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.

     

Multicenter,randomized, double‐blind,controlled trial of treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with T‐614 compared with methotrexate

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of T‐614 versus methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

In this multicenter, double‐blind trial, 489 patients randomly received either T‐614 25 mg/day for the first 4 weeks and 50 mg/day for the subsequent 20 weeks (group 1, n = 163), T‐614 50 mg/day for 24 weeks (group 2, n = 163), or MTX 10 mg/week for the first 4 weeks and 15 mg/week for the subsequent 20 weeks (n = 163). Clinical and laboratory parameters were analyzed at baseline and at 4, 10, 17, and 24 weeks.

Results

After 24 weeks of treatment, the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria response rate for patients in T‐614 group 2 (63.8%) was not statistically significantly different from that for patients receiving MTX treatment (62.0%), and was superior to that for patients in T‐614 group 1 (50.9%). The result of the noninferiority analysis indicated that the efficacy of T‐614 (50 mg/day) was not lower than that of MTX by <10%. Rheumatoid factor and IgA, IgG, and IgM demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in all groups. Frequently reported adverse events included hematologic disorder, skin reactions, gastrointestinal symptoms, and transient liver enzyme elevations in the T‐614 therapy groups. Side effects in the T‐614 groups were generally fewer and milder than in the MTX group, except for skin reactions. There were no prominent cardiovascular adverse events and gastrointestinal ulcers found in the T‐614 groups.

Conclusion

Results indicate that T‐614 therapy 50 mg/day is effective and well tolerated, and represents a new option for the treatment of patients with active RA.     

Two‐year,blinded, randomized,controlled trial of treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with methotrexate

Objective

Three 6–12‐month, double‐blind, randomized, controlled trials have shown leflunomide (LEF; 20 mg/day, loading dose 100 mg × 3 days) to be effective and safe for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis of the North American trial assessed whether the clinical benefit evident at month 12 was sustained over 24 months of treatment with LEF as compared with the efficacy and safety of methotrexate (MTX), an equivalent disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug, at 24 months.

Methods

The year‐2 cohort, comprising patients continuing into the second year of treatment with ≥1 dose of study medication and ≥1 followup visit after week 52, consisted of 235 patients (LEF n = 98; placebo n = 36; MTX n = 101). The mean (±SD) maintenance dose of LEF was 19.6 ± 1.99 mg/day in year 2 and that of MTX was 12.6 ± 4.69 mg/week. Statistical analyses used an intent‐to‐treat (ITT) approach. Statistical comparisons of the active treatments only were prospectively defined in the protocol.

Results

In total, 85% and 79% of LEF and MTX patients, respectively, who entered year 2 completed 24 months of treatment. From month 12 to month 24, the American College of Rheumatology improvement response rates of ≥20% (LEF 79% versus MTX 67%; P = 0.049), ≥50% (LEF 56% versus MTX 43%; P = 0.053), and ≥70% (LEF 26% versus MTX 20%; P = 0.361) were sustained in both of the active treatment groups. The mean change in total Sharp radiologic damage scores at year 2 compared with year 1 and baseline (LEF 1.6 versus MTX 1.2) showed statistically equivalent sustained retardation of radiographic progression in the active treatment groups. Maximal improvements evident at 6 months in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (HAQ DI) and the physical component score of the Medical Outcomes Survey 36‐item short form were sustained over 12 months and 24 months; improvement in the HAQ DI with LEF (−0.60) was statistically significantly superior to that with MTX (−0.37) at 24 months (P = 0.005). Over 24 months in the ITT cohort, serious treatment‐related adverse events were reported in 1.6% of the LEF‐treated patients and 3.7% of the MTX‐treated patients. Frequently reported adverse events included upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, rash, reversible alopecia, and transient liver enzyme elevations.

Conclusion

The safety and efficacy of LEF and MTX were maintained over the second year of this 2‐year trial. Both active treatments retarded radiographic progression over 24 months. LEF was statistically significantly superior to MTX in improving physical function as measured by the HAQ DI over 24 months of treatment. Results indicate that LEF is a safe and effective initial treatment for active RA, with clinical benefit sustained over 2 years of treatment without evidence of new or increased toxicity.

     

Etanercept versus methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: Two‐year radiographic and clinical outcomes

Objective

To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received monotherapy with either etanercept or methotrexate (MTX) for 2 years and to assess the safety of this therapy.

