Fcgamma receptor type IIIA genotype and response to tumor necrosis factor alpha-blocking agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a functional single-nucleotide polymorphism in the gene encoding Fcgamma receptor type IIIA (FcgammaRIIIA) correlates with the response to treatment with tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: The study population comprised 282 Swedish patients with RA in whom the therapeutic efficacy of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs had been insufficient. Infliximab or etanercept treatment was initiated, and patients were evaluated after 3 months, using the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20), the ACR50, and the ACR70 or the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria. The chi-square test was used to compare response rates across FcgammaRIIIA genotypes. RESULTS: No differences in genotype distribution were observed among nonresponders compared with ACR20 responders (P = 0.80), ACR50 responders (P = 0.56), or ACR70 responders (P = 0.91). Similar results were observed when analyzing infliximab and etanercept separately or when using the EULAR response criteria. CONCLUSION: Unlike the findings of a previous study, the results of the current study suggest that the 158V/F polymorphism of FcgammaRIIIA is very unlikely to influence the clinical efficacy of infliximab or etanercept in patients with RA.     

Pretreatment cytokine profiles of peripheral blood mononuclear cells and serum from patients with rheumatoid arthritis in different american college of rheumatology response groups to methotrexate

OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of putative target cytokines for methotrexate (MTX) treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as predictors for treatment outcome. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients with RA were characterized according to demographic and disease associated features and followed prospectively before and after 6 months of treatment with MTX. Before starting MTX treatment, serum was obtained from each patient and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were isolated. PBMC were cultured 2 days under resting conditions, and interleukin 1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra), IL-1beta, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor p55+75 (sTNFR p55+p75), and TNF-a release into cell culture supernatants and corresponding serum cytokine levels were determined by specific ELISA. Constitutive production and circulating levels of cytokines and cytokine inhibitors were correlated to the clinical response after 6 months of MTX treatment, and patients were categorized into 4 different groups according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria (ACR < 20, 20-50, 50-70, > 70% improvement from baseline). RESULTS: Good (ACR 50-70) or excellent (ACR > 70) responses to MTX treatment were seen in groups of patients with a higher proportion of males (25 and 43%) associated with a significantly lower ratio of IL-1ra/IL-1beta (p < 0.00001) constitutively produced by PBMC (ratio < 100) compared with nonresponding (ACR < 20) patients (males 7.7%; ratio > 100). The ratios in 3 female poor responders (ACR 20-50) were in between. The decreased ratios of IL-1ra/IL-1beta in most good and excellent responders were due to an enhanced constitutive IL-1beta release from PBMC (p < 0.004) compared to the groups of non or poor responders. Much less pronounced, there was a slightly significant increase of sTNFR p55 shedding from PBMC and increase of sTNFR p75 serum levels in good and excellent responders (both p < 0.02). In contrast, there were no intergroup differences regarding constitutive IL-1ra release, sTNFR p75 shedding, and IL-1ra and sTNFR p55 serum levels and various demographic and disease associated characteristics of patients. CONCLUSION: Determination of cellularly produced IL-1beta and even more of the IL-1ra/IL-1beta synthesis in PBMC may be useful to predict the outcome of RA patients undergoing treatment with MTX and may characterize a subset of RA that is more responsive to IL-1 directed therapeutic interventions.     

Anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy does not diminish the immune response to influenza vaccine in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

