Preliminary evaluation in rheumatoid arthritis activity in patients treated with TNF-α blocker plus methotrexate versus methotrexate or leflunomide alone

Methotrexate (MTX) is a first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Leflunomide (LEF) and the biologic agents entered the arsenal of DMARDs in 1998. Therapeutic properties of new drugs are still under survey. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of MTX, LEF and a biologic agent (TNF-α blocker) combined with MTX in reducing disease activity in RA. Seventy-eight patients with active RA underwent a 24-week treatment with MTX 15 mg/week (30 pts), LEF 20 mg/day (30 pts) or a TNF-α blocker (etanercept 25 mg 2× weekly or infliximab 3 mg/kg in the week 0, 2, 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter) plus MTX 15 mg/week (18 pts). Only patients with RA resistant to MTX were included in groups receiving LEF or a biologic agent. During follow-up, patients’ characteristics, disease characteristics, and clinical and laboratory data were registered. RA activity was evaluated using the ESR, tender and swollen joint counts, the duration of morning stiffness, disease activity score-28 (DAS 28), visual analogue scale (VAS) and health assessment questionnaire (HAQ). Treatment efficacy was demonstrated with ACR 20, 50 and 70 criteria. All groups revealed statistically significant improvement in all disease activity parameters measured. The percentage improvements were similar in groups treated with MTX and LEF and—except for VAS—significantly greater in the group treated with a biologic agent. Disease activity assessed by DAS 28 decreased significantly in all groups: the results were comparable in groups treated with MTX and LEF and significantly more prominent in the group treated with a TNF-α blocker. The ACR 20, 50 and 70 improvements amounted, respectively: 100, 50 and 7% in MTX group 87, 60 and 13% in LEF group and 100, 83 and 50% in a biologic agent group. The study revealed equal effectiveness of MTX and LEF in reducing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy of a TNF-α blocker combined with MTX was higher than that of each conventional DMARDs, especially with regard to ACR 70 criteria (considerable improvement after treatment). LEF was equally effective as MTX in patients unable to continue MTX treatment due to the drug’s ineffectiveness.     

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with Anbainuo, a novel recombinant human TNFRII:Fc fusion protein, plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or Anbainuo alone in Chinese patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis

This study aims to evaluate the clinical and radiological efficacy as well as safety profiles of Anbainuo, a recombinant human TNFRII:Fc fusion protein, combined with methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX alone or Anbainuo alone in the treatment of Chinese patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In this 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, active comparator-controlled study, 396 RA patients were randomized into combination therapy group (Anbainuo plus MTX), Anbainuo group, or MTX group. Clinical response was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-N, ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and van der Heijde modification of Sharp score, among which ACR-N and ACR20 were defined as primary major endpoints. After 24 weeks of treatment, the ACR-N in the combination therapy group (12.79?±?9.24 %) was significantly higher than that in Anbainuo group (9.56?±?11.16 %) and in MTX group (5.08?±?11.1 %) (p?=?0.00 and p?=?0.00, respectively). Patients in Anbainuo group had significantly higher ACR-N than those in MTX group (p?=?0.02). More patients in the combination therapy group (53.6 %) achieved ACR50 improvement response than those in the MTX group (30.8 %). ACR70 of combination therapy group (27.7 %) was significantly higher than that of Anbainuo group (15.8 %) and MTX group (7.70 %), with no significant difference between Anbainuo group and MTX group. DAS28-ESR in the combination therapy group was significantly reduced compared to either monotherapy groups. Moreover, DAS28-ESR was significantly lower in Anbainou group than in MTX group. The combination therapy group also showed significantly less radiographic progression than the MTX group (p?=?0.03). The total adverse events (AE) in the combination group (40.9 %) was significantly higher than those in the MTX group (28.8 %) (p?<?0.05). Anbainuo combined with MTX therapy can effectively control the disease activity and radiographic progression of RA, while the incidence of AE also increased compared to either Anbainuo or MTX.     

