The efficacy and safety of bucillamine as a second-line DMARD in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract

We investigated the efficacy and safety of bucillamine administered as a second-line DMARD compared to administration as a first-line DMARD in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We conducted a retrospective cohort study and reviewed medical records of 86 patients with active RA who began to receive bucillamine at Yokohama Minami Kyosai Hospital between January 1998 and July 2004. The efficacy of treatments was compared based on rates of achievement of 20, 50, and 70% improvement in ACR core set 6 months after initiation of the therapy. In the group administered bucillamine as a first-line DMARD (18 patients), 44.4, 22.2, and 11.1% of patients achieved ACR 20, 50, 70, respectively, while 56.5, 34.1, and 19.5% achieved ACR 20, 50, 70, respectively, in the group administered bucillamine following switching from MTX (46 patients), and 53.3, 33.3, and 13.3% achieved ACR 20, 50, and 70, respectively, in the group administered bucillamine following switching from Sulfasalazine (SSZ) (15 patients). The rates of achievements of ACR 20, 50, 70 did not differ statistically between the three groups and there was no increase in risk of serious adverse effects related to previous DMARDs. The usefulness of bucillamine as a second-line DMARD was demonstrated.     

Comparison of tacrolimus and mizoribine in a randomized, double-blind controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus and mizoribine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Adult patients with RA with an insufficient response to at least one disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) were randomized to receive 28 weeks of double-blind treatment with tacrolimus 3 mg once daily or mizoribine 50 mg three times daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response. Safety was evaluated by adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were enrolled for study (103 in the tacrolimus group, 101 in the mizoribine group). Significantly more patients receiving tacrolimus achieved an ACR20 response compared with mizoribine (48.5 vs 10.0%, respectively; p = 0.001). Tacrolimus was also superior to mizoribine in ACR50 and ACR70 response rate, tender and painful joint counts, swollen joint counts and patient and physician assessments of pain, disease activity, and patient's physical function assessment based on the Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (p < 0.001). Adverse events were more frequent in the tacrolimus group than the mizoribine group (65.0 vs 59.4%); however, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Tacrolimus improves RA symptoms to a significantly greater extent than mizoribine in patients with RA inadequately controlled with at least one prior DMARD. Tacrolimus has the potential to be a useful and highly effective treatment for RA.     

Efficacy and safety of the fully human anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody adalimumab (D2E7) in DMARD refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 12 week, phase II study

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate efficacy, dose response, safety, and tolerability of adalimumab (D2E7) in disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) refractory patients with longstanding, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: During a 12 week, double blind, placebo controlled study, 284 patients were randomly allocated to receive weekly subcutaneous injections of adalimumab 20 mg (n = 72), 40 mg (n = 70), or 80 mg (n = 72) or placebo (n = 70) without concomitant DMARDs. RESULTS: Adalimumab significantly improved the signs and symptoms of RA for all efficacy measures. ACR20 responses with adalimumab were significant at each assessment versus placebo (p相似文献   

Efficacy and safety of adalimumab as monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis for whom previous disease modifying antirheumatic drug treatment has failed

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with adalimumab in patients with RA for whom previous DMARD treatment has failed. METHODS: In a 26 week, double blind, placebo controlled, phase III trial, 544 patients with RA were randomised to monotherapy with adalimumab 20 mg every other week, 20 mg weekly, 40 mg every other week, 40 mg weekly, or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was > or =20% improvement in the ACR core criteria (ACR20 response). Secondary efficacy end points included ACR50, ACR70, EULAR responses, and the Disability Index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ DI). RESULTS: After 26 weeks, patients treated with adalimumab 20 mg every other week, 20 mg weekly, 40 mg every other week, and 40 mg weekly had significantly better response rates than those treated with placebo: ACR20 (35.8%, 39.3%, 46.0%, 53.4%, respectively v 19.1%; p< or =0.01); ACR50 (18.9%, 20.5%, 22.1%, 35.0% v 8.2%; p< or =0.05); ACR70 (8.5%, 9.8%, 12.4%, 18.4% v 1.8%; p< or =0.05). Moderate EULAR response rates were significantly greater with adalimumab than with placebo (41.5%, 48.2%, 55.8%, 63.1% v 26.4%; p< or =0.05). Patients treated with adalimumab achieved better improvements in mean HAQ DI than those receiving placebo (-0.29, -0.39, -0.38, -0.49 v -0.07; p< or =0.01). No significant differences were found between adalimumab and placebo treated patients for serious adverse events, serious infections, or malignancies. Injection site reaction occurred in 10.6% and 0.9% of adalimumab and placebo treated patients, respectively (p< or =0.05). CONCLUSION: Among patients with RA for whom previous DMARD treatment had failed, adalimumab monotherapy achieved significant, rapid, and sustained improvements in disease activity and improved physical function and was safe and well tolerated.     

