 versus MTX alone (ΔmTSS, 1.5±6.1 vs 2.4±3.2, respectively; p<0.001). Significantly more patients in the adalimumab+MTX group (62.0%) did not show radiographic progression (ΔmTSS≤0.5) versus the MTX alone group (35.4%; p<0.001). Patients treated with adalimumab+MTX were significantly more likely to achieve American College of Rheumatology responses and achieve clinical remission, using various definitions, at 26 weeks versus MTX alone. Combination therapy was well tolerated, and no new safety signals were observed.
Conclusions
Adalimumab in combination with low-dose MTX was well tolerated and efficacious in suppressing radiographic progression and improving clinical outcomes in Japanese patients with early RA and high disease activity.
doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202433
PMCID: PMC4151516  PMID: 23316080
Methotrexate; Rheumatoid Arthritis; Anti-TNF
24.  Gene expression profiling in the synovium identifies a predictive signature of absence of response to adalimumab therapy in rheumatoid arthritis 
Introduction
To identify markers and mechanisms of resistance to adalimumab therapy, we studied global gene expression profiles in synovial tissue specimens obtained from severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients before and after initiation of treatment.
Methods
Paired synovial biopsies were obtained from the affected knee of 25 DMARD (disease-modifying antirheumatic drug)-resistant RA patients at baseline (T0) and 12 weeks (T12) after initiation of adalimumab therapy. DAS28-CRP (disease activity score using 28 joint counts-C-reactive protein) scores were computed at the same time points, and patients were categorized as good, moderate, or poor responders according to European League Against Rheumatism criteria. Global gene expression profiles were performed in a subset of patients by means of GeneChip Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Arrays, and confirmatory immunohistochemistry experiments were performed on the entire cohort.
Results
Gene expression studies performed at baseline identified 439 genes associated with poor response to therapy. The majority (n = 411) of these genes were upregulated in poor responders and clustered into two specific pathways: cell division and regulation of immune responses (in particular, cytokines, chemokines, and their receptors). Immunohistochemistry experiments confirmed that high baseline synovial expression of interleukin-7 receptor α chain (IL-7R), chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 11 (CXCL11), IL-18, IL-18 receptor accessory (IL-18rap), and MKI67 is associated with poor response to adalimumab therapy. In vitro experiments indicated that genes overexpressed in poor responders could be induced in fibroblast-like synoviocytes (FLS) cultures by the addition of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) alone, IL-1β alone, the combination of TNF-α and IL-17, and the combination of TNF-α and IL-1β.
Conclusions
Gene expression studies of the RA synovium may be useful in the identification of early markers of response to TNF blockade. Genes significantly overexpressed at baseline in poor responders are induced by several cytokines in FLSs, thereby suggesting a role for these cytokines in the resistance to TNF blockade in RA.
doi:10.1186/ar2678
PMCID: PMC2688209  PMID: 19389237
25.  Clinical response to adalimumab: relationship to anti‐adalimumab antibodies and serum adalimumab concentrations in rheumatoid arthritis 
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases  2007;66(7):921-926.
Background
A substantial proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond, or lose initial response, to adalimumab treatment. One explanation for non‐response is that patients develop anti‐adalimumab antibodies.
Objectives
To evaluate the incidence of formation of antibody against adalimumab and the association with serum adalimumab concentrations and clinical response.
Methods
In a cohort of 121 consecutive patients with RA treated with adalimumab, serum adalimumab concentrations and antibodies against adalimumab were measured together with clinical response variables before and up to 28 weeks after the start of treatment.
Results
Anti‐adalimumab antibodies were detected in 21 patients (17%) during 28 weeks of treatment. EULAR non‐responders had antibodies significantly more often than good responders (34% vs 5%; p = 0.032). Patients with antibodies showed less improvement in disease activity (mean (SD) delta DAS28 0.65 (1.35)) than patients without antibodies (mean delta DAS28 1.70 (1.35)) (p = 0.001). Patients with antibodies during follow‐up had lower serum adalimumab concentrations at 28 weeks than patients without antibodies (median 1.2 mg/l, range 0.0–5.6 vs median 11.0 mg/l, range 2.0–33.0, respectively; p<0.001). Good responders had higher serum adalimumab concentrations than moderate responders (p = 0.021) and non‐responders (p = 0.001). Concomitant methotrexate use was lower in the group with anti‐adalimumab antibodies (52%) than in the group without antibodies (84%) (p = 0.003).
Conclusions
Serum antibodies against adalimumab are associated with lower serum adalimumab concentrations and non‐response to adalimumab treatment.
doi:10.1136/ard.2006.065615
PMCID: PMC1955110  PMID: 17301106
adalimumab; anti‐adalimumab antibodies; human anti‐human antibodies; rheumatoid arthritis

Results 1-25 (1324828)