Methods

In the Enbrel ERA (early rheumatoid arthritis) trial, 632 patients with early, active RA were randomized to receive either twice‐weekly subcutaneous etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg) or weekly oral MTX (mean dosage 19 mg per week) for at least 1 year in a double‐blind manner. Following the blinded phase of the trial, 512 patients continued to receive the therapy to which they had been randomized for up to 1 additional year, in an open‐label manner. Radiograph readers remained blinded to treatment group assignment and the chronologic order of images.

Results

At 24 months, more 25‐mg etanercept patients than MTX patients met American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (72% and 59%, respectively; P = 0.005), and more had no increase in total score and erosion scores on the Sharp scale (P = 0.017 and P = 0.012, respectively). The mean changes in total Sharp score and erosion score in the 25‐mg etanercept group (1.3 and 0.66 units, respectively) were significantly lower than those in the MTX group (3.2 and 1.86 units, respectively; P = 0.001). Significantly more patients in the 25‐mg etanercept group (55%) than in the MTX group (37%) had at least 0.5 units of improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (P < 0.001). Fewer patients in the etanercept group than in the MTX group experienced adverse events or discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

Conclusion

Etanercept as monotherapy was safe and was superior to MTX in reducing disease activity, arresting structural damage, and decreasing disability over 2 years in patients with early, aggressive RA.

     

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.

     

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

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of chicken type II collagen (CCII) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

We conducted a prospective, 24‐week, followup, multicenter, double‐blind, controlled study of CCII (0.1 mg/day) versus MTX (10 mg/week) in patients with active RA. Clinical assessments were performed at screening and at 12, 18, and 24 weeks of treatment.

Results

A total of 236 RA patients were included; 211 patients (89.4%) completed the 24‐week followup. In both groups there was a decrease in pain, morning stiffness, tender joint count, swollen joint count, Health Assessment Questionnaire score, and investigator and patient assessment of function; all differences were statistically significant. In the MTX group, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C‐reactive protein level decreased. Rheumatoid factor did not change in either group. At 24 weeks, 68.57% of patients in the CCII group and 83.02% in the MTX group met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20), and 40.95% and 57.54%, respectively, met the ACR50 criteria. The ACR20 and ACR50 response rates in the CCII group were lower than those in the MTX group, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Gastrointestinal symptoms were common in both groups. There were fewer and milder side effects in the CCII group than the MTX group. The difference in incidence of adverse events between the 2 groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

CCII is effective in the treatment of RA. CCII is well tolerated, and the incidence of adverse events of CCII is lower than that of MTX.     

A randomized,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.

     

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.

     

Patient reported outcomes in a trial of combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis: the TEMPO trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient reported measures of function, health related quality of life (QoL), and satisfaction with medication among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with methotrexate (MTX), etanercept, or both for up to 1 year. METHODS: In a 52 week, double blind, clinical trial, patients with active RA were randomised to receive etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, methotrexate up to 20 mg weekly, or combination therapy. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index, EuroQoL health status visual analogue scale (EQ-5D VAS), patient global assessment, and patient general health VAS were administered at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 32, 40, 48, and 52. Satisfaction with the medication was compared at 52 weeks. RESULTS: Of 682 enrolled patients, 522 completed 52 weeks of treatment. Mean improvement from baseline in HAQ score was 0.65, 0.70, and 1.0 for MTX, etanercept, and the combination, respectively. The mean percentage and absolute improvement in the HAQ was significantly higher (p<0.01) for combination therapy than for either of the monotherapies. Combination therapy produced significantly more rapid achievement of HAQ < or =0.5 sustained for 6 months than either of the monotherapies (p<0.01). Compared with patients receiving monotherapy, those receiving combination therapy achieved a significantly better (p<0.05) health state as measured by the EQ-5D VAS (mean (SD) 63.7 (3.2), 66.8 (3.2), 72.7 (3.1) for MTX, etanercept, and the combination, respectively). Results were similar for other assessments (p<0.01). Patients in combination and etanercept groups were significantly more likely (p<0.0001, p = 0.0009, respectively) to report satisfaction with the medication. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate improved function, QoL, and satisfaction with the medication significantly more than monotherapy.     

The effects of intravenous doxycycline therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To determine the feasibility, safety, and potential clinical efficacy of intravenous (IV) doxycycline therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as well as its possible effects on serum and urinary markers of collagen breakdown.

