Comparison of etanercept and methotrexate,alone and combined,in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Two‐year clinical and radiographic results from the TEMPO study,a double‐blind,randomized trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy, including radiographic changes, and safety of etanercept and methotrexate (MTX), used in combination and alone, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom previous treatment with a disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug other than MTX had failed.

Methods

Patients with RA were treated with etanercept (25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly), oral MTX (up to 20 mg weekly), or combination therapy with etanercept plus MTX through a second year, in a double‐blinded manner. Clinical response was assessed using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and the Disease Activity Score (DAS), in a modified intent‐to‐treat analysis with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) and in a population of completers. Radiographs of the hands, wrists, and forefeet were scored for erosions and joint space narrowing at annual intervals.

Results

A total of 503 of 686 patients continued into year 2 of the study. During the 2 years, significantly fewer patients receiving combination therapy withdrew from the study (29% of the combination therapy group, 39% of the etanercept group, and 48% of the MTX group). Both the LOCF and the completer analyses yielded similar results. The ACR 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses and the remission rates (based on a DAS of <1.6) were significantly higher with combination therapy than with either monotherapy (P < 0.01). Similarly, improvement in disability (based on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) was greater with combination therapy (P < 0.01). The combination therapy group showed significantly less radiographic progression than did either group receiving monotherapy (P < 0.05); moreover, radiographic progression was significantly lower in the etanercept group compared with the MTX group (P < 0.05). For the second consecutive year, overall disease progression in the combination therapy group was negative, with the 95% confidence interval less than zero. Adverse events were similar in the 3 treatment groups.

Conclusion

Etanercept in combination with MTX reduced disease activity, slowed radiographic progression, and improved function more effectively than did either monotherapy over a 2‐year period. No increase in toxicity was associated with combination treatment with etanercept plus 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.

     

Adalimumab,a fully human anti–tumor necrosis factor α 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 α 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.

     

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.

     

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,placebo‐controlled,double‐masked clinical trial of etanercept for the treatment of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Objective

To investigate the safety and efficacy of etanercept in the treatment of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Methods

Children who met the American College of Rheumatology diagnostic criteria for JIA with active uveitis, who had anterior chamber cells of ≥1+ or requiring topical corticosteroid ≥3 times daily, and who were on a stable regimen for arthritis treatment were eligible. Study participants received etanercept (0.4 mg/kg) or placebo administered subcutaneously twice weekly for 6 months. All participants received open‐label etanercept for an additional 6 months.

Results

Five patients received placebo and 7 received etanercept. Three of the 7 patients treated with etanercept and 2 of the 5 placebo‐treated patients were considered ophthalmic successes (P = 1.0). One patient in each treatment group was considered a treatment failure. Three of the 7 etanercept‐treated and 2 of the 5 placebo‐treated patients were neither successes nor failures by our definition. There were no serious adverse events for any patient during the entire study period. Reports of minor infections were comparable in each treatment group, 71% for etanercept and 60% for placebo (P = 0.58).

Conclusion

In this small pilot study there was no apparent difference in the anterior segment inflammation between patients treated with etanercept and placebo. The stringent criteria used to measure ophthalmic success of treatment and the small patient population limit the implications of our findings.

     

Fcγ receptor type IIIA genotype and response to tumor necrosis factor α–blocking agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

To determine whether a functional single‐nucleotide polymorphism in the gene encoding Fcγ receptor type IIIA (FcγRIIIA) correlates with the response to treatment with tumor necrosis factor α 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 FcγRIIIA 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 FcγRIIIA is very unlikely to influence the clinical efficacy of infliximab or etanercept in patients with RA.

     

Long‐term safety and effectiveness of etanercept in children with selected categories of juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Objective

This study was undertaken to evaluate the long‐term safety and effectiveness of etanercept alone or in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in children with selected categories of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Methods

Patients ages 2–18 years with rheumatoid factor (RF)–positive or RF‐negative polyarthritis, systemic JIA, or extended oligoarthritis were eligible for the study. Patients received MTX alone (≥10 mg/m²/week [∼0.3 mg/kg/week], maximum dosage 1 mg/kg/week), etanercept alone (0.8 mg/kg/week, maximum dose 50 mg), or etanercept plus MTX for 3 years in an open‐label, nonrandomized study. Safety was assessed by measuring rates of adverse events, and effectiveness was assessed using the physician's global assessment of disease activity and the pediatric total joint assessment.

