Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2013 Feb 1;15(1):R25.
doi: 10.1186/ar4159.

Rilonacept in the treatment of acute gouty arthritis: a randomized, controlled clinical trial using indomethacin as the active comparator

Clinical Trial

Rilonacept in the treatment of acute gouty arthritis: a randomized, controlled clinical trial using indomethacin as the active comparator

Robert A Terkeltaub et al. Arthritis Res Ther. .

Abstract

Introduction: In phase-3 clinical trials, the interleukin (IL-1) blocker, rilonacept (IL-1 Trap), demonstrated efficacy for gout flare prevention during initiation of urate-lowering therapy. This trial evaluated rilonacept added to a standard-of-care, indomethacin, for treatment of acute gout flares.

Methods: Adults, aged 18-70 years, with gout presenting within 48 hours of flare onset and having at least moderate pain as well as swelling and tenderness in the index joint were randomized to subcutaneous (SC) rilonacept 320 mg at baseline plus oral indomethacin 50 mg TID for 3 days followed by 25 mg TID for up to 9 days (n = 74); SC placebo at baseline plus oral indomethacin as above (n=76); or SC rilonacept 320 mg at baseline plus oral placebo (n=75). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in pain in the index joint (patient-reported using a Likert scale (0=none; 4=extreme)) from baseline to the average of values at 24, 48 and 72 hours (composite time point) for rilonacept plus indomethacin versus indomethacin alone. Comparison of rilonacept monotherapy with indomethacin monotherapy was dependent on demonstration of significance for the primary endpoint. Safety evaluation included clinical laboratory and adverse event (AE) assessments.

Results: Patient characteristics were comparable among the groups; the population was predominantly male (94.1%), white (75.7%), with mean±SD age of 50.3±10.6 years. All treatment groups reported within-group pain reductions from baseline (P<0.0001). Although primary endpoint pain reduction was greater with rilonacept plus indomethacin (-1.55±0.92) relative to indomethacin alone (-1.40±0.96), the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.33), so formal comparison between monotherapy groups was not performed. Pain reduction over the 72-hour period with rilonacept alone (-0.69±0.97) was less than that in the other groups, but pain reduction was similar among groups at 72 hours. Treatment with rilonacept was well-tolerated with no reported serious AEs related to rilonacept. Across all groups, the most frequent AEs were headache and dizziness.

Conclusions: Although generally well-tolerated, rilonacept in combination with indomethacin and rilonacept alone did not provide additional pain relief over 72 hours relative to indomethacin alone in patients with acute gout flare.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT00855920.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of patients through the study. SC, subcutaneous.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Change in pain from baseline. Data are mean change in pain of the index joint from baseline to pain averaged for the 24-, 48-, and 72-hour assessments for (A) the primary endpoint using a Likert scale (0 = no pain to 4 = extreme pain), and (B) using a numerical rating scale (NRS; 0 = no pain to 10 = extreme pain). SC, subcutaneous.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean change in pain of the index joint from baseline at 24, 48, and 72 hours. (A) Likert scale (0 = no pain to 4 = extreme pain). (B) Numerical rating scale (0 = no pain to 10 = extreme pain). SC, subcutaneous.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Serum concentrations of high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) from baseline to day 31 (safety follow up). SC, subcutaneous.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Liu-Bryan R, Terkeltaub R. Evil humors take their toll as innate immunity makes gouty joints TREM-ble. [editorial] Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:383–386. doi: 10.1002/art.21634. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Becker MA, Schumacher HR, Espinoza LR, Wells AF, MacDonald P, Lloyd E, Lademacher C. The urate-lowering efficacy and safety of febuxostat in the treatment of the hyperuricemia of gout: the CONFIRMS trial. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12:R63. doi: 10.1186/ar2978. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brook RA, Forsythe A, Smeeding JE, Lawrence Edwards N. Chronic gout: epidemiology, disease progression, treatment and disease burden. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26:2813–2821. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.533647. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Roddy E, Doherty M. Gout. Epidemiology of gout. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12:223. doi: 10.1186/ar3199. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kleinman NL, Brook RA, Patel PA, Melkonian AK, Brizee TJ, Smeeding JE, Joseph-Ridge N. The impact of gout on work absence and productivity. Value Health. 2007;10:231–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00173.x. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data