重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体-体融合蛋白联合甲氨蝶呤对改善病情抗风湿药治疗无效活动性类风湿关节炎的疗效

目的观察重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体．抗体融合蛋白（rhTNFR：Fc，益赛普）联合甲氨蝶呤（methotrexate，MTX）对改善病情抗风湿药（disease—modifying antirheumatic drug，DMARD）无效类风湿关节炎（rheumatoid arthritis，RA）患者的疗效。方法DMARD治疗效果不佳的活动性RA患者64例，根据患者性别、年龄、病程及疾病活动程度将患者随机分为具有可比性的两组。试验组32例，予每周2次皮下注射rhTNFR：Fc 25mg／次．同时口服MTX 15mg／周；对照组32例，13服泼尼松5～10mg／d，同时口服MTX1 5mg／周。疗程12周。疗效评价采用美国风湿病学会（ACR）疗效评定标准。结果治疗第4、8和12周，试验组ACR20有效率（45．2％、54．8％和64．5％）均显著高于对照组（16．1％、19．4％和22．6％）（P〈0．05）。治疗第8和12周试验组ACR50有效率亦显著高于对照组（P〈0．05）。结论相对于应用小剂量激素联合甲氨蝶呤，rhTNFR：Fc联合甲氨蝶呤治疗DMARD无效的RA效果更佳。     

肿瘤坏死因子受体-Fc融合蛋白治疗类风湿关节炎与强直性脊柱炎短期疗效及不良反应的差异

目的 观察重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体-抗体Fc融合蛋白[rhTNFR:Fc,益赛普(etanercept)]治疗类风湿关节炎(RA)及强直性脊柱炎(AS)的疗效及不良反应,评估其在不同关节病中的作用.方法 对18例难治性RA和22例难治性AS患者,使用ATNFR:Fc 25 mg/次,每周2次皮下注射,持续3个月.在治疗前和治疗后2、4、12周进行疗效及不良反应评估.RA组和AS组疗效评价分别采用美国风湿病学会(ACR20)H和ASAS20疗效评价标准.结果 ①rhTNFR:Fc治疗后As组达到ASAS20的总体有效率为95.5%,而RA组达到ACR20为50%,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01);②AS组在rhTNFR:Fc治疗第2、4、12周时达到ASAS20疗效的患者分别为12例、21例和21例,而RA组达到ACR20疗效的为3例、5例和9例,各时段组间比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01);③RA组发生不良反应的患者占50%,显著高于AS组的9%(P＜0.01).RA组因无效及不良反应停药的患者5例,而AS组仅1例,脱漏率差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),AS组的依从性好于RA组;④两组治疗前与治疗后12周X线比较均无明显改变.结论 相对RA患者总体反应而言,AS组患者对rhTNFR:Fc治疗起效快,有效率高,不良反应少,依从性好:但两组治疗前后关节X线均无明显改变.     

重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体-抗体融合蛋白对类风湿关节炎患者血清IgM- IgG-和IgA-类风湿因子的影响

目的 观察重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体-抗体融合蛋白(rhTNFR:Fc,商品名益赛普)对类风湿关节炎(RA)患者IgM-类风湿因子(RF),IgG-RF,IgA-RF的影响,探讨rhTNFR:Fc治疗RA的免疫学机制.方法 选择华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院及武汉市中心医院2007-2008年110例RA患者,采用随机数字表法随机分为rhTNFR:Fc组和甲氨蝶呤组.rhTNFR:Fc组55例,每周2次皮下注射rhTNFR:Fc(25 mg/次),24周.甲氨蝶呤组55例,每周1次口服甲氨蝶呤片,7.5mg/次起,8周内逐步加到15 mg/次,24周.观察药物对IgM-RF、IgG-RF、IgA-RF的影响,临床疗效评价采用28个关节疾病活动度(DAS28)疗效评定标准.组内治疗前后的差异采用配对t检验分析,组间治疗前后的差异采用两样本t检验分析.结果 ①2组患者病情均明显改善,rhTNFR:Fc的IgM-RF降低时间早于甲氨蝶呤组(P＜0.05).②rhTNFR:Fc组血清IgM-RF (29±16) U/ml明显降低(P＜0.05),IgG-RF (145±20) U/ml和IgA-RF(153±34)U/ml明显升高(P＜0.05).③甲氨蝶呤组IgM-RF (44±14) U/ml,IgG-RF (62±14) U/ml和IgA-RF (66±19) U/ml均明显降低(P＜0.05).④对临床指标的分析表明rhTNFR:Fc治疗RA疗效确切.结论 rhTNFR:Fc与甲氨蝶呤均能有效缓解RA的病情.rhTNFR:Fc能显著降低RA患者血清中IgM-RF的水平,而对IgG-RF,IgA-RF水平有升高作用,可能与其治疗RA的免疫学机制有关.     