Results

A total of 197, 103, and 294 patients were enrolled in the MTX, etanercept, and etanercept plus MTX groups, respectively. Exposure‐adjusted rates of adverse events were similar among the 3 treatment groups (18.3, 18.7, and 21.6 per 100 patient‐years in the MTX, etanercept, and etanercept plus MTX groups, respectively). Respective rates per 100 patient‐years of serious adverse events (4.6, 7.1, and 6.0) and medically important infections (1.3, 1.8, and 2.1) were also similar among the 3 treatment groups. Scores for physician's global assessment and total active joints improved from baseline, and improvement was maintained for the duration of the study.

Conclusion

These data confirm the findings of other long‐term studies and suggest that etanercept or etanercept plus MTX has an acceptable safety and effectiveness profile in children with selected categories of JIA. Improvement was maintained for 3 years in those continuing to receive medication.

     

Effect of rituximab on physical function and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis previously untreated with methotrexate

Objective

To assess the effect of rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) compared with MTX alone on patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) and health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with active early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) previously untreated with MTX.

Methods

Patients with active early RA were randomized to groups receiving placebo, rituximab 500 mg, or rituximab 1,000 mg. Rituximab was given by intravenous infusion on days 1 and 15. From week 24, patients with a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints–erythrocyte sedimentation rate of ≥2.6 were eligible for retreatment. Physical function was assessed by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI) and Short Form 36 (SF‐36) scores. Patients achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROs were determined. Additional PROs, including fatigue and pain, were assessed.

Results

A total of 748 patients were randomized and received the study drug. Patient characteristics were well balanced. At week 52, treatment with rituximab in both dose groups showed significant improvements in the HAQ DI compared to the MTX alone group (?0.905 and ?0.916 in the rituximab 500 mg plus MTX and 1,000 mg plus MTX groups, respectively, versus ?0.628 in the MTX alone group; P < 0.0001). Higher proportions of patients achieved MCID in the HAQ DI in the rituximab plus MTX groups compared to MTX alone. Treatment with rituximab plus MTX led to a significant reduction in the SF‐36 physical component summary for both rituximab dose groups, but did not show statistically significant differences in the SF‐36 mental component summary. Compared to the MTX alone group, both doses of rituximab plus MTX were associated with significant reductions in the patient global assessment of disease activity and pain, and a significantly higher improvement in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue scores from baseline to 52 weeks.

Conclusions

Rituximab plus MTX was associated with significant improvement in physical function and HRQOL outcomes compared with MTX alone in patients previously untreated with MTX.

     

Tofacitinib (CP‐690,550) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate: Twelve‐month data from a twenty‐four–month phase III randomized radiographic study

Objective

The purpose of this 24‐month phase III study was to examine structural preservation with tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Data from a planned 12‐month interim analysis are reported.

Methods

In this double‐blind, parallel‐group, placebo‐controlled study, patients receiving background MTX were randomized 4:4:1:1 to tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, tofacitinib at 10 mg twice daily, placebo to tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, and placebo to tofacitinib at 10 mg twice daily. At month 3, nonresponder placebo‐treated patients were advanced in a blinded manner to receive tofacitinib as indicated above; remaining placebo‐treated patients were advanced at 6 months. Four primary efficacy end points were all analyzed in a step‐down procedure.

Results

At month 6, response rates according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were higher than those for placebo (51.5% and 61.8%, respectively, versus 25.3%; both P < 0.0001). At month 6, least squares mean (LSM) changes in total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were 0.12 and 0.06, respectively, versus 0.47 for placebo (P = 0.0792 and P ≤ 0.05, respectively). At month 3, LSM changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index score for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were –0.40 (significance not declared due to step‐down procedure) and –0.54 (P < 0.0001), respectively, versus –0.15 for placebo. At month 6, rates of remission (defined as a value <2.6 for the 4‐variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate) for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were 7.2% (significance not declared due to step‐down procedure) and 16.0% (P < 0.0001), respectively, versus 1.6% for placebo. The safety profile was consistent with findings in previous studies.

Conclusion

Data from this 12‐month interim analysis demonstrate that tofacitinib inhibits progression of structural damage and improves disease activity in patients with RA who are receiving MTX.