Methods

The exploratory trial was designed as a 16‐week, single‐center, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Eligible subjects with active seropositive or erosive RA were randomly allocated into 3 treatment groups: doxycycline 200 mg IV, azithromycin 250 mg orally, or placebo. The blinded IV study drug was administered once daily for the first 3 weeks by home self‐infusion and then weekly for the next 8 weeks, concurrent with the blinded oral study drug at the prescribed doses. The primary end points were the change between baseline and week 4 in the tender joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and urinary excretion of pyridinoline.

Results

The trial was stopped prematurely after enrollment of 31 patients. Three subjects were withdrawn because of worsening arthritis, and 1 patient was withdrawn when newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Infusion‐related events occurred in 13 (42%) of 31 patients, but none were serious. There were 4 serious adverse events unrelated to the study drug, including a new diagnosis of breast cancer in 3 cases and hospitalization for abdominal pain in 1 case. No significant differences were observed across treatment groups in any of the 3 primary clinical end points.

Conclusion

Although IV doxycycline therapy was generally well‐tolerated by patients in this trial, it did not show any evidence of reducing disease activity or collagen crosslink production.

     

Alefacept in combination with methotrexate for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: Results of a randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alefacept in combination with methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

Patients were eligible for this randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial if they were ages 18–70 years and had active PsA (≥3 swollen joints and ≥3 tender joints) despite treatment with MTX for ≥3 months (a stable dosage for ≥4 weeks prior to enrollment). Patients were stratified according to psoriasis body surface area (BSA) involvement (≥3% or <3%). Alefacept (15 mg) or placebo was administered intramuscularly once weekly for 12 weeks in combination with MTX, followed by 12 weeks of observation during which only MTX treatment was continued. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients achieving a 20% improvement in disease activity according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria (an ACR20 response) at week 24.

Results

One hundred eighty‐five patients were randomly assigned to receive alefacept plus MTX (n = 123) or placebo plus MTX (n = 62). At week 24, 54% of patients in the alefacept plus MTX group achieved an ACR20 response, compared with 23% of patients in the placebo plus MTX group (P < 0.001). Mean reductions in tender and swollen joint counts in patients receiving alefacept plus MTX were –8.0 and –6.3, respectively. In patients with psoriasis involving ≥3% BSA (n = 87), a 50% reduction from the baseline Psoriasis Area Severity Index at week 14 was achieved by 53% of patients receiving alefacept plus MTX compared with 17% of those receiving placebo plus MTX (P < 0.001). Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. In the alefacept plus MTX group, the incidence of serious adverse events was low (1.6%), and no opportunistic infections or malignancies were reported.

Conclusion

Alefacept in combination with MTX may be an effective and safe treatment for PsA.

     

Golimumab in psoriatic arthritis: One‐year clinical efficacy,radiographic, and safety results from a phase III,randomized, placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

Golimumab, administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, has been shown to be effective in reducing the signs and symptoms of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) through week 24 of the GO‐REVEAL study. Herein we report 1‐year clinical, radiographic, and safety findings.

Methods

Adult patients with active PsA (≥3 swollen and ≥3 tender joints) were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous placebo, golimumab 50 mg, or golimumab 100 mg every 4 weeks through week 20. At week 16, patients with <10% improvement from baseline in swollen and tender joint counts entered a blinded early escape phase, with placebo crossover to golimumab 50 mg, golimumab 50 mg increased to 100 mg, and golimumab 100 mg continued at 100 mg. Patients receiving placebo who did not enter the early escape phase crossed over to golimumab 50 mg at week 24. Findings through 1 year are reported, including the second of 2 coprimary end points (i.e., change from baseline to week 24 in PsA‐modified Sharp/van der Heijde score [SHS]).

Results

A total of 405 patients were randomized: 113 to placebo and 146 each to the golimumab 50 mg and 100 mg groups. Mean changes in PsA‐modified SHS from baseline to week 24 for the combined golimumab 50 mg and 100 mg group (−0.09) and the golimumab 50 mg group (−0.16) were significantly different versus placebo (0.27) (P = 0.015 and P = 0.011, respectively). Radiographic benefit was maintained through week 52 with golimumab. Clinical efficacy, including improvement in joint and skin responses and physical function, was maintained through 1 year. The frequency/types of adverse events were similar to those reported through week 24.

Conclusion

Treatment of PsA with golimumab inhibited structural damage progression and demonstrated continued clinical efficacy and safety through 1 year.