重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体—抗体融合蛋白联合甲氨蝶呤治疗活动性类风湿关节炎的疗效和安全性的开放多中心临床研究

目的 评估重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体—抗体融合蛋白(rhTNRF:Fc)联合甲氨蝶呤治疗活动性类风湿关节炎(RA) 52周的临床疗效、放射学改变和安全性。方法 30例中重度活动性RA患者应用rhTNRF：Fc(25 mg皮下注射,每周2次)联合甲氨蝶呤（每周15 mg口服）治疗。应用美国风湿病学会(ACR)20、50、70疗效标准和28个关节的疾病活动度评分(DAS28)评估临床疗效,应用改良的Sharp评分标准评价放射学疗效。计数资料应用x2检验或Fisher精确检验,计量资料采用配对t检验。结果 治疗52周时达到ACR20、50、70标准的有效率分别为90％、87％和67％。DAS28由6.4±0.6降至3.4±1.1(P＜0.01),23％患者达到疾病缓解,17％达到低度活动状态。健康状况问卷由1.18±0.56降至0.25±0.34（P＜0.01）。基线期和52周时,双手和双腕X线片关节间隙狭窄（8±10与8±11）和关节侵蚀(10±15与10±15)的改良Sharp评分差异无统计学意义;73％患者无放射学进展。未见严重不良反应,无新发结核菌感染和恶性肿瘤。结论 rhTNRF:Fc联合甲氨蝶呤治疗RA 52周能够显著减低疾病活动度、改善关节功能以及延缓放射学进展,达到临床缓解和阻止放射学进展的治疗目标：且耐受性良好。     

短期益赛普与甲氨蝶呤环磷酰胺联合治疗类风湿关节炎的临床研究

目的 探讨短期使用重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体一抗体融合蛋白(rhTNFR:Fc,益普赛)与甲氨蝶呤(MTX)、环磷酰胺(CTX)联合治疗类风湿关节炎(RA)的有效性和安全性.方法 对84例患者随机分为实验组和对照组,仅有56例患者完成了本实验.实验组给予益赛普皮下注射治疗3个月,每周2次,每次25 mg;同时给予MTX治疗,每周1次,每次7.5～15 mg;CTX每3周1次,每次200 mg,3个月后给予空白模拟益赛普,继续接受MTX和CTX维持治疗.对照组给予益赛普皮下注射治疗,剂量及方法同实验组,同时给予空白模拟MTX和CTX对照,疗程为1年,随时观察并记录治疗过程中的任何不良事件,在0、2、4、8、12、24、36、52周监测其血常规、红细胞沉降率(ESR)、肝功能、肾功能、类风湿因子(RF)、抗环瓜氨酸肽(CCP)抗体.结果 实验组和对照组在ACR20,ACR70,ESR及CRP实验室指标均较入组时有明显改善,但两组问差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).治疗12周实验组停用益赛普时,两组的上述指标均进一步改善.疗程满36周时,实验组较对照组的各项指标仍持续好转,相关抗体水平浓度较对照组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组间的不良反应率差异无统计学意义.结论 短期益赛普与MTX、CTX联合治疗RA,可以减少益赛普的疗程,有效地缓解RA的症状和降低抗体水平,并不增加不良反应,具有较好的安全性.     

