May etanercept and PTH (1-34) association heal erosions in early rheumatoid arthritis? A pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by the formation in the joints of an inflammatory tissue, which causes the appearance of localized erosions on the margins of the joints. The molecular mechanism that causes the bone erosion is multifactorial. Inflammatory cytokines imbalance and OPG-RANK-L system are involved. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: The aim of the study is to evaluate the possibility of inducing healing or reduction in the number of erosions in Rheumatoid Arthritis patients treated with anti-TNF-alpha adding Teriparatide (PTH1-34) to standard treatment with anti-TNF. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty adult patients with active RA diagnosed according to American Rheumatism Association (ARA) criteria at least 6 months before study begin were enrolled. Only patients affected by established RA (6 to 18 months from symptoms beginning) were recruited. Eligible patients were randomized to receive a standard dosage of etanercept (50 mg/week) or etanercept at same dosage with an addition of teriparatide (20 mg). Evaluation of eventual healing of arthritic erosions by magnetic resonance imaging was performed at time zero and then at twelve months. The following evaluation was assessed at baseline and after 12 months according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) definitions: number of erosion and presence or absence of synovitis, effusion and bone oedema. A comparative examination of quantitative and qualitative assessment of each parameter was applied. Plain radiographs of the hands were obtained at baseline and 52 weeks. Radiographs were scored blindly using the van der Heijde modification of the Sharp method. Safety of each treatment was evaluated by means of the adverse events (AES) evaluation and report. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. The study did not achieve its primary endpoint of healing erosions. In the active arm no healing of erosions was found. At 52 weeks, there were no new MRI erosions in two arms. Bone oedema scores were significantly improved at 52 weeks in favour of both treatments versus baseline scores, without inter-groups differences. X-ray patterns were unchanged in all patients of both groups. No new erosions or previous erosions' healing were observed. No AEs were reported. Patients from both groups demonstrated a significant reduction in the DAS 28 scores at 52 weeks (p < 0.005) if compared with baseline values. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm rapid control of inflammation and MRI damage benefits after Etanercept administration without a significant improvement in MRI findings after concomitant addition of teriparatide. Even though these results could seem to suggest to avoid the simultaneous use of these two drugs to treat RA erosions, further studies might be suggested to asses if sequential adminstration of an anabolic agent such as Teriparatide, after achieving clinical remission, may be able to improve bone damage.

Radiological outcomes in randomized controlled trials on biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: a narrative review.

Several scores are currently used to estimate the radiologic progression of patients affected by rheumatoid arthritis. Modified Sharp score, Genant-modified Sharp score and van der Heijde-modified Sharp score are actually the most commonly used scores in randomized controlled trials on biologic drugs actually available in scientific literature. An intensive literature search (EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE) was performed in order to identify randomized controlled studies reporting on the efficacy of biologic drugs on radiologic progression in rheumatoid arthritis by means of approved scoring methods such as Sharp score variants. All studies were evaluated for their approach to radiologic outcome, and a global evaluation of trends towards radiologic evaluation was performed. Eighteen studies were identified and analyzed, and data from such randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were reported and described regarding their approach to radiologic outcomes. The use of three different scoring methodologies generated similar but non-comparable data; although a big part of the studies reported good efficacy profiles of several biologic drugs on radiologic progression, data from such studies are not comparable as the three different scoring methods are not convertible from one to another. At present, there is no standardization for the evaluation of radiologic outcomes, thus preventing comparison of results obtained by different drugs. The use of a single, standardized and widely approved scoring method would grant the possibility of comparing such data.