The superiority of the combination therapy of methotrexate (MTX) and anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biological agents over anti-TNF monotherapy in MTX-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been demonstrated. We investigated the efficacy and safety of continuation versus discontinuation of MTX at the commencement of etanercept (ETN) in patients with active RA despite MTX therapy. In total, 151 patients with active RA despite treatment with MTX were randomized to either ETN 25 mg twice a week and MTX 6–8 mg/week (the E + M group) or ETN alone (the E group). Co-primary endpoints included the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good response rate and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rate at week 24. Demographic and clinical features between groups at baseline were similar. The EULAR good response rates were significantly higher in the E + M group (52%) than in the E group (33%) at week 24 (p = 0.0001). Although the ACR50 response rate, one of the co-primary endpoints, and the ACR70 response rate at week 24 were not significantly greater in the E + M group (64 and 38%, respectively) than in the E group (48 and 26%, respectively), the ACR20 response rate was significantly greater in the E + M group (90%) than in the E group (64%; p = 0.0002). Safety profiles were similar for the groups. Thus, MTX should be continued at the commencement of ETN therapy, even in RA patients who show an inappropriate response to MTX.     

Step-down approach using either cyclosporin A or methotrexate as maintenance therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and outcome of the step-down approach using either cyclosporin A (CSA) or methotrexate (MTX) as maintenance therapy following 6 months treatment with these 2 agents in combination in early, nonerosive rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Fifty-seven patients younger than 65 years with early, nonerosive RA were first treated with CSA and MTX in combination for 6 months. They were then randomly stepped down to single-agent maintenance treatment for another 18 months. Safety, clinical efficacy, survival on treatment, and radiographic progression were evaluated. RESULTS: When being treated with combination therapy, 7 of the 57 patients (12.3%) withdrew because of adverse events. Of the remaining 50 patients, 42 (84.0%) were American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% responders, 30 (60.0%) were ACR 50% responders, and 23 (46.0%) were ACR 70% responders. At month 6, 22 patients were randomized to CSA and 27 to MTX. During this trial period, the treatment was discontinued by 16 patients taking CSA (mainly because of loss of efficacy) and by 4 taking MTX. At month 24, the probability (+/- SEM) of survival on treatment was 0.273 +/- 0.09 for CSA and 0.852 +/- 0.07 for MTX. Of the 6 CSA patients who completed the trial, 4 (66.7%) were ACR 20% responders, and 3 (50%) were both ACR 50% and ACR 70% responders. Of the 23 completers in the MTX arm, 21 (91.3%) were ACR 20% responders, 18 (78.3%) were ACR 50%, and 10 (43.5%) were ACR 70% responders. The treatment was not responsible for severe adverse events. Radiography showed a slow progression in the damage score and number of eroded joints in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Stepping down to single agent maintenance therapy following 6 months of combination treatment with CSA and MTX in early RA was only successful with MTX. Because this treatment did not prevent some radiographic progression, other approaches (e.g., step-up approach) may be more appropriate in early RA.     

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.     

Etanercept (ETN) with methotrexate (MTX) is better than ETN monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite MTX therapy: a randomized trial

The superiority of the combination therapy of methotrexate (MTX) and anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biological agents over anti-TNF monotherapy in MTX-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been demonstrated. We investigated the efficacy and safety of continuation versus discontinuation of MTX at the commencement of etanercept (ETN) in patients with active RA despite MTX therapy. In total, 151 patients with active RA despite treatment with MTX were randomized to either ETN 25 mg twice a week and MTX 6–8 mg/week (the E + M group) or ETN alone (the E group). Co-primary endpoints included the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good response rate and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rate at week 24. Demographic and clinical features between groups at baseline were similar. The EULAR good response rates were significantly higher in the E + M group (52%) than in the E group (33%) at week 24 (p = 0.0001). Although the ACR50 response rate, one of the co-primary endpoints, and the ACR70 response rate at week 24 were not significantly greater in the E + M group (64 and 38%, respectively) than in the E group (48 and 26%, respectively), the ACR20 response rate was significantly greater in the E + M group (90%) than in the E group (64%; p = 0.0002). Safety profiles were similar for the groups. Thus, MTX should be continued at the commencement of ETN therapy, even in RA patients who show an inappropriate response to MTX.     