rhTNFR:Fc对类风湿关节炎患者血清中致炎及抗炎性细胞因子的影响

目的探讨重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体-抗体融合蛋白[rhTNFR：Fc，益赛普（etanercept）]治疗类风湿关节炎（RA）的免疫学机制，了解rhTNFR：Fc对RA患者血清中致炎及抗炎性细胞因子的作用，比较rhTNFR：Fc和甲氨蝶呤（MTX）对这些细胞因子作用的不同，为rhTNFR：Fc治疗RA提供进一步的实验依据。方法采用酶联免疫吸附试验（ELISA）检测RA患者rhTNFR：Fc治疗前后血清中白细胞介素（IL）-1、IL-6、IL-1、肿瘤坏死因子（TNF）-α和干扰素ONF）-γ度。观察rhTNFR：Fc对细胞因子的影响。结果①RA患者血清中的炎性细胞因子TNF-α、INF-γ、IL-1β、IL-6的水平均高于健康对照组，其中IL-6、INF-γ、TNF-α的水平与健康对照组相比差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01），抗炎性细胞因子IL-10的水平低于健康对照组，但两者相比差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。②rhTNFR：Fc治疗RA后血清中Th1型细胞因子TNF-α、INF-γ、IL-1β、IL-6水平均明显降低（P〈0．01），而Th2型细胞因子IL-10的水平明显提高（P〈0．01）。③RA患者血清中TNF-α水平与肿胀关节数及肿胀关节指数呈正相关（P〈0．05）。④对临床指标的分析表明，rhTNFR：Fc治疗RA疗效确切。结论rhTNFR：Fc可以降低RA患者血清中TNF-α、INF-γ、IL-1β、IL-6的水平，同时升高IL-10水平；在抑制了Th1型细胞因子的同时．增强了Th2型细胞因子的效应．从而改善RA的病情。     

依那西普治疗中国接受甲氨蝶呤治疗的活动性类风湿关节炎患者随机双盲多中心对照研究

目的 研究依那西普每周1次皮下注射50 mg对接受甲氨蝶呤(MTX)治疗的中国活动性类风湿关节炎(RA)患者的疗效及安全性.方法 本研究由2部分组成:12周双盲治疗阶段和12周安全性开放研究阶段.双盲期间的随机通过临床操作随机化(CORE)系统完成.在双盲阶段,RA患者被随机分配到依那西普50mg治疗组或安慰剂组,每周1次皮下注射给药,同时坚持一定剂量MTX给药.完成双盲治疗的RA患者在开放治疗中均接受每周1次依那西普50 mg和MTX给药.以美国风湿病学会(ACR)疗效评价指标ACR 20为主要终点疗效指标.次要终点疗效指标包括医生和患者总体评价、晨僵持续时间、疼痛目视模拟测试表(VAS)、健康评估问卷(HAQ)、C反应蛋白(CRP)值、疼痛和肿胀关节数.并且比较2组的安全性结果.采用Fisher精确概率法对主要终点疗效指标第12周ACR 20应答情况及其他次要终点疗效指标进行分析.使用协方差方法分析连续终点相对于基线的变化.结果 双盲治疗期间修正的意向性治疗人群(Mitt)共有156例患者,其中依那西普+MTX组77例.安慰剂+MTX组79例,149例患者完成双盲阶段的治疗.治疗4周时,依那西普+MTX组ACR 20有效率为39%(30/77),安慰剂+MTX组为16%(13/79),差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);12周时,依那西普+MTX组ACR 20有效率为62%(48/77),安慰剂+MTX组为23%(18/79),差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).其他疗效指标包括医生和患者总体评价、晨僵持续时间、疼痛VAS、HAQ、CRP、触痛关节数、肿胀关节数等均从第4周开始,在依那西普+MTX组明显优于安慰剂+MTX组(P<0.01).总的不良反应发生率在2组间差异无统计学意义.结论 与安慰剂治疗活动性RA相比.依那西普治疗活动性RA起效迅速、疗效显著.依那西普50 mg+MTX每周1次给药治疗中国成年活动性RA患者24周,耐受性良好.     