Plasmapheresis therapy in combination with TNF-α inhibitor and DMARDs: A multitarget method for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Objective: To evaluate the effects of a multitarget method involving plasmapheresis therapy combined with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on disease activity parameters in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: Sixty-five patients with active RA were divided into two groups according to the treatment administered: the plasmapheresis combination therapy group (Plasmapheresis combination group; 38 cases), in which patients received plasmapheresis therapy along with a TNF-α inhibitor (recombinant human tumor necrosis factor-Fc; rhTNFR:Fc; Etanercept biosimilars) and DMARDs, and a TNF-α inhibitor therapy group (biological agent group; 27 cases), in which patients received a TNF-α inhibitor and DMARDs. Clinical parameters were measured before and at 4 and 24 weeks after treatment.

Results: ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses at week 4 were achieved in 84.2%, 78.9%, and 60.5% of the patients in the plasmapheresis combination group, respectively, and 74.1%, 55.6%, and 29.6% of the patients in the biological agent group, respectively. The ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were superior in the former than the latter group (p?p?Conclusions: The multitarget method combining plasmapheresis, TNF-α inhibitor, and DMARDs for RA therapy was superior to the combination of TNF-α inhibitor for reducing disease activity parameters in patients with active RA.     

Therapeutic effects of the combination of methotrexate and bucillamine in early rheumatoid arthritis: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled study

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combination therapies are used widely, but there have been few reports clearly demonstrating that combination therapy is more effective than DMARD monotherapy. We conducted a multicenter, double-blind controlled trial in order to clarify that the combination of methotrexate and bucillamine is more effective than either alone. The subjects of this study were 71 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis within 2 years of onset. Dosages were 8 mg methotrexate with 5 mg folic acid per week (MTX group), 200 mg bucillamine per day (BUC group), or both MTX and BUC (combination group). Clinical effects and adverse reactions were observed for 96 weeks. The ACR 20 response rate was 79.2% in the combination group, significantly higher than the rates of 43.5% for the MTX group (P = 0.008) and 45.8% for the BUC group (P = 0.0178). The cumulative survival curve of maintaining the ACR 20 response was significantly higher in the combination group than in the MTX and BUC groups (P = 0.0123 and P = 0.0088, respectively). The mean increase in the total Sharp score over 96 weeks was 12.6 ± 9.0 in the combination group, significantly lower (P = 0.0468) than the value of 28.0 ± 28.3 for the single DMARD (combined MTX and BUC) group. The incidence of adverse reactions did not differ significantly between the three groups. It was concluded that the combination therapy with MTX and BUC showed significantly higher clinical efficacy than either of the single DMARD therapies.     

The efficacy and safety of rituximab for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aims of this study were to assess the efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The authors surveyed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy of rituximab in disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) (including methotrexate [MTX]) or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-blocker-resistant or intolerant patients with active RA using Medline, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and manual searches. Meta-analysis of RCTs was performed to determine the treatment efficacy and safety outcomes of rituximab (1 course, consisting of two infusions of 1,000 mg each) concomitant with MTX. The three RCTs included 938 DMARD or TNF-blocker-resistant or intolerant RA patients. Follow-up periods ranged from 24 to 48 weeks. American College of Rheumatology response (ACR) 20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rates were significantly higher for the rituximab plus MTX than for placebo controls (primary efficacy outcome, ACR50; risk ratio [RR] 3.648, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.478–5.369, P < 0.001). For those treated with rituximab, the incidence adverse events of all systems were not higher than in those treated with placebo (RR 1.062, 95% CI 0.912–1.236, P = 0.438). With respect to the number of patients that experienced at least one serious adverse event, no significant difference was observed between patients treated with rituximab and placebo (RR 0.855, 95% CI 0.622–1.174, P = 0.333). A single course of rituximab with concomitant MTX therapy was found to be effective in DMARD or TNF-blocker-resistant or intolerant patients with active RA.     

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.     

