Feverfew in rheumatoid arthritis: a double blind, placebo controlled study.

Feverfew, reputed by folklore to be effective in arthritis, has in vitro properties that could be beneficial in the control of inflammatory disease. Forty one female patients with symptomatic rheumatoid arthritis received either dried chopped feverfew (70-86 mg) or placebo capsules once daily for six weeks. Allocation was random and not known by patient or observer. Variables assessed included stiffness, pain (visual analogue scale), grip strength, articular index, full blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, urea, creatinine, C reactive protein, complement breakdown products (C3dg), rheumatoid factor titre, immunoglobulins (IgG, IgA, IgM), functional capacity, and patient and observer global opinions. One patient (placebo) withdrew after three days and was not included in the analysis. Treatment and placebo groups (20 patients each) were well matched at entry. No important differences between the clinical or laboratory variables of the groups were observed during the six week period. This study therefore shows no apparent benefit from oral feverfew in rheumatoid arthritis.     

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial of infliximab combined with low dose methotrexate in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: A placebo controlled, double-blind trial (DBT) was conducted for Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with low dose methotrexate (MTX) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of infliximab. Extended treatment with infliximab was conducted in an open-label trial (OLT). METHODS: In the DBT, 147 patients were randomly assigned and treated with a placebo or 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg infliximab at Weeks 0, 2 and 6, combined with MTX. In the OLT, 129 patients from the DBT received 3 mg/kg infliximab every 8 weeks. RESULTS: The mean dose of MTX was 7.2 +/- 2.0 mg/week. Significantly more patients receiving 3 mg/kg (61.2%) and 10 mg/kg (52.9%)infliximab achieved a 20% improvement according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria at Week 14, compared to placebo (23.4%) (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in incidence of adverse events among the treatment groups. In patients receiving infliximab in the DBT, 11.6% of patients with serum infliximab just before the OLT developed antibodies to infliximab (ATI) in the OLT, whereas 62.2% of patients without serum infliximab did. In patients receiving placebo in the DBT, 43.9% developed ATI. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of infliximab combined with low dose MTX were similar to those of the ATTRACT study. The data from the DBT and OLT also supported the importance of an induction treatment of infliximab, followed by a maintenance treatment without a long interval, giving stable serum concentrations in order to prevent formation of ATI.     

Cyclosporin in rheumatoid arthritis: a double blind, placebo controlled study in 52 patients.

The efficacy and safety of cyclosporin A (CyA) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assessed in a four month double blind, placebo controlled study using an initial dosage of 5 mg/kg daily. Six patients withdrew from the study (two in the placebo group because of inefficacy of treatment and four in the CyA group because of side effects). These six patients were considered therapeutic failures. At the end of the trial the study treatment was considered as good or very good by 14 out of the 26 CyA group patients and by only two out of the 26 placebo group patients. Moreover, in the CyA group significant improvement was observed in five of the seven clinical assessment criteria. Clinical improvement was correlated with a decrease in C reactive protein, alpha 1 glycoprotein levels, and platelet count but not with erythrocyte sedimentation rate or rheumatoid factor titres. Renal toxicity (13 cases) remained the major problem in the management of these patients. This study shows that CyA is effective in active rheumatoid arthritis but requires close monitoring for toxicity.     

Etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: In a phase II study, etanercept (recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor [p75]:Fc fusion protein) safely produced rapid, dose-dependent improvement in rheumatoid arthritis over 3 months. OBJECTIVE: To confirm the benefit of etanercept therapy of longer duration and simplified dosing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with blinded joint assessors. SETTING: 13 North American centers. PATIENTS: 234 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. INTERVENTION: Twice-weekly subcutaneous injections of etanercept, 10 or 25 mg, or placebo for 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end points were 20% and 50% improvement in disease activity according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses at 3 and 6 months. Other end points were 70% ACR responses at 3 and 6 months and other measures of disease activity at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Etanercept significantly reduced disease activity in a dose-related fashion. At 3 months, 62% of the patients receiving 25 mg of etanercept and 23% of the placebo recipients achieved 20% ACR response (P < 0.001). At 6 months, 59% of the 25-mg group and 11% of the placebo group achieved a 20% ACR response (P < 0.001); 40% and 5%, respectively, achieved a 50% ACR response (P < 0.01). The respective mean percentage reduction in the number of tender and swollen joints at 6 months was 56% and 47% in the 25-mg group and 6% and -7% in the placebo group (P < 0.05). Significantly more etanercept recipients achieved a 70% ACR response, minimal disease status (0 to 5 affected joints), and improved quality of life. Etanercept was well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Etanercept can safely provide rapid, significant, and sustained benefit in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.     

