Efficacy and safety of monotherapy with sirukumab compared with adalimumab monotherapy in biologic-naïve patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (SIRROUND-H): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multinational, 52-week, phase 3 study.

OBJECTIVE: This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 study compared monotherapy with sirukumab, an anti-interleukin-6 cytokine monoclonal antibody, with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Biologic-naïve patients with active RA who were inadequate responders or were intolerant to, or inappropriate for, methotrexate were randomised to subcutaneous sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks (n=187), sirukumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (n=186) or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (n=186). Primary endpoints at week 24 were change from baseline in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response; these endpoints were tested in sequential order. This study is registered at EudraCT (number: 2013-001417-32) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number: NCT02019472). RESULTS: Significantly greater improvements from baseline in mean (SD) DAS28 (ESR) were observed at week 24 with sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks (-2.96 (1.580)) versus adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (-2.19 (1.437); P<0.001). Sirukumab 50 mg every 4 weeks also showed significantly greater improvement from baseline at week 24 in DAS28 (ESR) (-2.58 (1.524)) compared with adalimumab (P=0.013). The ACR50 response rates with the 100 mg (35.3%) and 50 mg (26.9%) doses of sirukumab were comparable to that with adalimumab (31.7%) at week 24. The safety profile of sirukumab was consistent with that observed with anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibodies. A dose-related effect on the incidence of injection-site reactions was observed with sirukumab. CONCLUSION: Sirukumab monotherapy showed greater improvements in DAS28 (ESR), but similar ACR50 response rates, versus adalimumab monotherapy.

Oral to subcutaneous methotrexate dose-conversion strategy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Both the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) guidelines recommend the use of methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when there is no contraindication. While MTX is the foundation of RA therapy (Singh et al. in Arthritis Care Res 64:625-639,2012), absorption saturation compromises its oral bioavailability (BA). Differences in the relative BA of oral versus subcutaneous (SC) MTX demonstrate the need for guidance on successful dose-conversion strategies. This study was designed to compare MTX PK profiles as a result of MTX administration via three different treatment administrations: oral, SC MTX administered via an auto-injector (MTXAI) into the abdomen (MTXAIab) and into the thigh (MTXAIth). In this paper, we establish a dose-conversion method based on the BA of MTX from oral and SC administration. SC administration provided higher exposure of MTX than the same dose given orally. Unlike the exposure limitations of oral MTX, dose-proportional exposure was seen with SC MTX.

Effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of subcutaneous methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: A retrospective analysis of real-world data from the St. Gallen cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Methotrexate (MTX) is the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. Recently updated recommendations by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) show MTX as an important part of the first-line strategy in patients with active RA. The study presented here aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of subcutaneous (SC) MTX among patients with RA. METHODS: Patients with RA who were naïve at baseline to both conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology/EULAR 2010 criteria, and had one or more follow-up visits were selected through sequential chart review for analysis of retrospective data. Patients received SC MTX at varying doses (10-25mg per week). The primary end point was a change in the Disease Activity Score including 28 joints (DAS28); secondary end points included time to employment of the first biologic agent and cumulative MTX doses. RESULTS: Overall, 70 patients were in follow-up for a mean of 1.8 years after initiating SC MTX treatment. During this time, 37 (53%) remained on SC MTX without any biologics (MTX-only) and 33 (47%) required the addition of a biologic therapy (MTX-biol). Biologic therapy was required after a mean ± SD of 387 ± 404 days. Mean weekly MTX doses were 17.4mg for patients in the MTX-only group and 19.1mg for patients in the MTX-biol group. Mean baseline DAS28 were similar for patients in the MTX-biol and MTX-only groups (4.9 and 4.7, respectively). Both low disease activity state (LDAS) and remission were achieved by slightly fewer patients in the MTX-biol than MTX-only groups (LDAS, 78.8% vs 81.1%; remission, 69.7% vs 75.7%). Over the full course of the study period, SC MTX was discontinued in 32 patients (46%). Among those who discontinued, the most common reasons were gastrointestinal discomfort (n = 7), lack of efficacy (n = 7), and disease remission (n = 3). Severe infections occurred in 3 patients in the MTX-biol group and 3 patients in the MTX-only group. CONCLUSIONS: SC MTX is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with RA. SC MTX resulted in high rates of remission and LDAS in early disease, over prolonged periods of time, it, therefore, may extend the time before patients require initiation of biologic therapy.

