Total joint replacement of hip or knee as an outcome measure for structure modifying trials in osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES) organized a working group to assess the value of time to joint surgery as a potential therapeutic failure outcome criterion for osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee in the assessment of potential structure modifying agents. METHODS: PubMed was searched for manuscripts from 1976 to 2004. Relevant studies were discussed at a 1-day meeting. RESULTS: There are no accepted guidelines for 'time to' and 'indications for' joint replacement surgery. A limited number of trials have examined joint replacement surgery within the study population. Several parameters, particularly joint space narrowing (interbone distance), correlate with surgical intervention. However, at the level of the knee, none of the parameters have positive predictive value for joint replacement surgery better than 30%. In contrast, lack of significant joint space narrowing has a strong negative predictive value for joint replacement surgery (>90%), that remains after controlling for OA pain severity. CONCLUSION: At this time, GREES cannot recommend time to joint surgery as a primary endpoint of failure for structure modifying trials of hip or knee OA-as the parameter has sensitivity but lacks specificity. In contrast, in existing trials, a lack of progression of joint space narrowing has predictive value of >90% for not having surgery. GREES suggests utilizing joint space narrowing (e.g., >0.3-0.7 mm) combined with a lack of clinically relevant improvement in symptoms (e.g., >/=20-25%) for 'failure' of a secondary outcome in structure modifying trials of the hip and knee.

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.

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind trial, 999 subjects with active RA were randomized to leflunomide (n = 501; loading dose 100 mg/day for 3 days, maintenance dose 20 mg/day) or methotrexate (n = 498; 10-15 mg/week) for 52 weeks. After 1 yr the subjects could choose to stay for a second year of double-blind treatment. The primary end-points were tender and swollen joint counts and overall physician and patient assessments. Analyses were of the intent-to-treat group. RESULTS: After 1 yr, the mean changes in the leflunomide and methotrexate groups, respectively, were -8.3 and -9.7 for tender joint count; -6.8 and -9.0 for swollen joint count; -0.9 and -1.2 for physician global assessment; -0.9 and -1.2 for patient global assessment; -14.4 and -28.2 for erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Improvements seen with methotrexate were significantly greater than those with leflunomide. No further improvement occurred after the second year of treatment and the distinction between the two treatments in terms of tender joint count and patient global assessment was lost. During the first year of treatment, a small and equivalent degree of radiographically assessed disease progression was seen with both drugs. After 2 yr, disease progression was significantly less with methotrexate. The most common treatment-related adverse events in both groups were diarrhoea, nausea, alopecia, rash, headache, and elevated plasma liver enzyme levels. Over 2 yr, 21 subjects receiving methotrexate were withdrawn due to elevated plasma liver enzymes vs eight subjects taking leflunomide. Two drug-related deaths from pulmonary causes were recorded with methotrexate vs no drug-related deaths among the subjects receiving leflunomide. CONCLUSIONS: Both leflunomide and methotrexate are efficacious for prolonged treatment of RA. At the doses used, some clinical benefit of methotrexate over leflunomide was observed in the first year of treatment. This benefit must be weighed against the potential toxicity of this drug when used without folate supplementation.

Inhibition of interleukin-8 synthesis by intraarticular methotrexate therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

5 Patients with definite RA and knee effusions under constant doses of DMARD therapy were treated with up to 6 intraarticular injections of 10 mg methotrexate (MTX) every 3 to 7 days. A matched randomized control group who received a single i.a. injection of 40 mg triamcinolone hexacetonide (TC) was monitored according to the same protocol. The intraarticular granulocyte counts and IL-8 levels decreased in all MTX treated patients on day 10-13 and stayed low in those patients who could be re-evaluated after 13 weeks. Compared to the IL-8 levels, the other tested cytokine levels showed only minor changes on day 10-13. There was no need for re-injection in the TC group during the 13 week study phase. We conclude that intraarticular MTX therapy results in a strong decrease of SF-granulocyte counts. This effect may be due to the impairment of IL-8 mediated chemotaxis by decreased IL-8 synthesis in synovial fluid mononuclear cells. Clinically, repeated intraarticular MTX therapy results in a worse 13 week outcome than i.a. steroid treatment measured in an intention-to-treat analysis.

Efficacy and safety of meloxicam in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of meloxicam, a new acidic enolic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, at doses of 7.5 and 15 mg once daily in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Meloxicam 15 and 7.5 mg daily was administered for 21 days in this double blind, randomized, placebo controlled study. 159 patients received meloxicam 7.5 mg, 162 received meloxicam 15 mg, and 147 received placebo. RESULTS: Meloxicam 15 mg once daily was significantly superior (p < 0.05) to placebo in 3 of the 4 primary endpoints (disease activity assessed by the investigator, disease activity assessed by the patient, and reduction of the number of tender/painful joints). No difference was observed regarding number of swollen joints. The difference between meloxicam 7.5 mg once daily and placebo reached statistical significance in 2 of the 4 primary endpoints, disease activity assessed by the patient and number of tender/painful joints. A statistically significant difference between meloxicam 1.5 mg and 7.5 mg was not observed for any primary endpoint. The rating of global tolerance by investigators and patients at the end of the study was similar in the 3 treatment groups, indicating that meloxicam and placebo were generally similarly well tolerated. However, there was a slightly higher incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances reported by patients receiving meloxicam 15 mg. GI adverse events were reported by 11, 11, and 16% of patients in the placebo, meloxicam 7.5 mg, and meloxicam 15 mg groups, respectively. None were serious. CONCLUSION: Meloxicam in daily doses of 7.5 and 15 mg is effective in treating the signs and symptoms of RA.