Cyclosporin treatment for rheumatoid arthritis: a placebo controlled, double blind, multicentre study.

The efficacy and safety of cyclosporin for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were assessed in a six month double blind, placebo controlled, multicentre study. The initial dosage of the drug was 10 mg/kg daily for two months. There were many discontinuations in both the cyclosporin group (eight out of 17) and the placebo group (six out of 19). Of the patients who completed the six months of therapy, those who had received cyclosporin showed a significant improvement in the number of swollen joints, the Ritchie articular index, and pain at active movement and at rest, compared not only with their condition at the start of the study, but also with the end results of the placebo group. Major adverse reactions to the drug were gastrointestinal disturbances and nephrotoxicity, which were probably due to the relatively high dosages of cyclosporin given in combination with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.     

Minocycline treatment for rheumatoid arthritis: an open dose finding study

Ten patients with active definite or classical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were treated with oral minocycline (maximal daily dose 400 mg) during 16 weeks in an open study. Seven patients reported side effects (in most cases vestibular) leading to premature discontinuation in one. Half of the efficacy variables improved significantly after 4 weeks of therapy. At the end of the study all variables were significantly changed compared with their pretreatment values. We conclude that minocycline may be beneficial in RA. This effect needs to be confirmed in controlled studies.     

Nonathymulin in rheumatoid arthritis: two double blind, placebo controlled trials.

Two randomised double blind, placebo controlled trials have been carried out to assess the effectiveness of nonathymulin, a synthetic thymic peptide hormone, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to compare three different dosage schedules (1, 5, and 10 mg/day). Nonathymulin 5 mg proved to be the most efficient dose, providing significant clinical improvement as evaluated by the global assessment of all patients who entered the trials (56% v 17% in the placebo group) (p less than 0.02) and by four objective parameters. This effect was accompanied with minimal adverse effects and was not associated with clear changes in immunological parameters. A significant correlation was observed, however, in clinical response to nonathymulin, and T cell subset imbalance was assessed using monoclonal anti-T cell antibodies and a functional suppressor T cell assay.     

Cyclosporine in rheumatoid arthritis.

The efficacy and toxicity of cyclosporine in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are reviewed. Most of the early trials were restricted to patients with intractable RA. The initial daily dose of cyclosporine was 5 to 10 mg/kg, which is now considered high. Of 283 cyclosporine-treated patients in nine studies, 8% discontinued the drug prematurely because of inefficacy and 17% because of adverse reactions. Cyclosporine improves clinical parameters but does not influence the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. The most important side effects are gastrointestinal intolerance and nephrotoxicity. The former is of minor importance with the present dosage schedule (starting daily dose, 2.5 mg/kg), and increments should follow the principle "go low, go slow." Guidelines are given to avoid or reduce nephrotoxicity. It may be beneficial to administer cyclosporine early in the course of RA.     

A randomized controlled trial of ciamexon versus placebo in the immunomodulatory treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

To determine the efficacy of the new immunosuppressive agent ciamexon in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), we conducted a 6-month, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The study included 21 outpatients with confirmed RA, who were randomized into 3 treatment groups of 7 patients each. Group 1 received 400 mg/day of ciamexon, group 2 received 100 mg/day of ciamexon, and group 3 received placebo. We investigated the influence of ciamexon on the clinical course, the systemic inflammatory activity, and the lymphocyte subsets in the peripheral blood. Significant, dose-dependent improvement was seen in both the clinical and the biochemical activity indexes at the end of the treatment period (P = 0.02 to P = 0.05). The proportion of activated T lymphocytes was significantly decreased (P = 0.05), and the proportion of CD8-positive lymphocytes was significantly increased (P = 0.03) in patients taking ciamexon. The major adverse effects were hepatotoxicity (2 patients) and rash (2 patients). This study documents the clinical efficacy of ciamexon therapy in RA patients and identifies the agent's potential toxicity.     