Rheumatoid arthritis secondary non-responders to TNF can attain an efficacious and safe response by switching to certolizumab pegol: a phase IV, randomised, multicentre, double-blind, 12-week study, followed by a 12-week open-label phase.

OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had discontinued an initially effective TNF inhibitor (TNF-IR). METHODS: A randomised 12-week double-blind trial with CZP (n=27) or placebo (n=10) followed by an open-label 12 week extension period with CZP. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. ACR20 response (primary end point) at week 12 was achieved in 61.5%, and none of CZP and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Weeks 12-24 showed a maximum effect for CZP at 12 weeks, and that placebo patients switched blindly to CZP attained similar results seen with CZP in weeks 0-12. Since this result was highly significant, study inclusion was terminated after entry of 33.6% of the originally planned 102 patients. Adverse events occurred in 16/27 (59.3%) CZP subjects and 4/10 (40%) placebo subjects. There were no serious adverse events, neoplasms, opportunistic, or serious infections. CONCLUSIONS: This first, prospective, blinded trial of CZP in secondary TNF-IR shows that the ACR20 response rate observed with CZP was higher than that reported in most previous studies of TNF-IR. Additionally, CZP demonstrated good safety and tolerability. This study supports the use of CZP in RA patients who are secondary non-responders to anti-TNF therapies.

Head-to-head, randomised, crossover study of oral versus subcutaneous methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: drug-exposure limitations of oral methotrexate at doses ≥15†mg may be overcome with subcutaneous administration.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative bioavailability, safety and tolerability of oral methotrexate (MTX) and subcutaneous (SC) MTX administered via an auto-injector (MTXAI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In this randomised, multicenter, open-label, three-way crossover study, patients ≥18 years with adult RA undergoing treatment with MTX for ≥3 months were assigned to receive MTX 10, 15, 20 and 25 mg weekly in a random sequence of three treatments: oral, SC into the abdomen and SC into the thigh. For 24 h after administration of each treatment, blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis and injection sites were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients completed the study. Systemic exposure of oral MTX plateaued at doses ≥15 mg/week. In contrast, SC MTX demonstrated a linear increase in systemic exposure that was greater than oral MTX at each dose. No unexpected AEs were noted for either formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike oral MTX, the systemic exposure of SC MTX did not plateau over the doses studied, particularly at doses ≥15 mg/week. In this study, higher systemic MTX exposure was not associated with increases in AEs. Patients with an inadequate clinical response to oral MTX may benefit from higher drug exposure by switching to SC MTX. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01618968.

Timing and magnitude of initial change in disease activity score 28 predicts the likelihood of achieving low disease activity at 1 year in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with certolizumab pegol: a post-hoc analysis of the RAPID 1 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between timing and magnitude of Disease Activity Score [DAS28(ESR)] nonresponse (DAS28 improvement thresholds not reached) during the first 12 weeks of treatment with certolizumab pegol (CZP) plus methotrexate, and the likelihood of achieving low disease activity (LDA) at 1 year in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In a post-hoc analysis of the RAPID 1 study, patients achieving LDA [DAS28(ESR) ≤ 3.2] at Year 1 were assessed according to DAS28 nonresponse at various timepoints within the first 12 weeks. RESULTS: Seven-hundred eighty-three patients were included (CZP 200 mg, n = 393; CZP 400 mg, n = 390). A total of 86.9% of patients in the CZP 200 mg group had a DAS28 improvement of ≥ 1.2 by Week 12. Of the 13.1% of patients with DAS28 improvement < 1.2 by Week 12, only 2.0% had LDA at Year 1. Failure to achieve LDA at Year 1 depended on timing of nonresponse - 22.3%, 8.4%, and 2.0% of patients with DAS28 improvement < 1.2 by Weeks 1, 6, and 12, respectively, had LDA at Year 1 - and magnitude of initial lack of DAS28 improvement; for example, compared with the patients with DAS28 < 1.2 improvement, fewer patients with DAS28 < 0.6 had LDA at Year 1 (17.4%, 2.4%, and 0.0% at Weeks 1, 6, and 12, respectively). CONCLUSION: Failure to achieve improvement in DAS28 within the first 12 weeks of therapy was predictive of a low probability of achieving LDA at Year 1. Moreover, the accuracy of the prediction was found to be strongly dependent on the magnitude and timing of the lack of the response. (Clinical Trial Registration Nos. NCT00152386 and NCT00175877).