     

Double‐blind randomized controlled clinical trial of the interleukin‐6 receptor antagonist,tocilizumab, in European patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an incomplete response to methotrexate

Objective

To establish the safety and efficacy of repeat infusions of tocilizumab (previously known as MRA), a humanized anti–interleukin‐6 (IL‐6) receptor antibody, alone and in combination with methotrexate (MTX), for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

The study group comprised 359 patients with active RA in whom the response to MTX was inadequate. During a stabilization period, these patients received their current dose of MTX for at least 4 weeks. Following stabilization, they were randomized to 1 of 7 treatment arms, as follows: tocilizumab at doses of 2 mg/kg, 4 mg/kg, or 8 mg/kg either as monotherapy or in combination with MTX, or MTX plus placebo.

Results

A 20% response (improvement) according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 response) was achieved by 61% and 63% of patients receiving 4 mg/kg and 8 mg/kg of tocilizumab as monotherapy, respectively, and by 63% and 74% of patients receiving those doses of tocilizumab plus MTX, respectively, compared with 41% of patients receiving placebo plus MTX. Statistically significant ACR50 and ACR70 responses were observed in patients receiving combination therapy with either 4 mg/kg or 8 mg/kg of tocilizumab plus MTX (P < 0.05). A dose‐related reduction in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints was observed from week 4 onward, in all patients except those receiving monotherapy with 2 mg/kg of tocilizumab. In the majority of patients who received 8 mg/kg of tocilizumab, the C‐reactive protein level/erythrocyte sedimentation rate normalized, while placebo plus MTX had little effect on these laboratory parameters. Tocilizumab was mostly well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of other biologic and immunosuppressive therapies. Alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels followed a sawtooth pattern (rising and falling between infusions). There were moderate but reversible increases in the nonfasting total cholesterol and triglyceride levels and reversible reductions in the high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and neutrophil levels. There were 2 cases of sepsis, both of which occurred in patients who were receiving combination therapy with 8 mg/kg of tocilizumab plus MTX.

Conclusion

These results indicate that targeted blockade of IL‐6 signaling is a highly efficacious and promising means of decreasing disease activity in RA.

     

Once‐weekly administration of 50 mg etanercept in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a multicenter,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of 50 mg etanercept administered subcutaneously once weekly in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Four hundred twenty RA patients were randomized to receive, in a blinded manner, the study drug for up to 16 weeks: 214 patients received 50 mg etanercept once weekly, 153 received 25 mg etanercept twice weekly, and 53 received placebo for 8 weeks followed by 25 mg etanercept twice weekly for 8 weeks. Efficacy and safety were assessed at weeks 8 and 16. Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed on serum samples from patients at selected study sites. The primary efficacy end point was achievement of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% improvement criteria (ACR20 response) at week 8.

Results

An ACR20 response was achieved at week 8 by 50% of the patients receiving 50 mg etanercept once weekly, by 49% of the patients receiving 25 mg etanercept twice weekly, and by 19% of the patients in the placebo group (P ≤ 0.0001 for each etanercept group versus placebo). Similarly, achievement of the ACR50 response was attained by 18% of patients in each of the 2 etanercept groups, compared with 6% of patients in the placebo group (P < 0.03 for each comparison). Pharmacokinetics of the 2 etanercept regimens were similar at steady state. No clinically significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed between the 2 etanercept groups.

Conclusion

Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics were comparable between the 2 etanercept dosing regimens. Thus, comparable clinical outcomes are to be expected when patients are treated with etanercept administered either as 50 mg once weekly or as 25 mg twice weekly.

     

A 48‐week,randomized, double‐blind,double‐observer,placebo‐controlled multicenter trial of combination methotrexate and intramuscular gold therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: Results of the METGO study

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding intramuscular (IM) gold to the treatment regimen of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have a suboptimal response to methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

A randomized, double‐blind, double‐observer, placebo‐controlled multicenter trial of 48 weeks was conducted. Sixty‐five RA patients who had a suboptimal response to ≥12 weeks of MTX therapy were randomly assigned to receive weekly IM gold or placebo in addition to MTX. Gold was administered according to a standard protocol developed for the study. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients who met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at week 48. Secondary outcomes included the percentages of patients achieving ACR50 and ACR70 responses, the individual criteria that make up the primary outcome, quality of life, direct and indirect health care costs, intraarticular steroid use, and adverse events, among other measures. Statistical analyses were based on an intent‐to‐treat strategy.