Assessment of radiologic progression in rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized, controlled trial

Radiologic assessment of progressive joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis is generally considered to be the ultimate standard for evaluation of treatment. We compared alternative radiologic techniques by performing a randomized, controlled trial in which hand films of rheumatoid arthritis patients were read by several skilled observes. The number of joints evaluated (34 versus 18) was found to make relatively little difference, but the number of readers and their experience level was critical. Films should be read in pairs. Joint space narrowing and erosion scores were shown to contribute independent information. Use of recommended techniques can reduce the number of patients required and, thus, can reduce the cost of a clinical trial by more than half and can substantially increase the sensitivity and efficiency of a trial. Therefore, critical selection of the method of assessing study endpoint is of great importance.     

Comparison of timegadine and naproxen in rheumatoid arthritis. A placebo controlled trial

A double blind, cross-over design was used to compare the acute effects of timegadine, naproxen and placebo in rheumatoid arthritis. Timegadine appeared to be more effective than naproxen in those variables related to disease activity although there were no statistically significant differences (apart from morning stiffness) where variables were examined individually. There was a tendency to a rise in alkaline phosphatase, and possibly gamma glutamyl transpeptidase, during the 2-week timegadine treatment period. No other biochemical or haematological abnormality was observed.     

英利昔单抗联合甲氨蝶呤治疗类风湿关节炎的随机双盲临床研究

目的评价英利昔单抗与甲氨蝶呤(MTX)联合使用与单独使用MTX,在治疗类风湿关节炎(RA)中的疗效与安全性。方法本研究为随机、双盲、平行对照的临床试验。49例接受过至少3个月稳定剂量MTX治疗的活动性RA患者随机分为试验组(24例)和对照组(25例)。两组受试者在第0、2、6、14周分别接受3mg/kg的英利昔单抗或安慰剂静脉滴注,同时每周按固定剂量继续服MTX。并于试验的第0、2、6、14、18周随访,评价疗效和不良反应。以美国风湿病学会(ACR)疗效评价指标ACR20为主要疗效指标,ACR50、ACR70、晨僵时间、关节肿胀数、关节肿胀指数、关节压痛数、关节压痛指数；次要疗效指标为疼痛目视模拟测量表(VAS)评分、疲乏VAS评分、疾病总体状况的医生评价VAS评分、疾病总体状况的病人评价VAS评分、健康评价问卷(HAQ)评分。结果治疗后第2周时,英利昔单抗联合MTX组ACR20有效率为62．5%,对照组仅为8．0%(P=0．002)；晨僵时间、关节压痛数、关节压痛指数、关节肿胀数、关节肿胀指数、疼痛VAS、疲乏VAS、医生总体评价VAS、病人总体评价VAS、HAQ和血沉等较对照组也均有显著的改善(P＜0．05或P＜0．01)。第18周时,英利昔单抗联合MTX组ACR20有效率为79．2%,对照组只有48．0%(P=0．024)。两组之间不良事件发生率差异无统计学意义。结论英利昔单抗联合MTX治疗RA的疗效明显优于单用MTX的疗效,能迅速改善与RA有关的各项症状、体征和实验室炎性活动指标,具有良好的安全性。     

Cyclosporin A in severe, treatment-refractory rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized study

