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 ≥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 ≥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.

     

Golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacology of subcutaneous administration of golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blinded manner to receive injections of placebo plus MTX or 50 mg or 100 mg golimumab every 2 or 4 weeks plus MTX through week 48. Patients originally assigned to receive injections every 2 weeks had the interval increased to every 4 weeks starting at week 20. The primary end point was the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at week 16. The study was powered to detect a difference in the primary end point when the combined golimumab groups and at least 1 of the individual dose groups were compared with placebo. RESULTS: The primary end point was attained. Sixty-one percent of patients in the combined golimumab plus MTX dose groups achieved an ACR20 response at week 16 compared with 37% of patients in the placebo plus MTX group (P=0.010). In addition, 79% of patients in the group receiving 100 mg golimumab every 2 weeks achieved an ACR20 response (P<0.001 versus placebo). Through week 20 (after which patients receiving placebo were switched to active infliximab therapy), serious adverse events were reported in 9% of patients in the combined golimumab groups and in 6% of patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Golimumab plus MTX effectively reduces the signs and symptoms of RA and is generally well tolerated in patients with an inadequate response to MTX.     

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.     

Efficacy of methotrexate treatment in patients with probable rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA; inflammatory, nontraumatic arthritis that cannot be diagnosed using current classification criteria) benefit from treatment with methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: The PRObable rheumatoid arthritis: Methotrexate versus Placebo Treatment (PROMPT) study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trial involving 110 patients with UA who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1958 criteria for probable RA. Treatment started with MTX (15 mg/week) or placebo tablets, and every 3 months the dosage was increased if the Disease Activity Score was >2.4. After 12 months, the study medication was tapered and discontinued. Patients were followed up for 30 months. When a patient fulfilled the ACR criteria for RA (primary end point), the study medication was changed to MTX. Joint damage was scored on radiographs of the hands and feet. RESULTS: In 22 of the 55 patients (40%) in the MTX group, UA progressed to RA compared with 29 of 55 patients (53%) in the placebo group. However, in the MTX group, patients fulfilled the ACR criteria for RA at a later time point than in the placebo group (P = 0.04), and fewer patients showed radiographic progression over 18 months (P = 0.046). CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for the efficacy of MTX treatment in postponing the diagnosis of RA, as defined by the ACR 1987 criteria, and retarding radiographic joint damage in UA patients.     

Adalimumab,a fully human anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody,for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients taking concomitant methotrexate: the ARMADA trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab (D2E7), a fully human monoclonal tumor necrosis factor alpha antibody, in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with MTX. METHODS: In a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 271 patients with active RA were randomly assigned to receive injections of adalimumab (20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg subcutaneously) or placebo every other week while continuing to take their long-term stable dosage of MTX. The primary efficacy end point was the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at 24 weeks. RESULTS: An ACR20 response at week 24 was achieved by a significantly greater proportion of patients in the 20-mg, 40-mg, and 80-mg adalimumab plus MTX groups (47.8%, 67.2%, and 65.8%, respectively) than in the placebo plus MTX group (14.5%) (P < 0.001). ACR50 response rates with the 20-mg, 40-mg, and 80-mg adalimumab dosages (31.9%, 55.2%, and 42.5%, respectively) were significantly greater than that with placebo (8.1%) (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively). The 40-mg and 80-mg doses of adalimumab were associated with an ACR70 response (26.9% and 19.2%, respectively) that was statistically significantly greater than that with placebo (4.8%) (P < 0.001 and P = 0.020). Responses were rapid, with the greatest proportion of adalimumab-treated patients achieving an ACR20 response at the first scheduled visit (week 1). Adalimumab was safe and well tolerated; comparable numbers of adalimumab-treated patients and placebo-treated patients reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: The addition of adalimumab at a dosage of 20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg administered subcutaneously every other week to long-term MTX therapy in patients with active RA provided significant, rapid, and sustained improvement in disease activity over 24 weeks compared with MTX plus placebo.     

Phase II study of tofacitinib (CP-690,550) combined with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate

Objective

To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of 4 doses of oral tofacitinib (CP‐690,550) with placebo in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving stable background methotrexate (MTX) who had an inadequate response to MTX alone.