A clinical study of CPH 82 vs methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of CPH 82 in comparison with methotrexate (MTX) in adult patients with early, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to compare the tolerance and safety profiles of the two drugs. METHODS: The study was a 24-week, double-blind, randomized study in 10 centres of 100 patients with active RA, with a disease duration of less than 2 yr at the start of treatment, which consisted of either CPH 82 300 mg/day or MTX 10 mg/week. The six primary effect variables were: number of swollen joints, Ritchie's articular index, patient's pain score, patient's global score, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and C-reactive protein (CRP). Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), physician's global score and the efficacy according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria were also analysed. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement for both drugs in all variables. Significant differences between the drugs in favour of MTX were found only in patient's pain score, CRP and ESR. By the EULAR criteria, 76% and 86% were judged to be responders in the CPH 82 and MTX groups, respectively. By the ACR criteria, the corresponding figures were 58% and 64%. The most common side-effects were gastrointestinal, which were similar in both groups. The numbers of treatment failures due to adverse events were two with CPH 82 and 14 with MTX. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effect of CPH 82 in this study was comparable to that of MTX at a dose of 10 mg/week. Both drugs reduced acute-phase reactants, MTX more effectively than CPH 82. The safety profile of CPH 82 was more favourable than that of MTX without folic acid supplementation.     

Comparative effectiveness of biologics for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Our aim was to establish the comparative effectiveness of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) biologics, using a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The systematic review used randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with RA who failed treatment with conventional disease-modifying agents for rheumatoid disease (cDMARDs). We compared the effectiveness of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, and rituximab to tocilizumab, a recent biologic with a different mechanism of action (anti-IL-6 receptor). A network meta-analysis (NMA) included the indirect and direct evidence previously selected. In total, 207 articles were included describing 68 RCTs. The NMA showed that tocilizumab monotherapy was superior to standard care (ACR20, OR 13.27, 95 % CrI [3.958, 43.98]; ACR50, 17.45 [10.18, 31.24]; ACR70, 37.77 [7.226, 216.3]; EULAR, 10.42 [1.963, 54.8]); and methotrexate (MTX; ACR50, OR 5.44 [4.142, 7.238]; ACR70, 7.364 [1.4, 30.83]; EULAR, 4.226 [1.184, 15.58]) at 26 weeks. Similarly, the combination of tocilizumab + MTX was significantly better than standard care/placebo and MTX alone for ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and EULAR at 26 weeks (OR 18.63 [5.32, 66.81]; 24.27 [14.5, 41.91]; 46.13 [10.08, 277]; 14.23 [2.493, 84.02]; 4.169 [2.267, 7.871]; 5.44 [4.142, 7.238]; 8.731 [4.203, 19.29]; 7.306 [4.393, 13.04], respectively). At 52 weeks, compared to MTX alone, tocilizumab + MTX was significantly better for ACR20 and ACR50 response. Few significant differences were found between tocilizumab (alone or in combination) and any other biologics. Results must be considered in context with the limitations of the available evidence. This NMA suggests that tocilizumab was superior to cDMARDs and as effective as other biologics for RA.     

Remission in rheumatoid arthritis: wishful thinking or clinical reality?