Double-blind randomized trials of single-tablet ibuprofen/high-dose famotidine vs. ibuprofen alone for reduction of gastric and duodenal ulcers.

OBJECTIVES: We performed two 24-week double-blind trials (REDUCE-1 and -2 (Registration Endoscopic Studies to Determine Ulcer Formation of HZT-501 Compared with Ibuprofen: Efficacy and Safety Studies)) to assess whether double-dose famotidine given in a single-tablet combination with ibuprofen (HZT-501) significantly reduces gastric and duodenal ulcers as compared with ibuprofen. METHODS: Patients (40-80 years) requiring daily non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for ≥6 months with no prior ulcer complications, negative H. pylori stool test, and baseline endoscopy showing no ulcers and <5 erosions were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to HZT-501 or identical-appearing ibuprofen 800 mg tablets thrice daily. Study endoscopies were done at 8, 16, and 24 weeks. After unblinding and initial analyses, 12 patients were found to be misclassified as having gastric ulcers based on the adjudication of endoscopy reports, and analyses were re-run. RESULTS: In REDUCE-1, the primary end point analysis of gastric ulcers at 24 weeks with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen was 12.7% vs. 22.9% (P=0.0044) in the post-adjudication analysis. In REDUCE-2, the primary end point analysis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers was 13.0% vs. 20.5% (P=0.0587) in the post-adjudication analysis. Prespecified pooled analyses showed significantly fewer gastric (12.5% vs. 20.7%) and duodenal ulcers (1.1% vs. 5.1%) with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen. Proportional hazards analysis of multiple potential risk factors showed the risk ratio of upper GI ulcers with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen was 0.46, 95% confidence interval was 0.34-0.61. CONCLUSIONS: Combined results of the REDUCE studies indicate that double-dose famotidine plus ibuprofen, given as a combination tablet, decreases endoscopic upper GI ulcers as compared with ibuprofen alone.

Integrated safety in tocilizumab clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis have been evaluated in a comprehensive phase 3 program. Patients from these randomized trials could receive tocilizumab treatment in open-label extension trials. Here, the long-term safety profile of tocilizumab, using pooled data from all of these trials, is reported. METHODS: Cumulative safety data (as of February 6, 2009) from five core phase 3 trials, two ongoing extension trials, and one clinical pharmacology study were analyzed. Two patient populations were evaluated: an all-control population (n = 4,199), which included all patients randomly assigned in the placebo-controlled portions of the five core studies, and an all-exposed population (n = 4,009), which included patients from any of the eight studies who received at least one dose of tocilizumab. RESULTS: Total exposure to tocilizumab was 8,580 patient years (PY), and total duration of observation was 9,414 PY. Overall adverse event (AE) and serious AE (SAE) rates were 278.2/100 PY and 14.4/100 PY, respectively. These events included serious infections (4.7/100 PY), opportunistic infections (0.23/100 PY), gastrointestinal perforations (0.28/100 PY), malignancy (1.1/100 PY), myocardial infarction (0.25/100 PY), and stroke (0.19/100 PY). The rates of SAEs and serious infections were stable over time; no increase with prolonged exposure was noted. CONCLUSIONS: The longer-term safety profile of tocilizumab (mean treatment duration, 2.4 years) is consistent with that observed in the phase 3 studies (duration up to 1 year).