Results

Sixty‐one percent of patients receiving gold achieved an ACR20 response compared with 30% of patients receiving placebo (χ² = 6.04, P = 0.014; logistic regression odds ratio 3.64 [95% confidence interval 1.3, 10.4], P = 0.016). Twenty‐six percent of patients receiving gold achieved an ACR50 response compared with 4% of patients receiving placebo (P = 0.017), and 21% of patients receiving gold achieved an ACR70 response compared with 0% of patients receiving placebo (P = 0.011). From both clinical and cost‐effectiveness perspectives, gold was the preferred and dominant strategy. Study treatment was discontinued in 23 patients (14 in the placebo group compared with 9 in the gold group; P = 0.022) due to loss to followup, adverse events, or lack of efficacy.

Conclusion

In RA patients with a suboptimal response to MTX, adding weekly IM gold causes significant clinical improvement. Adverse events were minor, and IM gold–related adverse events led to discontinuation in only 11% of the gold group over 48 weeks.

     

A clinical pharmacogenetic model to predict the efficacy of methotrexate monotherapy in recent‐onset rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

To develop a clinical pharmacogenetic model to predict the efficacy of methotrexate (MTX) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Two hundred five patients with newly diagnosed RA and active disease were treated with MTX (initiated at a dosage of 7.5 mg/week and increased to 15 mg/week after 4 weeks) and folic acid (1 mg/day). If the Disease Activity Score (DAS) was >2.4 at 3 months, the dosage of MTX was increased up to 25 mg/week. Twenty‐four baseline variables possibly influencing disease state and drug response were selected. In addition, 17 polymorphisms in 13 genes related to the MTX mechanism of action, purine and pyrimidine synthesis, were determined. Factors were compared between responders (defined as patients with a DAS ≤2.4 at 6 months) and nonresponders. In case of differences, a stepwise selection procedure identified the predictors for response. A clinical score was designed by simplifying regression coefficients of the independent variables. Cutoff levels were chosen based on the clinical score, and positive and negative response rates were calculated. An evaluation of the model was performed in a second group of patients.

Results

The model for MTX efficacy consisted of sex, rheumatoid factor and smoking status, the DAS, and 4 polymorphisms in the AMPD1, ATIC, ITPA, and MTHFD1 genes. This prediction model was transformed into a scoring system ranging from 0 to 11.5. Scores of ≤3.5 had a true positive response rate of 95%. Scores of ≥6 had a true negative response rate of 86%. Sixty percent of the patients were categorized as either responders or nonresponders, whereas 32% of the patients were categorized using a nongenetic model. Evaluation of the model in 38 additional patients with RA supported the results.

Conclusion

This study established a model for predicting the efficacy of MTX in patients with RA. This pharmacogenetic model may lead to better‐tailored initial treatment decisions in patients with RA.

     

Comparison of the response to infliximab or etanercept monotherapy with the response to cotherapy with methotrexate or another disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register

Objective

To compare outcome at 6 months in unselected “real‐world” patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with etanercept or infliximab as either monotherapy, cotherapy with methotrexate (MTX), or cotherapy with another disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).

Methods

A total of 2,711 subjects starting treatment with their first biologic agent (1,453 infliximab and 1,258 etanercept) were followed up for 6 months. Outcome was assessed using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria. Ordinal regression was used to model the response in the MTX and other DMARD cotherapy groups relative to the monotherapy group separately for the 2 anti–tumor necrosis factor α agents, after adjusting for baseline differences.

Results

Etanercept‐treated patients had an increased likelihood of achieving a higher EULAR response category with cotherapy with MTX (odds ratio [OR] 2.0, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.5–2.7) and with another DMARD (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9–1.6) as compared with monotherapy. For infliximab‐treated patients, the likelihoods were 1.4 (95% CI 0.9–2.0) for MTX and 1.3 (95% CI 0.8–2.1) for other DMARDs versus monotherapy. Cotherapy with MTX or another DMARD produced significantly higher rates of remission with etanercept (12% and 11%, respectively) as compared with etanercept monotherapy (5%). Infliximab‐treated patients showed similar remission rates in the MTX and other DMARD cotherapy groups (8% and 5%, respectively) as in the monotherapy group (7%).

Conclusion

In this study of real‐world patients, the use of MTX and, to a lesser extent, other DMARDs as cotherapy with etanercept was associated with a higher likelihood of response. Although the infliximab guidelines suggest that MTX be used as cotherapy, in clinical practice, both monotherapy and cotherapy with DMARDs other than MTX are used. These data suggest that either of the latter strategies may be useful in patients who are intolerant to MTX.