OBJECTIVES: To review the concept of remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). To delineate differences between significant clinical improvements, very low disease activity, and the achievement of true remission. To evaluate the prevalence of these outcomes with biologic therapy and traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) regimens. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched for the key words "remission" and "rheumatoid arthritis." Efficacy data of RA clinical trials from 1985 to 2004 are based on a literature review of medical journals and abstracts from rheumatology meetings. We review 3 well-defined sets of criteria established by the ACR, EULAR, and the FDA for measuring remission. RESULTS: Defining remissions in clinical trials and clinical practice requires appropriate standardized and objective outcome measures, such as the ACR and EULAR remission criteria. Traditional DMARDs often provide symptom relief, improvements in physical function, and the slowing of radiographic progression in patients with RA, but rarely lead to the complete cessation of RA activity. Remission, as defined by the ACR criteria, has been observed in 7 to 22% of patients treated with traditional DMARD monotherapy (ie, gold, penicillamine, methotrexate [MTX], cyclosporine A, or sulfasalazine), but these remissions have often been short-lived. Treatments with DMARD combinations, biologic monotherapy, and biologic combination therapy with MTX offer greater hope and may facilitate the higher rates of remission. Clinical trial results have shown that newer DMARDs such as leflunomide or the combination of multiple DMARDs can generally elicit greater EULAR remission rates (ranging from 13 to 42%) than monotherapies. Biologic combinations with MTX have also been shown to induce significant remission (as defined by the EULAR criteria) in RA patients, with a 31% rate observed with infliximab plus MTX at 54 weeks, a 50% rate observed for adalimumab plus MTX after 2 years of therapy, and a 41% rate observed for etanercept plus MTX after 2 years of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of biologics and combination therapy, identifying remission or at least very low disease activity as the ultimate goal in RA therapy should become the new standard for the outcome of all RA trials. The criteria established by the FDA, the ACR, and the EULAR represent an important step toward achieving this goal.     

A multicenter study of leukocytapheresis in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of leukocytapheresis (LCAP) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that is refractory to disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), we conducted a prospective, multicenter, open-label clinical trial.METHODS:We enrolled 38 active RA patients, including 32 patients who showed an inadequate response to > or = 2 DMARDs and 6 patients with rapidly progressive RA. All patients continued drug therapy and were treated with 5 LCAP sessions conducted at 1-week intervals. The clinical response was evaluated at baseline before starting LCAP and at 4 weeks after the completion of all the LCAP sessions using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and the 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR).RESULTS:Of the 35 patients who fulfilled the study's eligibility criteria, 24 (69%), 10 (29%), and 23 (66%) patients achieved 20% (ACR20), 50% (ACR50), and DAS28-C-reactive protein (CRP) EULAR improvement, respectively. The mean DAS28-CRP score of the 35 patients decreased significantly from 5.99 +/- 0.92 at baseline to 4.54 +/- 1.39 after treatment. Comparison analysis of the ACR20 responders and non-responders to LCAP revealed that 22 of 24 responders (92%) concomitantly received methotrexate, whereas significantly fewer, that is, 6 of 11 non-responders (55%) received methotrexate. Less frequent and transient mild-to-moderate adverse events, including nausea and headache, were seen in 12 of 189 LCAP sessions (6.3%).CONCLUSION:These results demonstrate the usefulness of LCAP in combination with DMARDs, particularly methotrexate, as an effective and safe treatment for refractory RA.     

Predictors of response to anti-TNF therapy according to ACR and EULAR criteria in patients with established RA: results from the South Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group Register

Objective. To identify factors predicting response to firstTNF blocking treatment course in patients with established RAwith a special focus on gender differences. Methods. Patients with active RA initiating their first treatmentcourse of TNF-blocking therapy were enrolled. The study periodwas March 1999 through September 2006. The prospective protocolincluded information on demographics, clinical characteristicsof patients and response measures. Fulfilment of ACR 50–70%improvement and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) goodresponse or remission [28-joint disease activity score (DAS28)<2.6] at 3 months were chosen as primary outcome measures.Potential predictors of responses were identified using multivariatebinary logistic regression models. Results. In total, 1565 patients were included in the study.Gender did not influence treatment response. Consistently, concomitantmethotrexate (MTX) was significantly associated with EULAR remission,EULAR good response, ACR50 response and ACR70 response withodds ratios (ORs) 1.97, 2.13, 2.10 and 1.75, respectively. Concurrenttreatment with other DMARDs was also significantly associatedwith EULAR remission, EULAR good response and ACR50 response(OR: 1.96, 2.24 and 1.94, respectively). Likewise, low HAQ atbaseline consistently predicted good clinical outcome. Diseaseactivity at baseline was directly associated with favourableresponse when measured by ACR50 and ACR70 (OR: 1.59 and 1.60,respectively), whereas DAS28 score at baseline was inverselyassociated with EULAR remission (OR: 0.78). Conclusions. In this observational study of patients with establishedRA, gender did not predict response to anti-TNF therapy, whereastreatment with concomitant DMARDs, especially MTX and low disabilitywere associated with good response. Choice of outcome measuresmay influence the predictive value of baseline features. KEY WORDS: Response, Anti-TNF- therapy, Biologics register, Predictors, Rheumatoid arthritis Submitted 10 August 2007; revised version accepted 2 January 2008.     