Persistence with anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: observations from the RADIUS registry.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate persistence with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy and predictors of discontinuation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This retrospective analysis used data from RADIUS 1, a 5-year observational registry of patients with RA, to determine time to first- and second-course discontinuation of etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab. First-course therapy was defined as first exposure to anti-TNF therapy, and second-course therapy was defined as exposure to anti-TNF therapy after the first discontinuation. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to assess persistence, log-rank tests were used to compare therapies, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess potential predictors of treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: This analysis included 2418 patients. Mean persistence rates were similar among treatments [first-course: etanercept, 51%; infliximab, 48%; adalimumab, 48% (followup was 54 weeks for etanercept and infliximab and 42 weeks for adalimumab); second-course: 56%, 50%, 46%, respectively (followup was 36 weeks for etanercept and infliximab and 30 weeks for adalimumab)]. Discontinuations of first-course therapy due to ineffectiveness were similar among treatments (etanercept, 19%; infliximab, 19%; adalimumab, 20%) and discontinuations due to adverse events were significantly (p = 0.0006) lower for etanercept than for infliximab (etanercept, 14%; infliximab, 22%; adalimumab, 17%). Predictors from univariable analysis of first- or second-course therapy discontinuation included increased comorbidities (etanercept), female sex (infliximab), Clinical Disease Activity Index > 22 (infliximab), and a Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire score > 0.5 (adalimumab). CONCLUSION: In this population, first- and second-course persistence was similar among anti-TNF therapies. First-course discontinuation due to adverse events was lower with etanercept compared with infliximab.

Rapid improvement in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis following certolizumab pegol treatment predicts better longterm outcomes: post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the kinetics of response to certolizumab pegol (CZP), and association between rapid response and longterm outcomes, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of the randomized, double-blind RAPID 1 study in patients who received methotrexate (MTX) and either CZP 200 mg subcutaneously or placebo every 2 weeks for 52 weeks. Clinical and radiographic outcomes at Week 52 were evaluated based on the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) ≥ 1.2 and American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) responses at Week 6 and Week 12. RESULTS: Clinical responses [European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), DAS28 ≥ 1.2, and ACR20 responses] were rapid in CZP-treated patients. Week 12 DAS28 ≥ 1.2 responders had better clinical and radiographic outcomes at Week 52 compared with nonresponders. Among Week 12 responders, incremental benefit of earlier response was observed: Week 6 DAS28 ≥ 1.2 responders and ACR20 responders had significantly higher ACR response rates and were more likely to achieve remission at Week 52 than Week 12 responders. Patients with a clinical response at Week 6 had faster, more meaningful sustained improvements in patient-derived outcomes than those responding by Week 12 only. CONCLUSION: Rapid attainment of clinical response in patients with RA is associated with improved longterm outcomes. Analysis of the kinetics of response to CZP during the first 12 weeks of therapy potentially permits informed prediction of clinical success or need to alter treatment. In patients not achieving a clinical response at Week 12 treatment adjustment should be considered. Trial registration NCT00152386.

Safety and efficacy of etanercept beyond 10 years of therapy in North American patients with early and longstanding rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: Adult patients with early RA or longstanding RA received etanercept in open-label extension studies following initial double-blind trials of etanercept. RESULTS: Of 558 early RA patients and 714 longstanding RA patients who received at least 1 dose of etanercept, a total of 194 early RA patients and 217 longstanding RA patients were treated with 25 mg of etanercept twice weekly through 10 years. Five opportunistic infections were reported: in early RA, 1 Candida septicemia; in longstanding RA, 1 herpes zoster, 1 atypical mycobacterium infection, 1 meningoencephalitis (unspecified), and 1 fungal sepsis (unspecified). Twenty-nine cases of sepsis occurred (10 early RA, 19 longstanding RA). Occurrence of all malignancies was similar to that expected in the general population, but the occurrence of lymphomas was higher than expected in the general population. Fourteen lymphomas (7 early RA, 7 longstanding RA) and 2 cases of demyelinating disease (1 early RA, 1 longstanding RA) were reported. Deaths occurred in 18 early RA patients and 43 longstanding RA patients. Both patient groups showed sustained improvement in American College of Rheumatology responses, swollen joint counts, Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index scores, and C-reactive protein levels. CONCLUSION: Etanercept maintained therapeutic benefits beyond 10 years of therapy in both early RA and longstanding RA patients, suggesting that etanercept is well tolerated and effective as a long-term, continuous therapy for the treatment of RA, with a favorable risk/benefit ratio.

Rheumatoid arthritis disease-modifying antirheumatic drug intervention and utilization study: safety and etanercept utilization analyses from the RADIUS 1 and RADIUS 2 registries.