重组人肿瘤坏死因子受体Ⅱ一Fc融合蛋白联合甲氨蝶呤治疗中重度活动性类风湿关节炎的临床和放射学疗效评估

目的 评价重组人肿瘤坏死因子受体Ⅱ-Fc融合蛋白(TNFRⅡ-Fc,商品名:安佰诺)治疗中重度活动性类风湿关节炎(RA)的临床和影像学疗效.方法 396例RA患者随机分为联合用药组、TNFRⅡ-Fc组和甲氨蝶呤组,疗程均为24周,单因素方差分析美国风湿病学会(ACR)-N、ACR20、ACR50、ACR70、疾病活动指数(DAS )28和治疗前后双手的X线Sharp评分(SHS)等疗效和安全性指标.结果 治疗24周后,ACR-N的年改善率联合组为(12.79±9.24)％,TNFRⅡ-Fc组为(9.56±11.16)％,甲氨蝶呤组为(5.08±11.10)％,联合用药组优于TNFRⅡ-Fc组和甲氨蝶呤组(P＜0.05),TNFRⅡ-Fc组优于甲氨蝶呤组(P＜0.05).ACR20的达标率联合组(80.4％)优于TNFR Ⅱ -Fc组(71.1％)和甲氨蝶呤组(56.7％),差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05或P＜0.01).治疗24周后,联合组ACR50和ACR70的达标率分别为53.6％和27.7％,TNFRⅡ-Fc组为41.2％和15.8％,甲氨蝶呤组为30.8％和7.7％,联合组ACR50达标率优于甲氨蝶呤组(P＜0.01),联合组ACR70达标率优于TNFRⅡ-Fc组和甲氨蝶呤组(P＜0.05或P＜0.01).联合组的DAS28-红细胞沉降率(ESR)改善优于TNFRⅡ-Fc组和甲氨蝶呤组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).双手SHS评分治疗前后差值联合组(-1.7±11.2)较甲氨蝶呤组(2.1±11.5)显著下降(P=0.03).联合组不良反应发生率(40.9％)高于甲氨蝶呤组(28.8％),差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 本研究显示TNFRⅡ-Fc联合甲氨蝶呤较单独使用TNFRⅡ-Fc或甲氨蝶呤能更有效控制RA的活动性和影像学进展.     

Infliximab治疗类风湿关节炎的随机双盲平行多中心临床试验

目的评价infliximab与甲氨蝶呤(MTX)联合使用与单独使用MTX在治疗类风湿关节炎(RA)中的疗效与安全性。方法随机、双肓、平行、多中心试验。患者在入组前至少MTX治疗3个月,且MTX剂量稳定在7．5～20 mg/周,病情未得到满意控制。受试者在第0、2、6、14周分别接受3 mg/kg的infliximab或安慰剂静脉滴注,同时每周按同定剂量服MTX。受试者分别在试验的第0、2、6、14、18周随访．评价疗效和不良反应。疗效以美国风湿病学会(ACR)疗效评价指标为指标。其中以ACR20为主要疗效指标,ACR50、ACR70、关节肿胀数、关节肿胀评分、关节触痛数、晨僵持续时间、疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)及疲乏VAS评分、C反应蛋白(CRP)、血沉(ESR)、健康状况问卷(HAQ)为次要疗效指标。结果本研究试验组87例、对照组86例。试验第2周时,infliximab MTX组ACR20改善者占52．9％,对照组只有14．0％(P=0．0003)；且关节肿胀数、关节触痛数、晨僵时间、疼痛VAS的评分、CRP、ESR等指标明显改善,有统计学意义(P＜0．05)。第18周,infliximab MTX组ACR20改善者75．9％,对照组只有48．8％(P= 0．0003)：ACR50改善者43．7％、对照组25．6％(P=0．01 1)。与单用MTX对照组相比,其不良事件发生率差异无统计学意义(P=0．215),多数不良事件无需停药,试验组有1例结核感染者。结论Infliximab MTX治疗RA的疗效明显优于单用MTX的疗效,能迅速改善RA的各项症状、体征和实验室炎性活动指标。     