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of cyclosporin A in patients with severe, treatment-refractory rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN: Prospective randomized, double-blind 6-month trial. PATIENTS: Thirty-one patients who had classic seropositive rheumatoid arthritis with active synovitis unresponsive to conventional therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to high-dose (10 mg/kg body weight.d) or low-dose (1 mg/kg.d) cyclosporin A therapy. A reduction in the dose was permitted for adverse side effects. After 6 months of therapy, patients who showed clinically relevant improvement, defined as a 40% or greater reduction in their total joint activity score, were given the option to continue receiving the therapy for an additional 6 months. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At 6 months, clinically relevant improvement occurred in 10 of 15 patients (95% CI, 38 to 88) receiving high-dose therapy and in 4 of 16 patients (CI, 7 to 52) receiving low-dose therapy (P = 0.02). Statistically significant improvements in individual measures were shown only in the high-dose group. Improvements were noted in the number of tender joints (-18.8; CI, -24.5 to -13.1) and swollen joints (-12.1; CI, -15.4 to -8.6), as well as in physician's global scores (-1.5; CI, -2.1 to -0.9) and patient's global scores (-1.1; CI, -1.9 to -0.5). Improvement in disease activity was maintained through 12 months in the high-dose group. The clinical responses to cyclosporin A were most evident in patients with depressed in-vitro proliferative responses of peripheral blood mononuclear lymphocytes to soluble recall antigens. Toxicities, such as fatigue, gastrointestinal and neurologic complaints, and hypertrichosis were frequent but often reversible with a reduction in the dose. Nephrotoxicity, with a 20% increase in the serum creatinine level, was seen in 27 of 31 patients (CI, 71 to 97). CONCLUSIONS: Cyclosporin A is an effective therapy for severe, treatment-refractory rheumatoid arthritis. Side effects, particularly nephrotoxicity, are common.     

A double-blind controlled study comparing sulphasalazine with placebo in rheumatoid factor (RF)-negative rheumatoid arthritis

Summary The efficacy and tolerability of sulphasalazine (SASP) was examined in a double blind, placebo-controlled 24-week study of 32 patients with rheumatoid factor (RF)-negative RA. Twelve patients (75%) of the SASP group completed the study; 4 patients were withdrawn because of an adverse event. Ten patients (62.5%) in the placebo group completed the study; 5 dropped out because of lack of response and one because of an adverse reaction.Efficacy was demonstrated by a significant and sustained improvement in the indices of disease activity in the SASP group. It was confirmed by significant intergroup differences in favour of SASP over placebo in the changes in ESR, Ritchie index, number of painful joints and clinical score. There was also a significant difference in favour of SASP in the number of responders and the number of withdrawals due to inefficacy. The character, frequency and timing of side-effects were similar to those previously reported. All were reversible on stopping therapy.This study shows that SASP is an effective second-line drug for treating patients with RF-negative RA.     

A randomized double blind,placebo controlled trial of topical Tripterygium wilfordii in rheumatoid arthritis: reanalysis using logistic regression analysis

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of topical Tripterygium wilfordii (TW), a Chinese herbal therapy, in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A 6 week randomized double blind placebo controlled study of 61 patients with RA meeting American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria was conducted in China. The primary outcome was a modified ACR-20 response rate, analyzed by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The modified ACR-20 response rate differed significantly (topical TW 58% vs placebo 20%; p = 0.002). There was an 8.1-fold (95% CI 1.9-35.4) increase in the modified ACR-20 response for the TW compared to the placebo group, adjusted for age and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. CONCLUSION: Topical TW appears efficacious for the treatment of RA, but larger studies are needed.     