     

The PREMIER study: A multicenter,randomized, double‐blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early,aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of adalimumab plus methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX monotherapy or adalimumab monotherapy in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had not previously received MTX treatment.

Methods

This was a 2‐year, multicenter, double‐blind, active comparator–controlled study of 799 RA patients with active disease of <3 years' duration who had never been treated with MTX. Treatments included adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week plus oral MTX, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week, or weekly oral MTX. Co‐primary end points at year 1 were American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement (ACR50) and mean change from baseline in the modified total Sharp score.

Results

Combination therapy was superior to both MTX and adalimumab monotherapy in all outcomes measured. At year 1, more patients receiving combination therapy exhibited an ACR50 response (62%) than did patients who received MTX or adalimumab monotherapy (46% and 41%, respectively; both P < 0.001). Similar superiority of combination therapy was seen in ACR20, ACR70, and ACR90 response rates at 1 and 2 years. There was significantly less radiographic progression (P ≤ 0.002) among patients in the combination treatment arm at both year 1 and year 2 (1.3 and 1.9 Sharp units, respectively) than in patients in the MTX arm (5.7 and 10.4 Sharp units) or the adalimumab arm (3.0 and 5.5 Sharp units). After 2 years of treatment, 49% of patients receiving combination therapy exhibited disease remission (28‐joint Disease Activity Score <2.6), and 49% exhibited a major clinical response (ACR70 response for at least 6 continuous months), rates approximately twice those found among patients receiving either monotherapy. The adverse event profiles were comparable in all 3 groups.

Conclusion

In this population of patients with early, aggressive RA, combination therapy with adalimumab plus MTX was significantly superior to either MTX alone or adalimumab alone in improving signs and symptoms of disease, inhibiting radiographic progression, and effecting clinical remission.

     

Antibody response is reduced following vaccination with 7‐valent conjugate pneumococcal vaccine in adult methotrexate‐treated patients with established arthritis,but not those treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors

Objective

To study the influence of antiinflammatory treatments, including methotrexate (MTX) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, on antibody response following vaccination using a 7‐valent conjugate pneumococcal vaccine in adult patients with established arthritis.

Methods

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondylarthropathy (SpA) (including psoriatic arthritis) were vaccinated (n = 505). All patients were stratified into 6 prespecified groups based on diagnosis and treatment (RA patients receiving MTX, RA patients receiving anti‐TNF agents and MTX, RA patients receiving TNF inhibitors as monotherapy, SpA patients receiving anti‐TNF agents and MTX, SpA patients receiving TNF inhibitors as monotherapy, and SpA patients receiving nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] and/or analgesics). SpA patients receiving only NSAIDs/analgesics served as a control group. All patients received 1 dose (0.5 ml) of vaccine intramuscularly. Levels of IgG antibodies against 23F and 6B serotypes were measured at vaccination and at 4–6 weeks following vaccination, using standardized enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays.

Results

Positive antibody response was defined as an antibody response ratio (ARR) (i.e., ratio of post‐ to prevaccination antibody levels) of ≥2. The ARR differed significantly between the groups. A better ARR was seen among patients in the control group compared to those in groups treated with MTX or MTX in combination with TNF inhibitors. Among patients treated with TNF inhibitors as monotherapy, ARRs for both serotypes were lower numerically, but were not significantly different, compared to those in controls. Ongoing MTX treatment was predictive of reduced response (odds ratio 0.41 [95% confidence interval 0.24–0.68], P = 0.001). Higher age was associated with impaired positive antibody response. Concomitant prednisolone treatment elicited better positive antibody response in patients with RA.

Conclusion

Treatment with MTX and higher age were predictive of an impaired antibody response to the 7‐valent conjugate pneumococcal vaccine in this cohort of patients with chronic arthritis. TNF inhibitors did not significantly affect antibody responses.

     

Tocilizumab inhibits structural joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate: Results from the double‐blind treatment phase of a randomized placebo‐controlled trial of tocilizumab safety and prevention of structural joint damage at one year

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab plus methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX alone in preventing structural joint damage and improving physical function and disease activity in patients with moderate‐to‐severe rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to MTX.