Methods

A total of 140 patients were randomized to receive tofacitinib 1, 3, 5, and 10 mg twice a day or placebo in this 12‐week, phase II, double‐blind study. All patients remained on background MTX. Efficacy and safety were assessed at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12. The primary efficacy end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response rate at week 12.

Results

ACR20 response rates at week 12 were significant (P < 0.0001) for all tofacitinib treatment groups: 1 mg twice a day, 64.3%; 3 mg twice a day, 77.8%; 5 mg twice a day, 96.3%; and 10 mg twice a day, 80.8% versus placebo, 14.3%. A significant dose‐response relationship for the ACR20 was observed (P < 0.0001). Low disease activity was achieved by 72.7% of patients with high baseline disease activity for tofacitinib 10 mg twice a day at week 12 (P < 0.0001). Significant improvements in the ACR50, ACR70, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, and Disease Activity Score 28‐3 (C‐reactive protein) were also reported. The most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) were nasopharyngitis (n = 13) and increased alanine aminotransferase (n = 12) and aspartate aminotransferase (n = 9) levels. These AEs were mild or moderate in severity. Serious AEs were reported by 5 patients. No deaths occurred.

Conclusion

In Japanese patients with active RA with an inadequate response to MTX, tofacitinib in combination with MTX over 12 weeks was efficacious and had a manageable safety profile.     

Golimumab,a new human anti–tumor necrosis factor α antibody,administered intravenously in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: Forty‐eight–week efficacy and safety results of a phase III randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous administration of golimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Adult patients with RA in whom disease activity was persistent despite treatment with methotrexate (MTX) at a dosage of 15–25 mg/week for ≥4 weeks were randomized to receive intravenous infusions of placebo plus MTX or intravenous infusions of golimumab at a dose of 2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg, with or without MTX, every 12 weeks through week 48. Patients with <20% improvement in the swollen and tender joint counts could enter early escape and receive additional active treatment (week 16) or could have their dose regimen adjusted (week 24). The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a 50% response according to the American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria (ACR50) at week 14.

Results

The primary study end point was not met (at week 14, an ACR50 response was observed in 21% of the patients treated with golimumab plus MTX compared with 13% of the patients treated with placebo plus MTX [P = 0.051]). By week 24, significantly more patients treated with golimumab plus MTX had achieved an ACR50 response. Differences in the proportion of patients achieving an ACR50 response between the group receiving golimumab monotherapy and the group receiving placebo plus MTX were not significant at either week 14 (16% versus 13%) or week 24 (10% versus 9%). At week 48, the proportions of patients achieving ACR20 and ACR50 responses were highest among those who had received golimumab 4 mg/kg plus MTX (70% and 48%, respectively). Concomitant treatment with MTX was associated with a lower incidence of antibodies to golimumab. The most commonly reported adverse events through week 48 were infections (48% of patients treated with golimumab with or without MTX and 41% of patients receiving placebo plus MTX).

Conclusion

The primary end point was not met. However, intravenously administered golimumab plus MTX appears to have benefit in the longer‐term reduction of RA signs/symptoms in MTX‐resistant patients, with no unexpected safety concerns.

     

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.     

Reduction of the efficacy of methotrexate by the use of folic acid: post hoc analysis from two randomized controlled studies