甲氨蝶呤联合环磷酰胺治疗类风湿关节炎随机单盲对照临床研究

目的 评价甲氨蝶呤(MTX)联合环磷酰胺(CTX)及单独应用MTX、单独应用CTX治疗类风湿关节炎(RA)的疗效和安全性.方法 本研究为随机、单盲、对照的临床试验.符合纳入及排除标准的RA患者随机分为单用MTX(10～15 mg/周)、单用CTX(400 mg/2～3周)及MTX联合CTX治疗组(MTX10～15 mg/周+CTX 400 mg/2～3周).疗程24周,在基线、6、12、24周进行疗效及安全性评估.以美国风湿病学会(ACR)疗效评价指标ACR20为主要疗效指标,ACR50、ACR70、欧洲抗风湿联盟(EULAR)疗效指标、疼痛目视模拟测试表(VAS)评分、患者对自身健康状况的总体评估(PGA)、医生总体评价、压痛关节数(TJC)、压痛关节指数(TJI)、肿胀关节数(SJC)、肿胀关节指数(SJI)、健康评估问卷(HAQ)为次要疗效指标.结果 在第24周,MTX+CTX组达ACR20改善的患者比例(81%)高于MTX组(56%)及CTX组(35%),差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).24周时MTX+CTX组达ACR50改善的患者比例高于CTX组(P＜0.05).与MTX组之间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).在第24周,MTX+CTX组达到EULAR有效的患者比例(77%)高于MTX组(48%)及CTX组(35%),差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).24周时MTX+CTX组在TJC/TJI、SJC/SJI疼痛VAS评分、ESR的改善程度高于MTX组(P＜0.05).在压痛关节数脂数、肿胀关节数/指数、疼痛VAS评分、PGA、医生总体评价、HAQ、ESR的改善程度高于CTX组(P＜0.05).3组之间不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义.结论 MTX联合CTX治疗能显著改善RA的症状、体征和实验室炎性指标,疗效优于单用MTX及单用CTX.两者联合治疗安全耐受性好,与单用MTX及单用CTX相比,并不增加不良反应的发生率.     

A comparison study of a recombinant tumor necrosis factor receptor:Fc fusion protein (rhTNFR:Fc) and methotrexate in treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis in China

The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rhTNFR:Fc: a recombinant tumor necrosis factor receptor:Fc fusion protein compared with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in China. We treated 238 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with either twice weekly subcutaneous injection rhTNFR:Fc (25 mg) or weekly oral MTX (mean 15 mg per week) for 24 weeks (registration number: 2003L01264). Clinical responses were defined as the percent improvement in disease activity according to the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR-N). As compared with MTX-treated patients, more patients who received rhTNFR:Fc had ACR20 improvement in disease activity during the first 2 weeks (P < 0.05). Similarly, more patients treated with rhTNFR:Fc having ACR20, ACR50, ACR70 improvement in disease activity during 8 weeks (P < 0.05). At the end of 12-week treatment, patients received rhTNFR:Fc also had significant improvement at ACR20 (P < 0.05). Compared with oral MTX, patients received rhTNFR:Fc also had significant improvement at ACR70 at the end of 24 weeks treatment (P < 0.05). In conclusion, compared with oral MTX subcutaneous injection, rhTNFR:Fc acted more rapidly to release symptoms and signs of active RA in Chinese patients, and well tolerated in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in China.     