Methods

A total of 1,196 patients were enrolled in a 2‐year, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Patients received tocilizumab (8 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg) or placebo every 4 weeks plus MTX. Rescue treatment was available from week 16. Results from year 1 are presented.

Results

Mean change in the total Genant‐modified Sharp score was 0.29 and 0.34 with tocilizumab 8 mg/kg plus MTX and 4 mg/kg plus MTX, respectively, versus 1.13 with placebo plus MTX (P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Analysis of variance of the area under the curve for change from baseline in the disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire showed greater decreases with tocilizumab 8 mg/kg and 4 mg/kg (−144.1 and −128.4 units, respectively) than with placebo (−58.1 units; P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Proportions of patients with American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement and with Disease Activity Score in 28 joints remission were higher in those receiving 8 mg/kg tocilizumab than in those receiving placebo (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). The safety profile of tocilizumab was consistent with the profiles in previous studies. Infections were the most common adverse and serious adverse events.

Conclusion

The findings of this study show that tocilizumab plus MTX results in greater inhibition of joint damage and improvement in physical function than does MTX alone. Tocilizumab has a well‐characterized safety profile.

     

The effectiveness of anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy in preventing progressive radiographic joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis: A population‐based study

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of 3 therapeutic strategies in preventing progressive joint damage, in a population‐based cohort. The 3 strategies were infliximab with concomitant disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), etanercept with concomitant DMARDs, and etanercept alone.

Methods

We used sequential radiographs to assess all patients who were treated with infliximab or etanercept for >10 months. The rates of erosion progression and joint space narrowing (JSN) were analyzed using multivariate regression models for longitudinal data, with adjustment for potential confounders.

Results

A total of 372 patients treated with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies met the inclusion criteria. The baseline characteristics of the patients assigned to the 3 strategies were not significantly different, except that, as expected, more patients were receiving combination therapy with infliximab. The combination of infliximab plus DMARDs was significantly more effective than etanercept alone for controlling erosion progression (P < 0.001), but the effectiveness of the 2 combination‐treatment strategies was similar (P = 0.07). The combination of infliximab plus DMARDs was also more effective at controlling progressive JSN compared with etanercept alone (P = 0.04) or etanercept plus DMARDs (P = 0.02). Treatment with anti‐TNF agents (infliximab or etanercept) plus concomitant DMARDs was more effective than treatment with etanercept alone for controlling erosion progression (P = 0.045).

Conclusion

When combined with traditional DMARDs, both etanercept and infliximab appear to offer similar protection against progressive structural joint damage, and combination therapy with either of these agents appears to be more effective than treatment with etanercept alone.

     

Brief Report: Long‐term outcome of a randomized clinical trial comparing methotrexate to cyclophosphamide for remission induction in early systemic antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis

Objective

The NORAM (Nonrenal Wegener's Granulomatosis Treated Alternatively with Methotrexate [MTX]) trial demonstrated that MTX can replace cyclophosphamide (CYC) as remission‐inducing treatment for patients with newly diagnosed early systemic antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. Duration of relapse‐free survival was longer among CYC‐treated patients than among MTX‐treated patients during short‐term followup. The aim of the present study was to describe the long‐term outcome in patients enrolled in the randomized clinical trial.

Methods

Outcome questionnaires were sent to investigators who had recruited patients for the NORAM trial. Patients treated with MTX for induction of remission (n = 49) were compared to CYC‐treated patients (n = 46) with respect to immunosuppressive therapy during followup, relapse‐free survival, mortality, and occurrence of other clinical events.

Results

The median duration of followup was 6 years (range 0.1–10.8 years). One patient developed end‐stage renal disease, and 11 died. The number of patients affected by serious infection, malignancy, or severe organ failure did not differ between treatment groups, and no difference in survival rate was observed. The duration of corticosteroid therapy was longer in the MTX group during the 18 months of the trial (P = 0.005). During subsequent followup, patients who were in the MTX group in the NORAM trial received corticosteroids, CYC, and other immunosuppressive agents (azathioprine, MTX, and/or mycophenolate mofetil) for longer periods than those who were in the CYC group (P = 0.004, P = 0.037, and P = 0.031, respectively). The cumulative relapse‐free survival tended to be lower in the MTX group (P = 0.056).

Conclusion

In the NORAM cohort, no difference in occurrence of major adverse events was observed between treatment groups during long‐term followup. However, first‐line treatment with MTX was associated with less effective disease control than CYC‐based induction therapy.