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of folic acid on the efficacy of methotrexate (MTX) treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at 12 months in 2 phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of leflunomide in which MTX was used as a comparator. METHODS: Analyses were restricted to patients randomized to receive MTX who had rheumatoid factor data. The US study recruited 482 patients with active RA; 179 received at least 1 dose of MTX, and all were mandated to receive 1 mg of oral folic acid once or twice daily. The multinational European study recruited 999 patients with active RA; 489 received at least 1 dose of MTX, and oral folic acid was not required, although 50 received folate after developing an adverse event. Because of similar entry criteria for both studies, the data for patients with available primary outcome data at week 52 were pooled (n = 668), and the patients were grouped by folic acid use (n = 225) and nonuse (n = 443). To account for the significant between-study differences in the MTX groups, baseline covariates were adjusted using propensity scores so that folic acid users could be matched with nonusers. This allowed for a comparison of differences in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% improvement criteria at week 52. RESULTS: At study entry, non-folic acid users had a significantly lower mean body weight, shorter mean RA duration, and higher mean disease activity (measured by joint counts, patient's and physician's global assessments, and acute-phase reactant levels). The mean MTX dosage at week 52 was similar in the 2 RCTs. Using propensity score matching techniques, the proportion of patients achieving an ACR 20% response at week 52 averaged 17% higher in the non-folic acid group than in the folic acid group (range 15-21%). Similarly, the proportion of patients achieving ACR 50% and ACR 70% responses averaged 14% (range 12-16%) and 12% (range 9-14%) higher, respectively, in the non-folic acid group. Adverse events were reported in 93% of US study patients and 94% of the multinational study patients. Elevated liver transaminase levels (above the upper limit of normal) were reported in 29% of the US study patients (majority receiving folic acid) and 62% of the multinational study patients (majority not receiving folic acid). CONCLUSION: After using propensity scores to adjust for differences in the baseline characteristics of folic acid users and non-folic acid users, 9-21% fewer MTX-treated RA patients taking folic acid had ACR 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement at 52 weeks compared with those who did not receive folic acid in the 2 phase III RA clinical trials. As a post hoc analysis, the results of this data analysis should be considered "hypothesis generating" and an impetus for future studies regarding the effects of folic acid on the efficacy of MTX in RA.     

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine,methotrexate and sulfasalazine,or a combination of the three medications: results of a two-year,randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of combination therapy with methotrexate (MTX) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), MTX and sulfasalazine (SSZ), and MTX, HCQ, and SSZ in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: RA patients (n = 171) who had not previously been treated with combinations of the study medications were randomized to receive 1 of the 3 treatment combinations in this 2-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled protocol. HCQ was given at a dosage of 200 mg twice a day. The dosage of MTX was accelerated from 7.5 mg/week to 17.5 mg/week in all patients who were not in remission. Similarly, the dosage of SSZ was escalated from 500 mg twice a day to 1 gm twice a day in patients who were not in remission. The primary end point of the study was the percentage of patients who had a 20% response to therapy according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria at 2 years. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analysis revealed that patients receiving the triple combination responded best, with 78% achieving an ACR 20% response at 2 years, compared with 60% of those treated with MTX and HCQ (P = 0.05) and 49% of those treated with MTX and SSZ (P = 0.002). Similar trends were seen for the ACR 50% response, with 55%, 40%, and 29% of patients in the 3 treatment groups, respectively, achieving these results at 2 years (P = 0.005 for the triple combination group versus the MTX and SSZ group). All combination treatments were well-tolerated. Fourteen patients (evenly distributed among the 3 groups) withdrew from the protocol because of symptoms that were potentially related to the study medication. CONCLUSION: The triple combination of MTX, SSZ, and HCQ is well-tolerated, and its efficacy is superior to that of the double combination of MTX and SSZ and is marginally superior to that of the double combination of MTX and HCQ.     

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.     

重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体-抗体融合蛋白治疗类风湿关节炎双盲随机多中心对照临床研究

目的研究注射用重组人Ⅱ型肿瘤坏死因子受体-抗体融合蛋白[rhTNFR：Fc,益赛普,（etanercept）]对活动性类风湿关节炎（RA）患者的疗效及安全性.方法238例患者随机分为试验组和对照组.试验组每周1次口服空白模拟甲氨蝶呤（MTX）,同时接受rhTNFR：Fc皮下注射治疗,每周2次,每次25 mg;对照组每周1次口服定量MTX（每周7.5 mg起,8周内增至15 mg）,同时每周2次皮下注射空白模拟rhTNFR：Fc.疗程24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2周后,rhTNFR：Fc组ACR20有效率为35.59%,MTX组为22.50%,组间比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.治疗8周后,rhTNFR：Fc组和MTX组的ACR20、ACR50和ACR70组间比较差异均有统计学意义（（P＜0.05）.治疗12周后,rhTNFR：Fc组ACR20有效率为66.10%,MTX组是51.67%,两组间比较差异有统计学意义（（P＜0.05）.治疗24周后,rhTNFR：Fc组ACR20有效率为75.42%,且ACR70有效率优于MTX组（（P＜0.05）,显示rhTNFR：Fc疗效强于MTX.两组药物之间总的不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义.结论rhTNFR：Fc用于治疗中、重度RA具有良好的安全性和显著的疗效;在前12周治疗期间,rhTNFR：Fc较MTX起效快、效果更明显.     