Comparison of the clinical efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus oral administration of methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results of a six-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled, phase IV trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) versus oral administration of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: MTX-naive patients with active RA (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints >or= 4) were eligible for the study if they had not previously taken biologic agents and had not taken disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for 2 weeks prior to randomization. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 15 mg/week of MTX either orally (2 7.5-mg tablets plus a dummy prefilled syringe; n=187 patients) or SC (prefilled syringe containing 10 mg/ml plus 2 dummy tablets; n=188 patients) for 24 weeks. At week 16, patients who did not meet the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) were switched from 15 mg of oral MTX to 15 mg of SC MTX and from 15 mg of SC MTX to 20 mg of SC MTX for the remaining 8 weeks, still in a blinded manner. The primary outcome was an ACR20 response at 24 weeks. RESULTS: At week 24, significantly more patients treated with SC MTX than with oral MTX showed ACR20 (78% versus 70%) and ACR70 (41% versus 33%) responses. Patients with a disease duration >or= 12 months had even higher ACR20 response rates (89% for SC administration and 63% for oral). In 52 of the ACR20 nonresponders (14%), treatment was switched at week 16. Changing from oral to SC MTX and from 15 mg to 20 mg of SC MTX resulted in 30% and 23% ACR20 response rates, respectively, in these patients. MTX was well tolerated. The rate of adverse events was similar in all groups. CONCLUSION: This 6-month prospective, randomized, controlled trial is the first to examine oral versus SC administration of MTX. We found that SC administration was significantly more effective than oral administration of the same MTX dosage. There was no difference in tolerability.     

The efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment: results of a phase IIB randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of different rituximab doses plus methotrexate (MTX), with or without glucocorticoids, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) resistant to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including biologic agents. METHODS: A total of 465 patients were randomized into 9 treatment groups: 3 rituximab groups (placebo [n = 149], 500 mg [n = 124], or 1,000 mg [n = 192] on days 1 and 15) each also taking either placebo glucocorticoids, intravenous methylprednisolone premedication, or intravenous methylprednisolone premedication plus oral prednisone for 2 weeks. All patients received MTX (10-25 mg/week); no other DMARDs were permitted. RESULTS: Significantly more patients who received 2 500-mg or 2 1,000-mg infusions of rituximab met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at week 24 (55% and 54%, respectively) compared with placebo (28%; P < 0.0001). ACR50 responses were achieved by 33%, 34%, and 13% of patients, respectively (P < 0.001), and ACR70 responses were achieved by 13%, 20%, and 5% of patients (P < 0.05). Changes in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (-1.79, -2.05, -0.67; P < 0.0001) and moderate to good responses on the European League Against Rheumatism criteria (P < 0.0001) reflected the ACR criteria responses. Glucocorticoids did not contribute significantly to the primary efficacy end point, ACR20 response at 24 weeks. Intravenous glucocorticoid premedication reduced the frequency and intensity of first infusion-associated events; oral glucocorticoids conferred no additional safety benefit. Rituximab was well tolerated; the type and severity of infections was similar to those for placebo. CONCLUSION: Both rituximab doses were effective and well tolerated when added to MTX therapy in patients with active RA. The primary end point (ACR20 response) was independent of glucocorticoids, although intravenous glucocorticoid premedication improved tolerability during the first rituximab infusion.     