艾拉莫德或来氟米特联合甲氨蝶呤治疗活动性类风湿关节炎的疗效和安全性比较:一项多中心 随机 双盲 双模拟对照的临床研究

目的旨在评价艾拉莫德联合甲氨蝶呤治疗活动性RA的疗效与安全性.方法本研究是一项多中心、随机、双盲、双模拟、对照临床试验.研究纳入中重度活动期RA患者,按照1∶1比例随机分配到艾拉莫德联合甲氨蝶呤治疗组(A组)与来氟米特联合甲氨蝶呤治疗组(B组).分别在用药后12、24、52周对2组的疗效和安全性进行评价.主要疗效终点为治疗后52周ACR20达标率.分别采用Pearson χ^2检验及两因素方差分析比较2组52周时ACR20达标率以及DAS28改善幅度,采用Pearson χ^2检验或Fisher确切概率检验比较2组治疗后ACR50和ACR70达标率之间差异.2组中计量资料采用独立样本t检验或非参数检验进行比较.结果共有240例符合入排标准的患者纳入研究.基线2组人口统计学资料与疾病活动性比较差异无统计学意义.A组和B组治疗后52周ACR20达标率分别为84.1%与81.0%(χ^2=0.35,P=0.56).2组在用药后12、24、52周ACR50/70达标率、DAS28、简明疾病活动指数以及同基线比DAS28下降绝对值比较差异均无统计学意义.A组不良事件更少(60.0%和79.0%,P<0.01).A组较B组出现AST/ALT升高和白细胞降低者更少,且更少使用护肝药物(P<0.05).结论艾拉莫德联合甲氨蝶呤是一种安全、有效的治疗活动性RA的方案,其疗效与来氟米特联合甲氨蝶呤相当,但安全性更好.     

Long-term efficacy of leflunomide on disease activity and inhibition of joint damage: retrospective comparison with methotrexate for Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients

We retrospectively compared treatment impact with leflunomide (LEF) or methotrexate (MTX) on retarding joint damage and clinical symptom including a 28-joint-count Disease Activity Score/erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) between two similar groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over an approximately 3-year treatment. One group included 29 patients treated with LEF alone (average dose 16.1 mg/day); the other group included 26 patients treated with MTX (average dose 7.4 mg/week) alone or combined with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. At baseline, mean disease duration was 7.1 and 6.9 years, and mean DAS28-ESR was 5.79 and 5.69, respectively. The average DAS28-ESR improvement of 1.750 (from 5.79 to 4.04) in the LEF-treated group was significantly greater than the effect of 1.007 (from 5.69 to 4.68) seen in the MTX group (P = 0.0455), with the same results being observed on European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria. Annual changes observed in Larsen score in total joints were 0.030 in the LEF group and 0.085 in the MTX group: LEF retards joint damage significantly better than MTX (P = 0.003). This inhibitory effect was better in small joints (P = 0.004) than in middle and large joints (P = 0.075). A negative correlation was noticed between improved DAS28-ESR and the progression of joint damage in the LEF group (r = −0.7068, P < 0.0001), whereas there was no correlation in the MTX group (r = −0.0311, P = 0.882). In daily clinical practice, LEF showed significant clinical and radiological improvement compared with the standard MTX regimen in Japan.     

Secondary failure to treatment with recombinant human IL-1 receptor antagonist in Chinese patients with rheumatoid arthritis

The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of anakinra, a recombinant human interleukin 1 receptor antagonist, plus methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to MTX therapy. A total of 54 patients with active RA, who were taking MTX at a stable dosage, were randomized to receive daily subcutaneous injections of anakinra (80 mg) or placebo. Clinical outcomes were assessed every 4 weeks for 24 weeks by using the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology. After 24 weeks, more patients achieved clinical benefits as determined by the ACR20 improvement treated with anakinra plus MTX compared with MTX alone (64% vs. 17%, P = 0.004). In the anakinra group, an ACR50 response was observed in 38% and an ACR70 response in 17%. None of the patients treated with MTX alone achieved ACR50 or ACR 70 improvement. However, nine of 42 (21.4%) patients in the anakinra group, who showed therapeutic response initially, had secondary drug failure to anakinra therapy thereafter. A significant increase in mean DAS28 from baseline was found in the non-responders to anakinra compared with placebo (0.83 ± 1.38 vs. −1.28 ± 0.78, P < 0.001). Anakinra is effective in the treatment of patients with active RA by blocking IL-1. However, the efficacy of anakinra is soon lost in about one fifth of patients in spite of initial good response.     