Combination leflunomide and methotrexate (MTX) therapy for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis failing MTX monotherapy: open-label extension of a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To obtain additional safety and efficacy data on leflunomide (LEF) treatment in combination with methotrexate (MTX) therapy in an open-label extension study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Following a 24 week, randomized, double-blind trial of adding placebo (PLA) or LEF to stable MTX therapy, patients could enter a 24 week extension. Subjects randomized to LEF and MTX continued treatment [(LEF/LEF) + MTX]. Subjects randomized to PLA and MTX switched to LEF (10 mg/day, no loading dose) and MTX [(PLA/LEF) + MTX]. The double-blind regarding initial randomization was maintained. RESULTS: For subjects in the extension phase, American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) responder rates for the (LEF/LEF) + MTX group were maintained from Week 24 (57/96, 59.4%) to Week 48 (53/96, 55.2%). ACR20 responder rates improved in patients switched to LEF from PLA at Week 24 [(PLA/LEF) + MTX] from 25.0% (24/96) at Week 24 to 57.3% (55/96) at Week 48. Patients in the extension who switched from PLA to LEF without a loading dose exhibited a lower incidence of elevated transaminases compared to patients initially randomized to LEF. Diarrhea and nausea were less frequent during the open-label extension in patients who did not receive a LEF loading dose. CONCLUSION: Response to therapy was maintained to 48 weeks of treatment in patients who continued to receive LEF and MTX during the extension. Importantly, ACR20 response rates after 24 weeks of LEF therapy were similar between patients switched from PLA to LEF without loading dose, and those who received a loading does of LEF (100 mg/day x 2 days) at randomization. Fewer adverse events were reported in patients switched to LEF without a loading dose.     

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.     

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with anakinra,a recombinant human interleukin‐1 receptor antagonist,in combination with methotrexate: Results of a twenty‐four–week,multicenter, randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anakinra in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Patients with moderate‐to‐severe active RA who were receiving MTX for 6 consecutive months, with stable doses for ≥3 months (those with disease duration of >6 months but <12 years) were randomized into 6 groups: placebo or 0.04, 0.1, 0.4, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg of anakinra administered in a single, daily, subcutaneous injection. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of subjects who met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (attained an ACR20 response) at week 12.

Results

A total of 419 patients were randomized in the study. Patient demographics and disease status were similar in the 6 treatment groups. The ACR20 responses at week 12 in the 5 active treatment plus MTX groups demonstrated a statistically significant (P = 0.001) dose‐response relationship compared with the ACR20 response in the placebo plus MTX group. The ACR20 response rate in the anakinra 1.0‐mg/kg (46%; P = 0.001) and 2.0‐mg/kg (38%; P = 0.007) dose groups was significantly greater than that in the placebo group (19%). The ACR20 responses at 24 weeks were consistent with those at 12 weeks. Similar improvements in anakinra‐treated subjects were noted in individual ACR components, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, onset of ACR20 response, sustainability of ACR20 response, and magnitude of ACR response. Anakinra was safe and well tolerated. Injection site reaction was the most frequently noted adverse event, and this led to premature study withdrawal in 7% (1.0‐mg/kg group) to 10% (2.0‐mg/kg group) of patients receiving higher doses.

Conclusion

In patients with persistently active RA, the combination of anakinra and MTX was safe and well tolerated and provided significantly greater clinical benefit than MTX alone.

     

阿达木单抗联合甲氨蝶呤治疗类风湿关节炎的多中心、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照临床研究

