Randomised prospective trial to assess the clinical utility of multianalyte assay panel with complement activation products for the diagnosis of SLE.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the physician-assessed diagnostic likelihood of SLE resulting from standard diagnosis laboratory testing (SDLT) to that resulting from multianalyte assay panel (MAP) with cell-bound complement activation products (MAP/CB-CAPs), which reports a two-tiered index test result having 80% sensitivity and 86% specificity for SLE. METHODS: Patients (n=145) with a history of positive antinuclear antibody status were evaluated clinically by rheumatologists and randomised to SDLT arm (tests ordered at the discretion of the rheumatologists) or to MAP/CB-CAPs testing arm. The primary endpoint was based on the change in the physician likelihood of SLE on a five-point Likert scale collected before and after testing. Changes in pharmacological treatment based on laboratory results were assessed in both arms. Statistical analysis consisted of Wilcoxon and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: At enrolment, patients randomised to SDLT (n=73, age=48±2 years, 94% females) and MAP/CB-CAPs testing arms (n=72, 50±2 years, 93% females) presented with similar pretest likelihood of SLE (1.42±0.06 vs 1.46±0.06 points, respectively; p=0.68). Post-test likelihood of SLE resulting from randomisation in the MAP/CB-CAPs testing arm was significantly lower than that resulting from randomisation to SDLT arm on review of test results (-0.44±0.10 points vs -0.19±0.07 points) and at the 12-week follow-up visit (-0.61±0.10 points vs -0.31±0.10 points) (p<0.05). Among patients randomised to the MAP/CB-CAPs testing arm, two-tiered positive test results associated significantly with initiation of prednisone (p=0.034). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that MAP/CB-CAPs testing has clinical utility in facilitating SLE diagnosis and treatment decisions.

Comparison of Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F versus sulfasalazine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Extracts of the medicinal plant Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF) have been used in China for centuries to treat a spectrum of inflammatory diseases. OBJECTIVE: To compare the benefits and side effects of TwHF extract with those of sulfasalazine for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. A computer-generated code with random, permuted blocks was used to assign treatment. SETTING: 2 U.S. academic centers (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, and University of Texas, Dallas, Texas) and 9 rheumatology subspecialty clinics (in Dallas and Austin, Texas; Tampa and Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Arlington, Virginia; Duncanville, Pennsylvania; Wheaton and Greenbelt, Maryland; and Lansing, Michigan). PATIENTS: 121 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and 6 or more painful and swollen joints. INTERVENTION: TwHF extract, 60 mg 3 times daily, or sulfasalazine, 1 g twice daily. Patients could continue stable doses of oral prednisone or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs but had to stop taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at least 28 days before randomization. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the rate of achievement of 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR 20) at 24 weeks. Secondary end points were safety; radiographic scores of joint damage; and serum levels of interleukin-6, cholesterol, cortisol, and adrenocorticotropic hormone. RESULTS: Outcome data were available for only 62 patients at 24 weeks. In a mixed-model analysis that imputed data for patients who dropped out, 65.0% (95% CI, 51.6% to 76.9%) of the TwHF group and 32.8% (CI, 21.3% to 46.0%) of the sulfasalazine group met the ACR 20 response criteria (P=0.001). Patients receiving TwHF also had significantly higher response rates for ACR 50 and ACR 70 in mixed-model analyses. Analyses of only completers showed similar significant differences between the treatment groups. Significant improvement was demonstrated in all individual components of the ACR response, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability score. Interleukin-6 levels rapidly and significantly decreased in the TwHF group. Although not statistically significant, radiographic progression was lower in the TwHF group. The frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups. LIMITATIONS: Only 62% and 41% of patients continued receiving TwHF extract and sulfasalazine, respectively, during the 24 weeks of the study. Long-term outcome data were not collected on participants who discontinued treatment. CONCLUSION: In patients who continued treatment for 24 weeks and could also use stable oral prednisone and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, attainment of the ACR 20 response criteria was significantly greater with TwHF extract than with sulfasalazine.

Abatacept in biologic-naïve patients and TNF inadequate responders: clinical data in focus.