Efficacy of leflunomide addition in relation to prognostic factors for patients with active early rheumatoid arthritis failing to methotrexate in daily practice

The recommendations of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) suggest a different therapeutic approach to methotrexate (MTX) resistance according to the presence or absence of poor prognostic factors. Retrospectively, in our patients with active early RA (disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) > 3.2) that failed to respond to initial MTX monotherapy, we investigated whether leflunomide (LEF) addition had a different efficacy when associated with the presence or absence of poor prognostic factors. Of the 20 patients who received LEF, 15 (2 males and 13 females) tolerated the combination. Five patients had no poor prognostic factors, and 4 (80%) of those patients achieved remission or low disease activity (LDA) according to DAS28 and also a good response with the EULAR criteria. Of the 10 patients with at least one poor prognostic factor, remission or LDA occurred in 4 (40%) of the patients, and a good EULAR response was obtained in 3 (30%) of the patients. By Fisher’s exact test, no significant difference was found between the two groups of patients in remission or LDA (p = 0.28) according to DAS28 and a good response (p = 0.12) with the EULAR criteria. In all patients with an inadequate response to the LEF+MTX combination, the substitution of a TNF inhibitor for LEF or the addition of a TNF inhibitor to the combination led to remission or LDA. Large studies are required to investigate the efficacy of LEF addition in relation to prognostic factors in patients with active early RA that did not respond to the initial therapy with MTX alone.     

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.     

Etanercept in combination with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis patients intolerant to methotrexate

Although etanercept (ETN) is effective when used in monotherapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ETN/methotrexate (MTX) combination therapy is more efficacious. However, some patients show MTX intolerance; these patients may develop adverse events (AEs) or have risk factors for AEs. There is limited published information regarding the efficacy of combination therapy involving ETN and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs other than MTX. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of combination therapy with ETN and salazosulfapyridine (SASP) and/or bucillamine (Bc), a d-penicillamine analogue, in MTX-intolerant RA patients. Indices of RA activity, including disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28), were retrospectively analyzed over a 48-week period in 66 patients treated with ETN. Treatment efficacy was compared in the following 4 major treatment groups: ETN monotherapy, ETN + MTX, ETN + SASP, and ETN + SASP + Bc. Although intergroup differences in the percent change of DAS were not statistically significant, ETN + SASP + Bc seemed to be more effective than ETN monotherapy, and the efficacy of ETN + SASP + Bc was comparable to that of ETN + MTX according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) improvement ratings. These results suggest that ETN + SASP + Bc combination therapy may be a viable option for RA treatment in patients in whom MTX cannot be used.     

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.     

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.

     

Long-term efficacy of leflunomide on disease activity and inhibition of joint damage: retrospective comparison with methotrexate for Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients

Abstract

We retrospectively compared treatment impact with leflunomide (LEF) or methotrexate (MTX) on retarding joint damage and clinical symptom including a 28-joint-count Disease Activity Score/erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) between two similar groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over an approximately 3-year treatment. One group included 29 patients treated with LEF alone (average dose 16.1 mg/day); the other group included 26 patients treated with MTX (average dose 7.4 mg/week) alone or combined with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. At baseline, mean disease duration was 7.1 and 6.9 years, and mean DAS28-ESR was 5.79 and 5.69, respectively. The average DAS28-ESR improvement of 1.750 (from 5.79 to 4.04) in the LEF-treated group was significantly greater than the effect of 1.007 (from 5.69 to 4.68) seen in the MTX group (P = 0.0455), with the same results being observed on European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria. Annual changes observed in Larsen score in total joints were 0.030 in the LEF group and 0.085 in the MTX group: LEF retards joint damage significantly better than MTX (P = 0.003). This inhibitory effect was better in small joints (P = 0.004) than in middle and large joints (P = 0.075). A negative correlation was noticed between improved DAS28-ESR and the progression of joint damage in the LEF group (r = ?0.7068, P < 0.0001), whereas there was no correlation in the MTX group (r = ?0.0311, P = 0.882). In daily clinical practice, LEF showed significant clinical and radiological improvement compared with the standard MTX regimen in Japan.     

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Recommendations of Czech Rheumatological Society for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Efficacy and treatment strategies

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease of unknown aetiology characterized by presence of chronic symmetric synovitis, which leads to the formation of joint erosions. Generally recommended method for activity assessment of RA is so called Disease Activity Score (DAS). In early RA when low disease activity is present with oligo- or monoarthritis antimalarials are drugs of choice, while sulfasalazine (SAS) is recommended in cases with medium activity without erosions. Initial treatment with methotrexate (MTX) or leflunomide (LEF) should be applied in a very active polyarthritis with a rapid development of erosions. MTX is often combined with other disease modifying drugs (DMARD) and the blockers of tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha). LEF is to be administered to the patients in whom the other DMARD are contraindicated or not tolerated. In established RA with oligo- or monoarthritis with permanent low activity SAS is DMARD of choice. In cases with insufficient response and medium activity MTX is used and if it is inefficient LEF or combination of DMARD should be considered. In a very active disease with a rapid evolution of erosions high doses of MTX or LEF are recommended. When extraarticular symptoms of RA are present azathioprine is to be applied and in case of involvement of vital organs cyclophosphamide should be used. When DMARD are failing or contraindicated TNF-alpha blockers are to be applied. When one TNF-alpha blocker is inefficient it should by replaced by another one from the same group or another biological should be used. For indication of biologicals the activity limit is DAS28 5.1 and the decrease of DAS28 more than 1.2 is an efficacy criterion. Nonsteroidal antirheumatic drugs are an important part in the management of RA, and also corticosteroids are often of used in oral or parenteral form. To the complex therapy of RA nonpharmacological means are usually implemented--different physical procedures and various surgeries.     