Evidence of radiographic benefit of treatment with infliximab plus methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients who had no clinical improvement: a detailed subanalysis of data from the anti-tumor necrosis factor trial in rheumatoid arthritis with concomitant therapy study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between inflammation and joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who have not responded clinically to treatment. METHODS: Changes from baseline to week 54 in clinical variables and measures of radiographic progression were compared between patients who received infliximab (3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 4 or 8 weeks) plus methotrexate (MTX) and those who received MTX plus placebo in the Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in RA with Concomitant Therapy trial. RESULTS: At week 54, patients who did not show 20% improvement by American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 nonresponders) while receiving infliximab plus MTX exhibited mild but statistically significant improvement in clinical variables, including the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) (P < 0.001), tender joint count (P = 0.014), swollen joint count (P < 0.001), and C-reactive protein (CRP) level (P < 0.001). Whereas the clinical and CRP changes among ACR20 nonresponders to infliximab plus MTX were small and much lower than among ACR20 responders to this treatment, radiographic progression among ACR20 nonresponders to infliximab plus MTX was significantly inhibited (P < 0.001) compared with ACR20 nonresponders to MTX plus placebo. Radiographic progression was much greater in patients receiving MTX plus placebo than in patients receiving infliximab plus MTX, irrespective of ACR response status (mean change in modified Sharp/van der Heijde score 6.0 in ACR20 responders and 7.2 in ACR20 nonresponders in the MTX plus placebo-treated group, versus 0.1 in ACR20 responders and 1.2 in ACR20 nonresponders in the infliximab plus MTX-treated group). Furthermore, among patients who were ACR20 nonresponders through week 54, patients who were DAS nonresponders at weeks 30 and 54, and patients without any improvement in individual clinical variables, those receiving infliximab plus MTX still demonstrated inhibition of structural damage that was statistically significant compared with inhibition in patients who received MTX plus placebo (P < 0.05 to P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Even in patients without clinical improvement, treatment with infliximab plus MTX provided significant benefit with regard to the destructive process, suggesting that in such patients these 2 measures of disease are dissociated.     

A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, controlled clinical trial of chicken type II collagen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of chicken type II collagen (CCII) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: We conducted a prospective, 24-week, followup, multicenter, double-blind, controlled study of CCII (0.1 mg/day) versus MTX (10 mg/week) in patients with active RA. Clinical assessments were performed at screening and at 12, 18, and 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 236 RA patients were included; 211 patients (89.4%) completed the 24-week followup. In both groups there was a decrease in pain, morning stiffness, tender joint count, swollen joint count, Health Assessment Questionnaire score, and investigator and patient assessment of function; all differences were statistically significant. In the MTX group, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level decreased. Rheumatoid factor did not change in either group. At 24 weeks, 68.57% of patients in the CCII group and 83.02% in the MTX group met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20), and 40.95% and 57.54%, respectively, met the ACR50 criteria. The ACR20 and ACR50 response rates in the CCII group were lower than those in the MTX group, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Gastrointestinal symptoms were common in both groups. There were fewer and milder side effects in the CCII group than the MTX group. The difference in incidence of adverse events between the 2 groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: CCII is effective in the treatment of RA. CCII is well tolerated, and the incidence of adverse events of CCII is lower than that of MTX.     

A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,phase III study of the human anti‐tumor necrosis factor antibody adalimumab administered as subcutaneous injections in Korean rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with methotrexate

Objective: Adalimumab is a fully human, monoclonal, antitumour necrosis factor antibody approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in more than 60 countries. We investigated the efficacy and safety of 40 mg every‐other‐week (eow) subcutaneous injections of adalimumab with methotrexate (MTX) versus placebo with MTX in Korean patients with RA with insufficient responses to MTX. Methods: This was a 24‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase III study conducted at six sites in Korea. The primary efficacy endpoint was a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 24. Secondary endpoints included ACR50, ACR70, and individual ACR components. Beginning at week 18, non‐responders (< 20% reduction in swollen and tender joint counts) could switch to rescue therapy with open‐label adalimumab 40 mg eow. Results: Of the 128 patients enrolled, 65 received adalimumab and 63 received placebo. An ACR20 response at week 24 was achieved by 61.5% of patients receiving adalimumab versus 36.5% receiving placebo (P < 0.01). ACR50 and ACR70 responses were achieved by 43.1% and 21.5% of adalimumab patients versus 14.3% and 7.9% of placebo patients (P < 0.001 and P < 0.05, respectively). Adalimumab significantly improved all seven ACR core components. Statistically significant improvements in ACR20 were observed with adalimumab as early as week 2. Adalimumab was generally well tolerated; there were no significant differences in incidences of adverse events between groups. Conclusions: In Korean patients with RA with insufficient responses to MTX, combination therapy with adalimumab and MTX was more efficacious than placebo and MTX in reducing RA signs and symptoms.     

A multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial of anakinra (Kineret), a recombinant interleukin 1 receptor antagonist, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with background methotrexate

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