A randomized controlled trial of homeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that homeopathy is effective in reducing the symptoms of joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHOD: This was a 6-month randomized, cross-over, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-centre study set in a teaching hospital rheumatology out-patient clinic. The participants of the study were 112 patients who had definite or classical RA, were seropositive for rheumatoid factor and were receiving either stable doses of single non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for > or =3 months or single disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with or without NSAIDs for > or =6 months. Patients who were severely disabled, had taken systemic steroids in the previous 6 months or had withdrawn from DMARD therapy in the previous 12 months were excluded. Two series of medicines were used. One comprised 42 homeopathic medicines used for treating RA in 6cH (10(-12)) and/or 30cH (10(-30)) dilutions (a total of 59 preparations) manufactured to French National Pharmacopoeia standards, the other comprised identical matching placebos. The main outcome measures were visual analogue scale pain scores, Ritchie articular index, duration of morning stiffness and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients completed the trial. Over 6 months there were significant decreases (P<0.01 by Wilcoxon rank sum tests) in their mean pain scores (fell 18%), articular indices (fell 24%) and ESRs (fell 11%). Fifty-four patients withdrew before completing the trial. Thirty-one changed conventional medication, 10 had serious intercurrent illness or surgery, 12 failed to attend and three withdrew consent. Placebo and active homeopathy had different effects on pain scores; mean pain scores were significantly lower after 3 months' placebo therapy than 3 months' active therapy (P=0.032 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). Articular index, ESR and morning stiffness were similar with active and placebo homeopathy. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that active homeopathy improves the symptoms of RA, over 3 months, in patients attending a routine clinic who are stabilized on NSAIDs or DMARDs.     

Patient-reported outcomes better discriminate active treatment from placebo in randomized controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have used patient- and physician-reported outcomes, ESR and/or CRP as components of ACR response criteria to assess efficacy. OBJECTIVES: Mean changes from baseline in patient- and physician-reported outcome measures, ESR and CRP were compared in two RCTs in patients with active RA. Comparisons between active and placebo treatment used mean percentage improvements and standard effect sizes (SESs). RESULTS: In both protocols, patient-reported assessments of disease activity, pain and physical function reflected little or no improvement with placebo, best discriminating between active and placebo therapy, as did ESR and CRP. CONCLUSION: Improvements in signs and symptoms of active RA in placebo RCTs appear to be best reflected by patient-reported measures of physical function, as long as reported changes in global assessments of disease activity and/or pain reflect similar benefit. Patient-reported outcome measures should be considered objective; treatment-associated changes are congruent with measures of inflammation, and appear less susceptible to the placebo response.     

Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial of inosine pranobex in rheumatoid arthritis.

In a randomised, placebo controlled, double blind study inosine pranobex was assessed as a possible second line drug in rheumatoid arthritis. Twenty four patients received inosine pranobex (3 g/day) and 26 patients received placebo for up to 24 weeks. Morning stiffness, articular index, grip strength, pain score, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C reactive protein, IgG, IgM, and serum urate were assessed at weeks 0, 12, and 24. Baseline characteristics were similar except for a significantly higher C reactive protein in the placebo group. No significant improvement occurred in any variable: (a) when comparing week 0 with week 12 or week 24 for either group, (b) comparing active drug with placebo at week 12 or 24, or (c) taking all 50 patients as one group. Withdrawal from the study for lack of response or side effects was similar in both groups. Serum urate increased transiently but significantly with inosine pranobex (a recognised side effect). It is concluded that inosine pranobex has no second line activity in rheumatoid arthritis. Further, 50 patients effectively given placebo showed no spontaneous improvement in their disease activity.     

A controlled trial comparing sulfasalazine, gold sodium thiomalate, and placebo in rheumatoid arthritis

One hundred eight-six patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were evaluated in a double-blind, randomized study that compared treatment with sulfasalazine (SSZ) (2 mg/day), gold sodium thiomalate (GST) (50 mg/week), and placebo (PBO). The 37-week course of therapy was completed by 109 patients. While marked improvement was seen in all 3 treatment groups, the only statistically significant differences between SSZ or GST and PBO were in a decreased erythrocyte sedimentation rate and increased grip strength in the right hand. GST is known to be superior to PBO, and the response of the GST-treated group was similar to that seen in other trials. The response of the PBO group, however, was much greater than in other placebo groups we have studied. SSZ was similar in efficacy to injectable gold, but was better tolerated. Because of adverse drug reactions (most commonly, rash, stomatitis, and proteinuria), 41% of patients were withdrawn from the GST treatment. Untoward drug effects (most frequently, rash and gastrointestinal distress) caused 16% of patients to be withdrawn from SSZ therapy.