Response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: how useful are they?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), and simple disease activity index (SDAI) response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis at the individual level in an observational cohort. METHODS: 184 outpatients were followed using a structured protocol. For each patient, the responses according to ACR 20% and 50%, EULAR moderate and good, and SDAI minor and major responses were calculated. For comparison, improvements in health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) score of 0.22 and 0.5 were calculated. The numbers of individuals fulfilling the criteria at each level were compared, and the numbers fulfilling any two sets of response criteria calculated. The EULAR "moderate" and "good" responses were grouped together as "overall," and SDAI "minor" and "major" were merged into SDAI "overall". RESULTS: All 94 ACR 20 responders were found in the EULAR and SDAI "overall" response groups, and 118 of 124 SDAI "overall" responders were found in the EULAR "overall" group. In contrast, of 53 ACR 50 responders, only 34 were found in the EULAR "good" or SDAI "major" group. Among the 56 patients in the EULAR "good" response group, only 26 met the SDAI "major" response. Improvement in HAQ score performed similarly to the other response criteria sets at the group levels. CONCLUSIONS: For individual patients, agreement is good at the level of ACR 20 response, when EULAR overall, SDAI overall, or HAQ 0.22 criteria are applied. Agreement between ACR 50, EULAR good, SDAI major, and HAQ 0.5 response is poor. This should be considered when response criteria are used for clinical decisions.     

Rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: Results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating primary efficacy and safety at twenty-four weeks

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies and to explore the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rituximab in this population. METHODS: We evaluated primary efficacy and safety at 24 weeks in patients enrolled in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA (REFLEX) Trial, a 2-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of rituximab therapy. Patients with active RA and an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF agents were randomized to receive intravenous rituximab (1 course, consisting of 2 infusions of 1,000 mg each) or placebo, both with background MTX. The primary efficacy end point was a response on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks. Secondary end points were responses on the ACR50 and ACR70 improvement criteria, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria at 24 weeks. Additional end points included scores on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index (DI), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) instruments, as well as Genant-modified Sharp radiographic scores at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Patients assigned to placebo (n = 209) and rituximab (n = 311) had active, longstanding RA. At week 24, significantly more (P < 0.0001) rituximab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients demonstrated ACR20 (51% versus 18%), ACR50 (27% versus 5%), and ACR70 (12% versus 1%) responses and moderate-to-good EULAR responses (65% versus 22%). All ACR response parameters were significantly improved in rituximab-treated patients, who also had clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, disability, and health-related quality of life (demonstrated by FACIT-F, HAQ DI, and SF-36 scores, respectively) and showed a trend toward less progression in radiographic end points. Rituximab depleted peripheral CD20+ B cells, but the mean immunoglobulin levels (IgG, IgM, and IgA) remained within normal ranges. Most adverse events occurred with the first rituximab infusion and were of mild-to-moderate severity. The rate of serious infections was 5.2 per 100 patient-years in the rituximab group and 3.7 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: At 24 weeks, a single course of rituximab with concomitant MTX therapy provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in disease activity in patients with active, longstanding RA who had an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF therapies.     