目的 评价阿达木单抗联合甲氨蝶呤(MTX)治疗类风湿关节炎(RA)的疗效与安全性.方法 随机、双盲、平行、安慰剂对照的多中心临床试验.302例入组前已经至少接受MTX 3个月治疗且剂量稳定≥28 d的活动性RA患者,随机分为40 mg阿达木单抗+MTX组(A组,121例)、80 mg阿达木单抗+MTX组(B组,121例)、安慰剂+MTX组(C组,60例).患者隔周皮下注射阿达木单抗或安慰剂,双盲治疗期为12周.完成双盲期的患者进入后12周开放期,3组患者均予隔周皮下注射40 mg阿达木单抗.在双盲期和开放期的患者同时继续接受研究前稳定剂量的MTX.观察主要疗效指标[双盲期治疗第12周修改的美国风湿病学会疗效标准提高20%(ACR20)有效率]、次要疗效指标[第24周ACR20有效率;第12周、第24周修改的美国风湿病学会疗效标准提高50%(ACR50)、修改的美国风湿病学会疗效标准提高70%(ACR70)有效率]、压痛关节数、肿胀关节数、疼痛视觉模拟评分,医生对疾病活动性整体评价、患者对疾病活动性整体评价、健康评价问卷(HAQ)评分、评估健康相关生活质量简表36(SF-36)评分及不良事件.结果 (1)双盲期,ACR20有效率C组为35.0%,A组为57.0%,B组为51.2%,A组、B组与C组比较,P<0.05;A组ACR50、ACR70有效率分别为32.2%、15.7%,与C组比较,P<0.05;A组压痛关节数、肿胀关节数、C反应蛋白水平的改善优于C组(P<0.05);B组肿胀关节数、C反应蛋白水平的改善优于C组(P<0.05).(2)开放期,A组、B组ACR20、ACR50、ACR70有效率仍维持或有所提高,而C组的ACR20、ACR50、ACR70有效率则升高至与A组、B组类似的水平.在压痛关节数、肿胀关节数、疼痛视觉模拟评分、HAQ、SF-36方面,3组均比基线、第12周时有更明显的好转.(3)双盲期与开放期中超过5%的患者有不良事件(上呼吸道感染、鼻咽炎和注射部位瘙痒),多数为轻～中度.有3例患者在研究期间出现结核病.在双盲期,有3例(1.2%)受试者出现了严重不良事件,但研究者判定与药物无关或可能无关.在开放期,有8例(2.7%)受试者出现了严重不良事件,其中3例判定与药物无关或可能无关.结论 阿达木单抗联合MTX治疗RA的疗效优于单用MTX,可显著提高治疗有效率并持续改善症状、体征、实验室炎性活动指标,减少功能障碍并提高整体生活质量,同时具有良好的安全性与耐受性.     

Tacrolimus in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving concomitant methotrexate: a six-month, open-label study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of tacrolimus used in combination with oral methotrexate (MTX) to control the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients whose disease remains active despite treatment with MTX. METHODS: This was a multicenter open-label study conducted at 13 US sites. Eighty patients who at baseline had active RA (mean tender/painful joint count 29.4, mean swollen joint count 17.4, mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate 25.1 mm/hour) despite treatment for >/=1 month with a stable, maximally tolerated dosage of oral MTX (/=30% maximum increase in the Cr level from baseline during the study, with the Cr level in 3 patients (3.8%) exceeding the range considered normal for their age and sex. The maximum Cr level during the study was 1.8 mg/dl. The ACR20 clinical response rate at the end of treatment was 52.5% (95% confidence interval 41.6-63.4%). CONCLUSION: In patients whose active RA persists despite treatment with MTX, tacrolimus in combination with MTX is safe and well-tolerated and provides clinical benefit.     

Radiographic,clinical, and functional outcomes of treatment with adalimumab (a human anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis receiving concomitant methotrexate therapy: A randomized,placebo‐controlled, 52‐week trial

Objective

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is an important proinflammatory cytokine that mediates inflammatory synovitis and articular matrix degradation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We investigated the ability of adalimumab, a human anti–TNF monoclonal antibody, to inhibit the progression of structural joint damage, reduce the signs and symptoms, and improve physical function in patients with active RA receiving concomitant treatment with methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

In this multicenter, 52‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study, 619 patients with active RA who had an inadequate response to MTX were randomized to receive adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week (n = 207), adalimumab 20 mg subcutaneously every week (n = 212), or placebo (n = 200) plus concomitant MTX. The primary efficacy end points were radiographic progression at week 52 (total Sharp score by a modified method [TSS]), clinical response at week 24 (improvements of at least 20% in the American College of Rheumatology core criteria [ACR20]), and physical function at week 52 (disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]).