BACKGROUND: Advances in the understanding of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) immunopathogenesis support the hypothesis for a 'window of opportunity' for therapeutic intervention in RA and the need for rapid and effective treatment strategies, with the ultimate goal of alleviating symptoms and halting progressive joint damage. Biologic therapies targeting pro-inflammatory cytokines have significantly improved the outlook for patients with RA; however, some patients still experience inadequate treatment responses. Recently, therapeutic agents targeting alternative pathways have been developed. One such therapy--abatacept--targets T-cell activation and is approved in the United States for treatment of moderate-to-severe RA and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: To overview the efficacy and safety of abatacept in the treatment of adult patients with active RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists. SEARCH METHODOLOGY: A comprehensive literature search was performed using the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE), EMBASE and BIOSIS databases (restricted to articles in the English language posted between January 2000 and February 2007). The search terms 'CTLA-4Ig', 'abatacept' and 'ORENCIA' were used, and data from randomized clinical trials were summarized. RESULTS: Abatacept provided clinically meaningful improvements in the signs and symptoms of RA in both MTX and TNF antagonist inadequate responders in Phase II and III studies. Health-related quality of life was also improved with abatacept, which demonstrated an acceptable safety and tolerability profile in both patient populations. Additionally, when assessed in patients with an inadequate response to MTX, abatacept inhibited structural damage progression. CONCLUSION: Although longer-term data are required and differing study designs preclude direct comparisons with other RA therapies, results of clinical trials to date suggest that abatacept has an acceptable safety profile and is an effective treatment option for patients with RA, whether treating biologic-naïve patients or those who have already had an inadequate response to TNF antagonists.

Effects of prasterone on bone mineral density in women with active systemic lupus erythematosus receiving chronic glucocorticoid therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess prevention of bone mineral density (BMD) loss and durability of the response during treatment with prasterone in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving chronic glucocorticoids. METHODS: 155 patients with SLE received 200 mg/day prasterone or placebo for 6 months in a double-blind phase. Subsequently, 114 patients were re-randomized to receive 200 or 100 mg/day prasterone for 12 months in an open-label phase. Primary efficacy endpoints were changes in BMD at the lumbar spine (L-spine) from baseline to Month 6 and maintenance of BMD from Month 6 to 18 for patients who received prasterone during the double-blind phase. RESULTS: In the double-blind phase, there was a trend for a small gain in BMD at the L-spine for patients who received 200 mg/day prasterone for 6 months versus a loss in the placebo group (mean +/- SD, 0.003 +/- 0.035 vs -0.005 +/- 0.053 g/cm(2), respectively; p = 0.293 between groups). In the open-label phase, there was dose-dependent increase in BMD at the L-spine at Month 18 between patients who received 200 versus 100 mg/day prasterone (p = 0.021). For patients who received 200 mg/day prasterone for 18 months, the L-spine BMD gain was 1.083 +/- 0.512% (p = 0.042). There was no overall change in BMD at the total hip over 18 months with 200 mg/day prasterone treatment. The safety profile reflected the weak androgenic properties of prasterone. CONCLUSION: This study suggests prasterone 200 mg/day may offer mild protection against bone loss in women with SLE receiving glucocorticoids. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT00053560 and NCT00082511).

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of celecoxib 200 mg and celecoxib 400 mg once daily in treating the signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib in treating patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in flare. METHODS: This 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of celecoxib 400 mg (n=201) or celecoxib 200 mg (n=213) once daily (qd) with placebo (n=194) in treating the signs and symptoms of PsA in flare. The primary efficacy measure was the number of patients responding to treatment according to the American College of Rheumatology Responders Index 20% (ACR-20) at week 12. Efficacy and safety were assessed for all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study medication. RESULTS: At the week-12 primary endpoint, approximately 50% of patients in each treatment group were responders according to the ACR-20 criteria, and no statistically significant treatment differences between treatment groups were observed. However, at week 2, the ACR-20 response rates for the celecoxib 400 mg (49%) and 200 mg (39%) groups were significantly higher than for the placebo group (28%) (P<0.001 and P=0.016, respectively). Within the celecoxib 400 mg group, ACR-20 response rates were similar at weeks 2, 6 (46%), and 12 (49%). In contrast, in the celecoxib 200 mg and placebo treatment groups, ACR-20 response rates increased 7 and 16%, respectively, from week 2 to week 6, and remained relatively unchanged from week 6 to week 12. There were no statistically significant differences in ACR-20 response rates between the celecoxib 400 mg and 200 mg groups at any time point. Treatment with celecoxib 200 and 400 mg qd was statistically superior to placebo treatment at weeks 2 and 6 for Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain. Both doses of celecoxib were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Celecoxib 400 mg and 200 mg qd were efficacious and well tolerated in treating the signs and symptoms of PsA in flare after 2 weeks of treatment. However, although the clinical effects of celecoxib 400 mg and 200 mg qd were observed for 12 weeks, there was a high placebo response at these time points, and there were no differences relative to placebo treatment at week 12.

Abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibition.