Rapid alleviation of signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis with intravenous or subcutaneous administration of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate

OBJECTIVE: This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, Phase 1 study assessed the magnitude, onset, and duration of response with intravenous (i.v.) and subcutaneous (s.c.) adalimumab (Humira, Abbott Laboratories) combined with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite previous MTX therapy. METHODS: Fifty-four patients were randomized to two injections of i.v. or s.c. adalimumab (1 mg/kg) or placebo while continuing on MTX (mean dose, 15.7 mg/week). Dosing intervals were determined by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, and were allowed to range from 1 to 3 months. Efficacy was mainly assessed using the EULAR response criteria and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria. RESULTS: Moderate EULAR response was achieved at least once within 29 days after the first injection in 83% and 61% of patients receiving i.v. and s.c. adalimumab respectively, compared with 44% for placebo [probability (p) < or = 0.05 for i.v. adalimumab versus placebo]. A 20% improvement in disease activity according to the ACR criteria (ACR20 response) was achieved by 72% and 67% of patients receiving i.v. and s.c. adalimumab respectively, compared with 28% for placebo (p < or = 0.01 and p < or = 0.05, respectively, versus placebo). By Day 15 after the first and second injections, statistically significant moderate EULAR and ACR20 response rates were achieved with either i.v. or s.c. adalimumab compared with placebo (p < or = 0.05). The mean times to second injection for i.v. adalimumab, s.c. adalimumab, and placebo were 42.2 days (range: 27-84 days), 38.3 days (range: 26-85 days), and 28.4 days (range: 26-32 days), respectively (minimum time allowed by the protocol between the first and second injections was 4 weeks). Adalimumab in combination with MTX was well tolerated, with no patients being withdrawn because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Either i.v. or s.c. adalimumab added to MTX significantly improved the signs and symptoms of RA compared with MTX alone. Subcutaneously administered adalimumab appeared to provide a response that was as great, as rapid, and as enduring as that with i.v. adalimumab.     

Step‐down approach using either cyclosporin A or methotrexate as maintenance therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility and outcome of the step‐down approach using either cyclosporin A (CSA) or methotrexate (MTX) as maintenance therapy following 6 months treatment with these 2 agents in combination in early, nonerosive rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Fifty‐seven patients younger than 65 years with early, nonerosive RA were first treated with CSA and MTX in combination for 6 months. They were then randomly stepped down to single‐agent maintenance treatment for another 18 months. Safety, clinical efficacy, survival on treatment, and radiographic progression were evaluated.

Results

When being treated with combination therapy, 7 of the 57 patients (12.3%) withdrew because of adverse events. Of the remaining 50 patients, 42 (84.0%) were American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% responders, 30 (60.0%) were ACR 50% responders, and 23 (46.0%) were ACR 70% responders. At month 6, 22 patients were randomized to CSA and 27 to MTX. During this trial period, the treatment was discontinued by 16 patients taking CSA (mainly because of loss of efficacy) and by 4 taking MTX. At month 24, the probability (± SEM) of survival on treatment was 0.273 ± 0.09 for CSA and 0.852 ± 0.07 for MTX. Of the 6 CSA patients who completed the trial, 4 (66.7%) were ACR 20% responders, and 3 (50%) were both ACR 50% and ACR 70% responders. Of the 23 completers in the MTX arm, 21 (91.3%) were ACR 20% responders, 18 (78.3%) were ACR 50%, and 10 (43.5%) were ACR 70% responders. The treatment was not responsible for severe adverse events. Radiography showed a slow progression in the damage score and number of eroded joints in both treatment groups.

Conclusion

Stepping down to single agent maintenance therapy following 6 months of combination treatment with CSA and MTX in early RA was only successful with MTX. Because this treatment did not prevent some radiographic progression, other approaches (e.g., step‐up approach) may be more appropriate in early RA.

     

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.     