OBJECTIVE: to report the rates of serious adverse events (SAE), serious infectious events (SIE), and events of medical interest (EMI) in patients receiving etanercept; to identify the risk factors for SAE, SIE, and EMI; and to report time to switching from etanercept therapy, reasons for switching, and time to restarting treatment with etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in US clinical practice. METHODS: adults ≥ 18 years of age who fulfilled the 1987 American Rheumatism Association criteria for RA were eligible for enrollment in 2 prospective, 5-year, multicenter, observational registries. RADIUS 1 (Rheumatoid Arthritis DMARD Intervention and Utilization Study) enrolled patients with RA who required a change in treatment [either an addition or a switch of a biologic or nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)]. In RADIUS 2, patients with RA were required to start etanercept therapy at entry. Patients were seen at a frequency determined by their rheumatologist. RADIUS 1 and RADIUS 2 were registered under the US National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT00116714 and NCT00116727, respectively. RESULTS: in these patients, SAE, SIE, and EMI occurred at rates comparable to those seen in clinical trials. No unexpected safety signals were observed. Rates for SAE, SIE, and EMI in etanercept-treated patients were comparable to rates observed in patients receiving methotrexate monotherapy and did not increase with greater exposure to etanercept therapy. CONCLUSION: the RADIUS registries provide a better understanding of the safety of etanercept in patients with RA in the US practice setting.

Preventing the progression from undifferentiated arthritis to rheumatoid arthritis: the clinical and economic implications.

A significant percentage of patients presenting with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) will progress to rheumatoid arthritis (RA), while others will undergo spontaneous remission. Evidence supports the use of therapeutic intervention in patients with UA to delay or halt disease progression and its long-term consequences. However, there is first a need to screen patients with UA to identify those with a high probability of progressing to RA who would benefit from antirheumatic therapy. The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism RA classification criteria were designed for this purpose. These criteria can aid clinicians in deciding when it is appropriate to initiate therapy in patients at risk of progressing to RA. These criteria can also have important implications in reducing the inappropriate and unnecessary use of antirheumatic agents in patients less likely to develop RA, thus reducing healthcare costs and minimizing the risk of sequelae associated with these agents. Use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in patients with UA has been associated with delays in disease progression. However, further clinical studies are needed to fully evaluate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes of these agents in patients with UA.

Epitope-specific immunotherapy of rheumatoid arthritis: clinical responsiveness occurs with immune deviation and relies on the expression of a cluster of molecules associated with T cell tolerance in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot phase II trial.

OBJECTIVE: Induction of immune tolerance to maintain clinical control with a minimal drug regimen is a current research focus in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Accordingly, we are developing a tolerization approach to dnaJP1, a peptide part of a pathogenic mechanism that contributes to autoimmune inflammation in RA. We undertook this study to test 2 hypotheses: 1) that mucosal induction of immune tolerance to dnaJP1 would lead to a qualitative change from a proinflammatory phenotype to a more tolerogenic functional phenotype, and 2) that immune deviation of responses to an inflammatory epitope might translate into clinical improvement. METHODS: One hundred sixty patients with active RA and with immunologic reactivity to dnaJP1 were enrolled in a pilot phase II trial. They received oral doses of 25 mg of dnaJP1 or placebo daily for 6 months. RESULTS: The dnaJP1 peptide was safe and well-tolerated. In response to treatment with dnaJP1, there was a significant reduction in the percentage of T cells producing tumor necrosis factor alpha and a corresponding trend toward an increased percentage of T cells producing interleukin-10. Coexpression of a cluster of molecules (programmed death 1 and its ligands) associated with T cell regulation was also found to be a prerequisite for successful tolerization in clinical responders. Analysis of the primary efficacy end point (meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria at least once on day 112, 140, or 168) showed a difference between treatment groups that became significant in post hoc analysis using generalized estimating equations. Differences in clinical responses were also found between treatment groups on day 140 and at followup. Post hoc analysis showed that the combination of dnaJP1 and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was superior to the combination of HCQ and placebo. CONCLUSION: Tolerization to dnaJP1 leads to immune deviation and a trend toward clinical efficacy. Susceptibility to treatment relies on the coexpression of molecules that can down-regulate adaptive immunity.