Results

At week 52, there was statistically significantly less radiographic progression, as measured by the change in TSS, in the patients receiving adalimumab either 40 mg every other week (mean ± SD change 0.1 ± 4.8) or 20 mg weekly (0.8 ± 4.9) as compared with that in the placebo group (2.7 ± 6.8) (P ≤ 0.001 for each comparison). In addition, there were statistically significant changes in the components of the TSS. At week 24, ACR20 responses were achieved by 63% and 61% of patients in the adalimumab 40 mg every other week and 20 mg weekly groups, respectively, versus 30% of patients in the placebo group (P ≤ 0.001 for each comparison). At week 52, ACR20 responses were achieved by 59% and 55% of patients taking adalimumab 40 mg every other week and 20 mg weekly, respectively, versus 24% of patients taking placebo (P ≤ 0.001 for each comparison). At week 52, physical function as measured by the HAQ demonstrated statistically significant improvement with adalimumab 40 mg every other week and 20 mg weekly compared with placebo (mean change in HAQ score −0.59 and −0.61, respectively, versus −0.25; P ≤ 0.001 for each comparison). A total of 467 patients (75.4%) completed 52 weeks of treatment. Adalimumab was generally well tolerated. Discontinuations occurred in 22.0% of adalimumab‐treated patients and in 30.0% of placebo‐treated patients. The rate of adverse events (both serious and nonserious) was comparable in the adalimumab and placebo groups, although the proportion of patients reporting serious infections was higher in patients receiving adalimumab (3.8%) than in those receiving placebo (0.5%) (P ≤ 0.02), and was highest in the patients receiving 40 mg every other week.

Conclusion

In this 52‐week trial, adalimumab was more effective than placebo at inhibiting the progression of structural joint damage, reducing the signs and symptoms, and improving physical function in patients with active RA who had demonstrated an incomplete response to MTX.

     

Efficacy of methotrexate treatment in patients with probable rheumatoid arthritis: A double‐blind,randomized, placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To determine whether patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA; inflammatory, nontraumatic arthritis that cannot be diagnosed using current classification criteria) benefit from treatment with methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

The PRObable rheumatoid arthritis: Methotrexate versus Placebo Treatment (PROMPT) study was a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized, multicenter trial involving 110 patients with UA who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1958 criteria for probable RA. Treatment started with MTX (15 mg/week) or placebo tablets, and every 3 months the dosage was increased if the Disease Activity Score was >2.4. After 12 months, the study medication was tapered and discontinued. Patients were followed up for 30 months. When a patient fulfilled the ACR criteria for RA (primary end point), the study medication was changed to MTX. Joint damage was scored on radiographs of the hands and feet.

Results

In 22 of the 55 patients (40%) in the MTX group, UA progressed to RA compared with 29 of 55 patients (53%) in the placebo group. However, in the MTX group, patients fulfilled the ACR criteria for RA at a later time point than in the placebo group (P = 0.04), and fewer patients showed radiographic progression over 18 months (P = 0.046).

Conclusion

This study provides evidence for the efficacy of MTX treatment in postponing the diagnosis of RA, as defined by the ACR 1987 criteria, and retarding radiographic joint damage in UA patients.

     

Long-term efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients who could not receive methotrexate: 52-week results from an open-label extension of the HIKARI study

Abstract

Objectives. To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) treatment and to assess the efficacy of two CZP maintenance dosing schedules in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who could not receive methotrexate (MTX).

Methods. HIKARI double-blind (DB) patients were entered into an open-label extension (OLE) study. Patients withdrawn at 16 weeks due to lack of efficacy and DB completers without a 24-week American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response received CZP 200 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W). DB completers with 24-week ACR20 responses were randomized to CZP 200 mg Q2W or CZP 400 mg every 4 weeks.

Results. The ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 response rates of DB completers (n = 98) were 82.7%/56.1%/34.7% at OLE entry, and 83.7%/65.3%/48.0% at 52 weeks, respectively. Other clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes were sustained during long-term administration of CZP, even without MTX. No new unexpected adverse events were observed during long-term CZP treatment. The efficacy and safety of CZP treatment were similar between the two dosing schedules.

Conclusions. Long-term CZP administration is efficacious and safe for RA patients. No obvious differences in clinical efficacy and safety were observed between the two dosing schedules. The choice between two maintenace regimens adds flexibility in administration schedules for RA patients and physicians.