BACKGROUND: A substantial number of patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an inadequate or unsustained response to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to at least three months of anti-TNF-alpha therapy. METHODS: Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to anti-TNF-alpha therapy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive abatacept or placebo on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 28 days thereafter for 6 months, in addition to at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Patients discontinued anti-TNF-alpha therapy before randomization. The rates of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses (indicating a clinical improvement of 20 percent or greater) and improvement in functional disability, as reflected by scores for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index, were assessed. RESULTS: After six months, the rates of ACR 20 responses were 50.4 percent in the abatacept group and 19.5 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001); the respective rates of ACR 50 and ACR 70 responses were also significantly higher in the abatacept group than in the placebo group (20.3 percent vs. 3.8 percent, P<0.001; and 10.2 percent vs. 1.5 percent, P=0.003). At six months, significantly more patients in the abatacept group than in the placebo group had a clinically meaningful improvement in physical function, as reflected by an improvement from baseline of at least 0.3 in the HAQ disability index (47.3 percent vs. 23.3 percent, P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events and peri-infusional adverse events was 79.5 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively, in the abatacept group and 71.4 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively, in the placebo group. The incidence of serious infections was 2.3 percent in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept produced significant clinical and functional benefits in patients who had had an inadequate response to anti-TNF-alpha therapy.

Successful Treatment of Dry Mouth and Dry Eye Symptoms in Sjögren's Syndrome Patients With Oral Pilocarpine: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Adjustment Study.

BACKGROUND: : Sjögren's syndrome is characterized by the presence of xerostomia and/or xerophthalmia. Pilocarpine, a muscarinic cholinergic agonist, has been proven to be efficacious in treating radiation-induced xerostomia (up to 30 mg/day) and symptoms of dry mouth in Sjögren's patients (up to 20 mg/day). OBJECTIVE: : To compare the safety and efficacy of oral pilocarpine (dose-adjusted) versus placebo in the treatment of dry eye and dry mouth symptoms in Sjögren's syndrome at 6 and 12 weeks. METHODS: : In this 11-center, 256-patient placebo-controlled study, the safety and efficacy of oral pilocarpine (20 mg to 30 mg daily) for relief of Sjögren's-related dry mouth and dry eye symptoms was assessed. Changes in symptoms and salivary flow were measured over 12 weeks. RESULTS: : Compared with placebo, salivary flow was significantly increased in the pilocarpine group (P

Efficacy of tacrolimus in rheumatoid arthritis patients who have been treated unsuccessfully with methotrexate: a six-month, double-blind, randomized, dose-ranging study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, safety, and optimal dose of tacrolimus monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled monotherapy study was set in 12 community sites and 9 university-based sites. Two hundred sixty-eight patients with RA who were resistant to or intolerant of methotrexate (mean dose 15.2 mg/week) and had active disease for at least 6 months (mean tender joint count 28.2, mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate 46.5 mm/hour) were randomized to receive treatment after discontinuation of methotrexate. Those who received at least 1 dose of tacrolimus were analyzed; 141 completed the study. Stable dosages of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and low-dose prednisone were allowed during treatment. All patients were given 1, 3, or 5 mg of tacrolimus or placebo once daily for 24 weeks. The American College of Rheumatology definition of 20% improvement (ACR20) and the tender and swollen joint counts at the end of treatment were the primary outcomes. RESULTS: ACR20 response rates demonstrated a clear dose response. The ACR20 response was observed in 15.5% of patients receiving placebo (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 7.1-23.9%), 29% of the 1 mg tacrolimus group (95% CI 18.3-39.7%) (P < 0.058); 34.4% of the 3 mg group (95% CI 22.7-46.0%) (P < 0.013), and 50% of the 5 mg group (95% CI 37.8-62.3%) (P < or = 0.001). The tender joint count improved statistically significantly in all tacrolimus groups. The swollen joint count, physical function, and patient-assessed pain improved statistically significantly in the 3 mg and 5 mg groups. The incidence of creatinine elevation > or =40% above baseline levels increased in a dose-dependent manner. Dropout rates were high (41-59%) and were more common for inefficacy in the placebo patients (71.4%), whereas they were more common for toxicity in the high-dose tacrolimus groups (31-33%). Discontinuation for creatinine elevation occurred in the 3 mg (3.1%) and 5 mg (10.9%) tacrolimus groups. CONCLUSION: Tacrolimus improved disease activity in methotrexate-resistant or -intolerant patients with RA. A dose response was observed when efficacy and toxicity were assessed at different doses. The optimal dose of tacrolimus appears to be >1 mg but < or=3 mg daily.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of adjuvant methotrexate treatment for giant cell arteritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with newly diagnosed giant cell arteritis (GCA) to determine if MTX reduces GCA relapses and cumulative corticosteroid (CS) requirements and diminishes disease- and treatment-related morbidity. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Over 4 years, 16 centers from the International Network for the Study of Systemic Vasculitides enrolled patients with unequivocal GCA. The initial treatment was 1 mg/kg/day (