Efficacy and safety of etanercept 50 mg twice a week in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had a suboptimal response to etanercept 50 mg once a week: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active drug-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with 50 mg of etanercept twice a week plus weekly methotrexate (MTX; > or =15 mg) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had a suboptimal response to 50 mg of etanercept once a week plus weekly MTX (> or =15 mg). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active drug-controlled study, suboptimal responders to treatment with MTX plus etanercept 50 mg once weekly were given MTX plus etanercept 50 mg twice weekly (n = 160) or MTX plus etanercept 50 mg once weekly plus a placebo (n = 40) for 12 weeks. In a subsequent 12-week open-label period, patients who responded to etanercept 50 mg twice weekly decreased their dosage to 50 mg once weekly, those who had a partial response to etanercept 50 mg once weekly increased their dosage to 50 mg twice weekly, and those who had no response to etanercept 50 mg twice weekly were discontinued. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a response on the Disease Activity Score 28-joint assessment (DAS28) at week 12. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were randomized; 187 completed 12 weeks, and 102 completed 24 weeks. At week 12 (double-blind period), the DAS28 response in the 50 mg twice weekly and the 50 mg once weekly groups was not significantly different (45.6% versus 35.0%; P = 0.285), and similar proportions of patients in the groups taking 100 mg and 50 mg experienced adverse events (34.4% versus 37.5%; P = 0.711). Serious adverse events occurred in 7 of 160 of the 50 mg twice weekly group and 0 of 40 of the 50 mg once weekly group (P = 0.387), and serious infectious events occurred in 3 of 160 patients in the 50 mg twice weekly group (P = 0.884). CONCLUSION: Etanercept 50 mg once weekly is an optimal dosage in most patients with RA. Increasing the dosage from 50 mg once weekly to 50 mg twice weekly in suboptimal responders did not significantly improve their DAS28 responses.

Unresolved issues in identifying and overcoming inadequate response in rheumatoid arthritis: weighing the evidence.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, multisystem, inflammatory disorder of the joints that affects about 1% of the world population. The ultimate goals of therapy include remission of disease and prevention of joint damage. Reaching these goals has become a realistic outcome for an increasing number of patients as treatment options have expanded over the past 3 decades. In addition to older therapies, such as methotrexate (MTX), other disease modifying drugs (DMARD), and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, newer biologic treatments have become available. For the substantial number of patients who experience an inadequate response to standard medications, biologic response modifiers (BRM) provide an important therapeutic alternative. The availability of multiple treatment options in the absence of clear definitions or criteria for remission and inadequate response, however, makes clinical decisions about measuring outcomes, predicting response to treatment, and prescribing pharmacologic therapies challenging. In this program, distinguished rheumatologists weigh the evolving body of clinical evidence to draw sound conclusions and resolve key issues in managing inadequate response to treatment and in achieving optimal outcomes in RA.

A retrospective analysis of low-field strength magnetic resonance imaging and the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how in-office magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the hand/wrist or feet are utilized in a rheumatology practice to make clinical evaluations regarding therapeutic options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: In a large clinical practice, a retrospective review was conducted on the first 300 RA patients who had office-based MRI scans at baseline. Information was collected on demographics, baseline therapy, and whether any change in therapy occurred at the time of the MRI scans. MR images of the affected wrist were obtained with a low-field strength dedicated extremity unit. RESULTS: Of the 300 patients, 99 patients (33%) had MRIs that exhibited signs of erosions, joint space narrowing, or bone edema. These patients were classified as MRI-positive. The remaining 201 patients (67%) were classified as MRI-negative. A substantial majority (85%) of MRI-positive patients received a change in their therapeutic regimen, compared with only 9.5% of the MRI-negative patients (p < 0.001). In the 84 MRI-positive patients who had their therapy changed, 65% received a new prescription for a biologic or an increase in the dose of their existing biologic and 34% of the MRI-positive patients received a DMARD. In the 19 MRI-negative patients with a therapeutic change, 11% received a biologic agent and 88% received a DMARD. The major limitation of this study is that it was a retrospective analysis and the assessments of MRI findings were qualitative. CONCLUSION: In this large population of RA patients, there was an association between MRI detection of joint space narrowing, erosions, and/or bone edema and change in therapeutic management.