Renato Guzmán

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab in patients with class III/IV lupus nephritis (LN). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive placebo, 400 mg ocrelizumab, or 1,000 mg ocrelizumab given as an intravenous infusion on days 1 and 15, followed by a single infusion at week 16 and every 16 weeks thereafter, accompanied by background glucocorticoids plus either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial (ELNT) regimen (cyclophosphamide followed by azathioprine). The study was terminated early due to an imbalance in serious infections in ocrelizumab-treated patients versus placebo-treated patients. We report week 48 efficacy data for patients receiving ≥32 weeks of treatment (n = 223) and safety results for all treated patients (n = 378). RESULTS: The overall renal response rate was 54.7%, 66.7%, 67.1%, and 66.9% in the placebo-treated, 400 mg ocrelizumab-treated, 1,000 mg ocrelizumab-treated, and combined ocrelizumab-treated groups, respectively. The associated treatment difference versus placebo for the combined ocrelizumab-treated groups was 12.7% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.8, 26.1) (P = 0.065), with similar differences observed for both ocrelizumab-treated groups. Ocrelizumab versus placebo treatment differences were apparent in patients receiving the background ELNT regimen, but not in those receiving background MMF. A numerically greater proportion of ocrelizumab-treated patients had a ≥50% reduction in the urinary protein:urinary creatinine ratio at 48 weeks compared with placebo-treated patients (placebo-treated patients, 58.7%; 400 mg ocrelizumab-treated patients, 70.7%; 1,000 mg ocrelizumab-treated patients, 68.5%). Serious adverse events occurred in 27.2% of placebo-treated patients, 35.7% of 400 mg ocrelizumab-treated patients, and 22.0% of 1,000 mg ocrelizumab-treated patients. Corresponding serious infection rates (events/100 patient-years) were 18.7 (95% CI 12.2, 28.7), 28.8 (95% CI 20.6, 40.3), and 25.1 (95% CI 17.4, 36.1), respectively. The imbalance in serious infections with ocrelizumab occurred with background MMF but not with the background ELNT regimen. CONCLUSION: In patients with active LN, overall renal response rates with ocrelizumab were numerically but not statistically significantly superior to those with placebo. Ocrelizumab treatment was associated with a higher rate of serious infections in the subgroup receiving background MMF.

BACKGROUND: Previous global studies examined etanercept (ETN) + methotrexate (MTX) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but included few subjects from Latin America. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of ETN + MTX versus a standard-of-care disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) + MTX in Latin American subjects with moderate to severe active RA despite MTX therapy. METHODS: This open-label, active-comparator study (NCT00848354) randomized subjects 2:1 to ETN 50 mg/wk + MTX or investigator-selected DMARD (sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine) + MTX (ETN + MTX, n = 281; DMARD + MTX, n = 142). The primary end point was the proportion achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 at week 24. Secondary end points included ACR20/70, disease activity score (DAS) 28 measures, and mean change in modified total Sharp score. Patient-reported outcomes were the Health Assessment Questionnaire, 36-item Short-Form, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: RA (WPAI:RA), and Caregiver Burden and Resource Utilization. Statistical analyses were stratified by country; χ test and analysis of covariance were used. Adverse events were monitored. RESULTS: More subjects achieved ACR50 at week 24 with ETN + MTX versus DMARD + MTX (62% vs 23%, respectively), in addition to secondary end points (P < 0.0001 for all); mean change in modified total Sharp score was lower for the ETN + MTX group (0.4 vs 1.4, respectively; P = 0.0270). Improvements in patient-reported outcomes favored ETN + MTX for Health Assessment Questionnaire, 36-item Short-Form, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for depression, WPAI:RA, and Caregiver Burden and Resource Utilization emergency department visits for RA (P < 0.01). Overall, adverse events were similar between the groups (69% vs 68%,); serious adverse events were also similar (4% vs 1%). The rate of overall infections was higher with ETN + MTX (38%) than DMARD + MTX (22%, P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with published global data among RA patients with inadequate response to MTX, adding ETN to MTX demonstrated better efficacy than adding one other conventional DMARD to MTX. No new safety issues were observed. ETN + MTX provided favorable benefit-risk profile among RA patients from LA region.

BACKGROUND: Although long-term data are available from biologic studies in North American/European populations with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), long-term findings in Latin American RA populations are limited. OBJECTIVE: To examine long-term safety/efficacy of etanercept, methotrexate, and/or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in Latin American patients with moderate-to-severe active RA. METHODS: In the first phase of this open-label study, patients were randomized to etanercept 50 mg weekly plus methotrexate or conventional DMARD (hydroxychloroquine or sulfasalazine) plus methotrexate for 24 weeks. At the start of the second phase (week 24), investigators selected a treatment regimen that included any combination/dosage of etanercept, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, or sulfasalazine based on previous treatment response, preference, and local product labeling, and was continued for the 104-week extension. RESULTS: In the extension, in the group previously randomized to etanercept-plus-methotrexate therapy, etanercept was continued in 259/260 patients; methotrexate continued in 260/260; and hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine added in 8/260 and 3/260, respectively. In the group previously randomized to conventional DMARD-plus-methotrexate therapy, conventional DMARD was discontinued in 86/126 and etanercept added in 105/126. Among etanercept-exposed patients (total exposure, 798.1 patient-year [PY]), rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, and serious infections per PY were 1.7, 0.07, and 0.02 events per PY. In both groups, after treatment modification was permitted, clinical response rates and improvements in clinical/patient-reported outcomes from baseline were sustained to week 128. CONCLUSION: After investigators were permitted to modify treatment, etanercept was part of the treatment regimen in 95% of patients. Continuation or addition of etanercept in the 2-year extension resulted in a consistently good risk:benefit profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open-Label Study Comparing Etanercept to Conventional Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drug (DMARD) Therapy; ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00848354; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00848354.