Dose escalation of parenteral methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis that has been unresponsive to conventional doses of methotrexate: a randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether dose escalation of intramuscular (IM) methotrexate (MTX) up to 45 mg/week improves disease control in patients who have active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite receiving conventional doses (15 mg/week) of IM MTX, and to obtain preliminary data on patient tolerability and adverse effects of higher doses of IM MTX. METHODS: Patients >18 years of age who had active RA, defined as a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) of >3.2, and who had received 15-20 mg/week of oral MTX for at least 2 months were switched (week 0) to 15 mg/week of IM MTX for 6 weeks. Patients whose DAS28 remained >3.2 at both week 4 and week 6 were randomized, in a double-blind manner, either to continue to receive 15 mg/week IM MTX with monthly placebo escalation or to receive escalating doses of IM MTX monthly up to 45 mg/week. The dose of MTX or placebo was escalated every 4 weeks if the DAS28 was >2.5. Safety assessments and determination of the DAS28 were performed every 2 weeks and monthly, respectively. Disease activity parameters from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core disease activity set and health status as recorded on the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 were determined at baseline (week 0) and final assessment (week 22). The primary outcome was the percentage of patients in each group achieving a target DAS28 of <3.2. Secondary outcomes comprised the percentage of patients whose DAS28 improved by >1.2, the percentage of patients achieving a 20% improvement in the ACR core disease activity measures (ACR20), and the percentage of patients achieving a good response, a moderate response, or no response in accordance with the EULAR response criteria. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were eligible for entry and were switched from oral MTX to 15 mg/week IM MTX. At baseline, the mean +/- SD DAS28 was 5.6 +/- 0.88; after 6 weeks of IM MTX, the DAS28 had improved by a mean of 0.42 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.15-0.69). At 6 weeks, 54 patients still had a DAS28 of >3.2 and were therefore eligible for randomization. By 22 weeks, 1 patient (3.7%) in each group achieved the primary outcome of a DAS28 <3.2 (95% CI for the difference between the groups -15% to +15%). Five patients (18.5%) in each group showed an improvement of >1.2 in the DAS28 (95% CI for the difference between the groups -18% to +18%). One patient (3.7%) in each group achieved an ACR20 response, but none achieved a good response as defined by the EULAR response criteria. One patient in each group had a serious adverse reaction; minor adverse reactions were more frequently reported in the dose escalation group. CONCLUSION: Switching from oral to parenteral MTX 15 mg/week results in a minor improvement in disease control. For patients with active RA receiving 15 mg/week IM MTX, increasing the dose up to 45 mg/week does not improve disease control. Higher doses of IM MTX were generally well tolerated and not associated with an increase in serious adverse reactions to the drug.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options for patients with methotrexate-resistant rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: Recently, new treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) have become available. Given the wide variability in efficacy and costs among these different treatment options, we sought to determine their cost-effectiveness (CE) in order to guide policy in different cost-constrained settings. METHODS: We performed a CE analysis comparing 6 treatment options for patients with MTX-resistant RA: 1) etanercept + MTX, 2) etanercept monotherapy, 3) cyclosporine + MTX, 4) triple therapy (hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and MTX), 5) continuation of MTX monotherapy, and 6) no second-line agent. A decision model was used with a time horizon of 6 months. We used 2 measures of effectiveness based on published clinical trial data: the American College of Rheumatology 20% response criteria (ACR 20); and a weighted average of proportions of patients achieving responses of ACR 70, ACR 50, and ACR 20 (ACR 70 weighted response [ACR 70WR]). Incremental CE ratios were calculated as the additional cost per patient achieving either outcome, compared with the next least expensive option. To help interpret CE relative to these RA-specific outcomes, we conducted a separate, "reference" CE analysis of MTX use in MTX-naive RA patients, using the same outcomes. RESULTS: In our reference analysis, MTX therapy for MTX-naive RA cost $1,100 per ACR 20 outcome and $1,500 per ACR 70WR, compared with no second-line agent. In our base-case analysis with either outcome, MTX continuation, cyclosporine + MTX, and etanercept monotherapy cost more, but either were not more efficacious or had a higher incremental CE ratio than the next most expensive option (i.e., they were dominated). Therefore, these options were not cost-effective. The least expensive option, triple therapy, cost 1.3 times more per patient with ACR 20 outcome ($1,500/ACR 20) and 2.1 times more per ACR 70WR ($3,100/ACR 70WR) than MTX therapy for MTX-naive RA. The most efficacious option, the combination of etanercept and MTX, cost 38 times more per patient with ACR 20 outcome ($4,600/ACR 20) and 23 times more per ACR 70WR ($34,800/ACR 70WR) than MTX therapy for MTX-naive RA. Overall, the results of extensive sensitivity analyses did not substantially affect these results. CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicates that if 15 mg/week MTX is cost-effective for achieving ACR 20 or ACR 70WR in MTX-naive RA over a 6-month period, then most likely so is triple therapy in MTX-resistant RA. Whether etanercept + MTX is cost-effective depends on whether $34,800/ACR 70WR (or $42,600/ACR 20) over a 6-month period is considered acceptable.     

Radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis: a 12-month randomized controlled study comparing the combination of cyclosporin and methotrexate with methotrexate alone

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with cyclosporin A (CsA) and methotrexate (MTX) in combination for 12 months show a lower rate of radiographic deterioration than those treated with MTX alone. METHODS: In this controlled and randomized single-blind trial, 61 consecutive patients with untreated RA of less than 2 yr duration were treated with either CsA + MTX combination therapy (n = 30) or MTX alone (n = 31). The primary end-point was radiographic progression after 12 months, measured using the damage score (DS) of the Sharp and van der Heijde method. RESULTS: Although there was a significant difference between the mean baseline and 12-month DS in both treatment groups (MTX/CsA, 1.93 +/- 0.90; MTX, 7.47 +/- 2.03), it was significantly less in the combination arm (P = 0.018). Of the 30 evaluable CsA + MTX patients, 16 (53%) were ACR20 responders, 15 (50%) ACR50 and 14 (47%) ACR70; the corresponding figures in the MTX arm were 19 (61%), 13 (44%) and 6 (19%). Toxicity was acceptable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with early RA, CsA + MTX combination therapy led to a significantly lower rate of 12-month radiographic progression, was effective on inflammatory articular symptoms, and was well tolerated.     

Treatment of early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis: doxycycline plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of doxycycline plus methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX alone in the treatment of early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to attempt to differentiate the antibacterial and antimetalloproteinase effects of doxycycline. METHODS: Sixty-six patients with seropositive RA of <1 year's duration who had not been previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were randomized to receive 100 mg of doxycycline twice daily with MTX (high-dose doxycycline group), 20 mg of doxycycline twice daily with MTX (low-dose doxycycline group), or placebo with MTX (placebo group), in a 2-year double-blind study. Treatment was started with an MTX dosage of 7.5 mg/week, which was titrated every 3 months until remission was reached (maximum dosage of 17.5 mg/week). The primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement (ACR50) response at 2 years. RESULTS: ACR50 responses were observed in 41.6% of patients in the high-dose doxycycline group, 38.9% of those in the low-dose doxycycline group, and 12.5% of patients in the placebo group. Results of chi-square analysis of the ACR50 response in the high-dose doxycycline group versus that in the placebo group were significantly different (P = 0.02). Trend analysis revealed that the ACR20 response and the ACR50 response were significantly different between groups (P = 0.04 and P = 0.03, respectively). MTX doses at 2 years were not different among groups. Four patients in the high-dose doxycycline group, 2 patients in the low-dose doxycycline group, and 2 patients in the placebo group were withdrawn because of toxic reactions. CONCLUSION: In patients with early seropositive RA, initial therapy with MTX plus doxycycline was superior (based on an ACR50 response) to treatment with MTX alone. The therapeutic responses to low-dose and high-dose doxycycline were similar, suggesting that the antimetalloproteinase effects were more important than the antibacterial effects. Further studies to evaluate the mechanism of action of tetracyclines in RA are indicated.