Adalimumab, a fully human anti tumor necrosis factor-alpha monoclonal antibody, and concomitant standard antirheumatic therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: results of STAR (Safety Trial of Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis)

OBJECTIVE: This study, known as STAR (Safety Trial of Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis), evaluated the safety and efficacy of adalimumab (Humira), a fully human monoclonal tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) antibody, when given with standard antirheumatic therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not adequately responding to such therapies. Standard antirheumatic therapy included traditional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), low dose corticosteroids, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), and/or analgesics. METHODS: In this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 636 patients with RA were randomly assigned to receive adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously (sc) every other week (n = 318) or placebo (n = 318) while continuing standard antirheumatic therapy. The frequencies of adverse events, serious adverse events, severe or life-threatening adverse events, adverse events leading to withdrawal, infection, or serious infection were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were determined by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria. RESULTS: During the study, the majority of patients received concomitant traditional DMARD (83.5%) and/or corticosteroids, NSAID, and/or analgesics (97.3%). Overall, 56.0% of patients continued treatment with one, 23.6% with 2, and 3.9% with > or = 3 traditional DMARD. At 24 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences between the adalimumab and placebo groups in their respective rates of adverse events (86.5% vs 82.7%), serious adverse events (5.3% vs 6.9%), severe or life-threatening adverse events (11.9% vs 15.4%), or those leading to withdrawal (2.8% vs 2.2%). There were also no statistically significant differences in the rates of infections (52.2% vs 49.4%) or serious infections (1.3% vs 1.9%) between the groups. The incidence and types of adverse events did not vary between adalimumab- and placebo-treated patients by the number of concomitant traditional DMARD (0, 1, or 2). Adalimumab-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients achieved statistically superior ACR20 (52.8% vs 34.9%), ACR50 (28.9% vs 11.3%), and ACR70 (14.8% vs 3.5%) response rates at Week 24 (p < or = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that addition of adalimumab 40 mg given sc every other week to concomitant standard antirheumatic therapy is well tolerated and provides significant improvements in signs and symptoms of RA. The data indicate that adalimumab is a safe and effective therapeutic option in patients with active RA who have an inadequate response to standard antirheumatic therapy, including one or more traditional DMARD, corticosteroids, NSAID, and analgesics.     

Therapeutic effects of the combination of methotrexate and bucillamine in early rheumatoid arthritis: a multicenter,double-blind,randomized controlled study

Abstract

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combination therapies are used widely, but there have been few reports clearly demonstrating that combination therapy is more effective than DMARD monotherapy. We conducted a multicenter, double-blind controlled trial in order to clarify that the combination of methotrexate and bucillamine is more effective than either alone. The subjects of this study were 71 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis within 2 years of onset. Dosages were 8?mg methotrexate with 5?mg folic acid per week (MTX group), 200?mg bucillamine per day (BUC group), or both MTX and BUC (combination group). Clinical effects and adverse reactions were observed for 96 weeks. The ACR 20 response rate was 79.2% in the combination group, significantly higher than the rates of 43.5% for the MTX group (P = 0.008) and 45.8% for the BUC group (P = 0.0178). The cumulative survival curve of maintaining the ACR 20 response was significantly higher in the combination group than in the MTX and BUC groups (P = 0.0123 and P = 0.0088, respectively). The mean increase in the total Sharp score over 96 weeks was 12.6 ± 9.0 in the combination group, significantly lower (P = 0.0468) than the value of 28.0 ± 28.3 for the single DMARD (combined MTX and BUC) group. The incidence of adverse reactions did not differ significantly between the three groups. It was concluded that the combination therapy with MTX and BUC showed significantly higher clinical efficacy than either of the single DMARD therapies.     

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

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

When a DMARD fails,should patients switch to sulfasalazine or add sulfasalazine to continuing leflunomide?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding sulfasalazine to leflunomide treatment compared with switching to sulfasalazine alone in patients with RA with an inadequate response to leflunomide monotherapy. METHODS: Patients with active RA ((DAS28) >3.2) who were enrolled in the first open label phase of the RELIEF study received leflunomide for 24 weeks. Inadequate responders then entered the double blind phase and received a further 24 weeks' treatment with leflunomide (20 mg once daily) plus sulfasalazine (final dose 2 g once daily), or placebo plus sulfasalazine (dose as above). The primary efficacy variable was the DAS28 response rate, and secondary efficacy outcomes were ACR 20%, 50%, and 70% response rates. Adverse events, including standard laboratory tests, were recorded. RESULTS: 106 inadequate responders entered the double blind phase; 56 received leflunomide plus sulfasalazine, and 50 placebo plus sulfasalazine. In the intention to treat population, more patients receiving leflunomide plus sulfasalazine (25/56 (45%)) achieved a DAS28 response than those receiving placebo plus sulfasalazine (17/50 (34%)) (p = 0.179). In week 24 completers, more patients receiving leflunomide plus sulfasalazine (17/56 (30%)) were DAS28 responders than those receiving placebo plus sulfasalazine (10/50 (20%)) (p = 0.081). Comparable numbers in each group were ACR 20% responders; the ACR 50% response rate was significantly higher in the leflunomide plus sulfasalazine group (8.9%) than in the placebo plus sulfasalazine group (0%) (p = 0.038). The safety profiles of both groups were comparable. CONCLUSION: Patient numbers are small and firm conclusions cannot be reached, but a non-significant benefit is indicated for combining leflunomide with sulfasalazine compared with switching to sulfasalazine alone in patients inadequately responding to leflunomide.     

Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus as monotherapy in controlling the signs and symptoms of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This was a 6-month, phase III, double-blind, multicenter study. Patients with active RA who had discontinued all disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for an appropriate washout period (at least 1 month) and who, after the washout period, had a stable joint count (at least 10 tender/painful joints and 7 swollen joints) were stratified according to DMARD intolerance or DMARD resistance, and randomized to receive a single daily oral dose of placebo, tacrolimus 2 mg, or tacrolimus 3 mg. RESULTS: A total of 464 patients received at least 1 dose of study drug. Baseline characteristics were similar among the 3 treatment groups. American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) success (defined as completion of 6 months of treatment and an ACR20 response at the month 6 visit) for the placebo, tacrolimus 2 mg, and tacrolimus 3 mg groups was 10.2%, 18.8% (P < 0.05 versus placebo), and 26.8% (P < 0.0005 versus placebo), respectively. At the end of treatment, the ACR20 and ACR50 response rates in the 3-mg group were 32.0% (P < 0.005 versus placebo) and 11.8% (P < 0.05 versus placebo), respectively. DMARD-intolerant patients had better ACR response rates than did DMARD-resistant patients. Although serum creatinine levels increased by >/=40% from baseline at some time during the trial in 20% and 29% of patients receiving tacrolimus 2 mg/day and 3 mg/day, respectively, the serum creatinine level remained within the normal range throughout the trial in approximately 90% of patients. CONCLUSION: Tacrolimus, at dosages of both 2 mg/day and 3 mg/day, is efficacious and safe as monotherapy for patients with active RA, but treatment with the 3-mg dose of tacrolimus resulted in generally better ACR response rates.     

Therapy of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: outcome of infliximab failures switched to etanercept

OBJECTIVE: The role of alternative tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist therapies in the context of failure of initial TNF antagonist therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has yet to be clearly defined. The goal of this study was to determine the efficacy of etanercept in patients who failed to respond to infliximab. METHODS: Ninety-five patients with RA who failed to respond to infliximab and methotrexate were treated with etanercept (with continuation of concomitant methotrexate). Thirty-four patients never achieved a response to infliximab (primary nonresponse), 38 had an initial response to infliximab but relapsed (secondary nonresponse), and 23 demonstrated toxicity. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response were determined after 12 weeks of etanercept. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of etanercept, 38% of patients achieved an ACR 20% response (ACR20) on etanercept. Of these, 24% and 15% achieved ACR50 and ACR70 responses, respectively. In the primary infliximab nonresponse group, 42%, 30%, and 15% achieved ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses, respectively; the percentages for the secondary nonresponse group were 34%, 21%, and 14%, respectively. Significant DAS28 reductions were observed in the entire cohort and nonresponse subtype groups. Sixty-one percent of the cohort achieved either a moderate or good EULAR score (67% of primary and 56% of secondary infliximab failures). No toxicity was observed in patients who stopped infliximab due to intolerance; 19 of 23 continued etanercept after week 12. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that etanercept is effective in patients who fail to respond to infliximab and suggests a higher response in patients who have never had a response to infliximab.     

Leflunomide in Pakistani patients with rheumatoid arthritis: prospective study in daily rheumatology practice

Introduction: Leflunomide is a disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drug (DMARD) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It has been widely studied in the West but there is no available local Pakistani data. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of leflunomide in Pakistani patients with RA, either alone or in combination with methotrexate. Materials and methods: A prospective, non‐comparator, open‐label study in a setting of ‘care as usual’ was performed. In this study, 63 consecutive RA patients on leflunomide were enrolled. Leflunomide dose was started with full loading in 5 (8%), half loading in 39 (62%) and without loading in 19 (30%) patients. Methotrexate was also used in 20 (32%) patients. Primary end‐point was 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR‐20). Safety was assessed by adverse events and abnormalities in laboratory parameters. Results: Out of 63 patients, 54 (85.7%) were female. Mean age was 46 ± 12.6 years. Mean disease duration was 5.1 ± 4.5 years. Fifty‐two (86.6%) patients achieved ACR‐20 response at 6 months; 32 (53%) achieved ACR‐50 response at 6 months; 20% experienced at least one adverse event, which resolved by reducing leflunomide dose. Only seven (11%) had raised liver enzymes from baseline. Conclusion: This prospective study conducted in the setting of a daily rheumatology practice shows that leflunomide is an effective and safe DMARD in treatment of RA in Pakistani patients.     