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.     

Study of active controlled tocilizumab monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (SATORI): significant reduction in disease activity and serum vascular endothelial growth factor by IL-6 receptor inhibition therapy

We investigated the clinical efficacy and safety of tocilizumab (a humanized anti-IL-6 receptor antibody) monotherapy in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with an inadequate response to low dose methotrexate (MTX). In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, 125 patients were allocated to receive either tocilizumab 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks plus MTX placebo (tocilizumab group) or tocilizumab placebo plus MTX 8 mg/week (control group) for 24 weeks. The clinical responses were measured using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels were also monitored. At week 24, 25.0% in the control group and 80.3% in the tocilizumab group achieved ACR20 response. The tocilizumab group showed superior ACR response criteria over control at all time points. Additionally, serum VEGF levels were significantly decreased by tocilizumab treatment. The overall incidences of adverse events (AEs) were 72 and 92% (serious AEs: 4.7 and 6.6%; serious infections: 1.6 and 3.3%) in the control and the tocilizumab groups, respectively. All serious adverse events improved by adequate treatment. Tocilizumab monotherapy was well tolerated and provided an excellent clinical benefit in active RA patients with an inadequate response to low dose MTX.     

Combination of cyclosporine and leflunomide versus single therapy in severe rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of combination (COMB) of cyclosporine (CSA) and leflunomide (LEF) versus each drug alone, in the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: One hundred six patients with active RA refractory to at least one disease modifying antirheumatic drug (methotrexate obligatorily) were entered into a 12-month open, prospective trial and were randomly allocated to receive either CSA 2.5 to 5 mg/kg/day, or LEF 20 mg/day, or the combination of both at the same initiating dose. RESULTS: The American College of Rheumatology 50% (ACR50) response rates for the 3 groups were COMB 80%, CSA 40%, and LEF 42% (p = 0.001). Combination therapy was also significantly better than CSA and LEF at the more stringent 70% response rate (69% vs 34% vs 30%, respectively; p = 0.001). Comparable Disease Activity Score 28 reduction rates were noted at trial termination for all 3 treatment arms: COMB -2.74 vs CSA -2.53 vs LEF -2.28 (p nonsignificant). Discontinuation rates were more common in LEF vs CSA arm (p = 0.046). No unexpected or serious adverse drug effects were identified in the combination group during the 12-month period. CONCLUSION: The combination of CSA and LEF in patients with refractory RA provided statistically significant benefit in ACR50 and ACR70. Adverse events were not substantially increased.     

Addition of another disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug to methotrexate reduces the flare rate within 2 years after infliximab discontinuation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An open,randomized, controlled trial

Abstract

Objectives. We examined whether the addition of another conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to methotrexate (MTX) upon infliximab (IFX) discontinuation in well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients could suppress subsequent disease flare.

Methods. RA patients maintaining DAS28-CRP (Disease Activity Score of 28 joints with C-reactive protein) scores < 2.6 for ≥ 6 months with IFX were randomized either to receive addition of bucillamine (BUC) to MTX (BUC + MTX group; n = 24) or not (MTX group; n = 31) upon discontinuing IFX. The primary endpoint was the flare rate within 2 years of IFX discontinuation.

Results. Six patients discontinuing MTX during the study were excluded from analyses. Seventeen patients (63.0%) experienced flares in the MTX group, which was significantly reduced in the BUC + MTX group (31.8%; p = 0.045). Further, the flare rates differed significantly between remission and non-remission by a Boolean definition upon IFX discontinuation in the MTX group (40.0% vs. 91.7%, respectively; p = 0.014), but they were comparable in the BUC + MTX group. BUC treatment was interrupted in seven patients due to rash, proteinuria and incompliance.

Conclusions. DMARDs combination therapy may be a better treatment strategy than MTX monotherapy for maintaining RA control after successful discontinuation of biological agents.     

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

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

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

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