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 相似文献   

Treatment of early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis: a two-year, double-blind comparison of minocycline and hydroxychloroquine

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of minocycline with that of a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), hydroxychloroquine, in patients with early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Sixty patients with seropositive RA of <1 year's duration who had not been previously treated with DMARDs were randomized to receive minocycline, 100 mg twice per day, or hydroxychloroquine, 200 mg twice per day, in a 2-year, double-blind protocol. All patients also received low-dose prednisone. The primary end points of the study were 1) the percentage of patients with an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% improvement (ACR50) response at 2 years, and 2) the dosage of prednisone at 2 years. RESULTS: Minocycline-treated patients were more likely to achieve an ACR50 response at 2 years compared with hydroxychloroquine-treated patients (60% compared with 33%, respectively; P = 0.04). Minocycline-treated patients were also receiving less prednisone at 2 years compared with the hydroxychloroquine group (mean 0.81 mg/day compared with 3.21 mg/day, respectively; P < 0.01). In addition, patients treated with minocycline were more likely to have been completely tapered off prednisone (P = 0.03). Trends favoring the minocycline treatment group were seen when outcomes were assessed according to components of the ACR core criteria set, with the differences reaching statistical significance for patient's global assessment of disease activity (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Minocycline is an effective DMARD in patients with early seropositive RA. Patients treated with minocycline were more likely to achieve an ACR50 response and did so while receiving less prednisone. In addition, minocycline-treated patients were more likely to have discontinued treatment with prednisone at 2 years.     

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 (chi(2) = 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.     

Tocilizumab en pacientes con artritis reumatoide activa y respuesta inadecuada a fármacos antirreumáticos modificadores de la enfermedad o antagonistas del factor de necrosis tumoral: subanálisis de los datos españoles de un estudio abierto cercano a la práctica clínica habitual

ObjectivesTo analyze the Spanish experience in an international study which evaluated tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) in a clinical practice setting.Material and methodsSubanalysis of 170 patients with RA from Spain who participated in a phase IIIb, open-label, international clinical trial. Patients presented inadequate response to DMARDs or TNFis. They received 8 mg/kg of tocilizumab every 4 weeks in combination with a DMARD or as monotherapy during 20 weeks. Safety and efficacy of tocilizumab were analyzed. Special emphasis was placed on differences between failure to a DMARD or to a TNFi and the need to switch to tocilizumab with or without a washout period in patients who had previously received TNFi.ResultsThe most common adverse events were infections (25%), increased total cholesterol (38%) and transaminases (15%). Five patients discontinued the study due to an adverse event. After six months of tocilizumab treatment, 71/50/30% of patients had ACR 20/50/70 responses, respectively. A higher proportion of TNFi-naive patients presented an ACR20 response: 76% compared to 64% in the TNFi group with previous washout and 66% in the TNFi group without previous washout.ConclusionsSafety results were consistent with previous results in patients with RA and an inadequate response to DMARDs or TNFis. Tocilizumab is more effective in patients who did not respond to conventional DMARDs than in patients who did not respond to TNFis.     

Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus (FK506) in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled dose-finding study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus (FK506) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) exhibiting resistance to disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy, and to determine the optimal dosage. METHODS: A total of 212 patients with DMARD-resistant RA were enrolled in this double blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo controlled study and allocated to 3 groups. Patients were administered tacrolimus at a dosage of 1.5 mg/day (68 patients) or 3 mg/day (70 patients), or placebo (74 patients), for 16 weeks. They were allowed to continue taking prednisolone (< or = 5 mg/day) and/or one nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) during the study. Clinical assessment was based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% criteria. RESULTS: ACR 20% response rates were higher in both tacrolimus groups (3 mg: 48.3%; 1.5 mg: 24.6%) than in the placebo group (14.1%), with the rate in the 3 mg group significantly higher. There were no significant differences between the tacrolimus groups and placebo group in the incidence of adverse events. The main adverse events in the tacrolimus groups, especially in the 3 mg group, were renal function abnormalities and gastrointestinal symptoms. However, no significant differences were observed among the 3 groups in the incidence of any adverse event except decrease in serum Mg level. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate excellent dose-dependent efficacy of tacrolimus in patients with DMARD-resistant RA and strongly suggest the usefulness of tacrolimus for treatment of RA. The optimal dosage appears to be 3 mg/day in terms of efficacy and safety.