34 research outputs found
Efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of combination etanercept andsulfasalazine versus etanercept alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: adouble-blind randomized two-year study.
No full textOBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of etanercept and etanercept plus sulfasalazine versus sulfasalazine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite sulfasalazine therapy.
METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (25 mg twice weekly; sulfasalazine was discontinued at baseline), etanercept plus sulfasalazine (unchanged regimen of 2-3 g/day) or sulfasalazine in a double-blind, randomised, 2-year study in adult patients with active RA despite sulfasalazine therapy. Efficacy was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology criteria, disease activity scores (DAS) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO).
RESULTS: Demographic variables and baseline disease characteristics were comparable among treatment groups; mean DAS 5.1, 5.2 and 5.1 for etanercept (n = 103), etanercept plus sulfasalazine (n = 101) and sulfasalazine (n = 50), respectively. Withdrawal due to lack of efficacy was highest with sulfasalazine (26 (52%) vs 6 (6%) for either etanercept group, p<0.001). Patients receiving etanercept or etanercept plus sulfasalazine had a more rapid initial response, which was sustained at 2 years, than those receiving sulfasalazine: mean DAS 2.8, 2.5 versus 4.5, respectively (p<0.05); ACR 20 response was achieved by 67%, 77% versus 34% of patients, respectively (p<0.01) Overall, PRO followed a similar pattern; a clinically significant improvement in health assessment questionnaire was achieved by 76%, 78% versus 40% of patients, respectively (p<0.01). Commonly reported adverse events occurring in the etanercept groups were injection site reactions and pharyngitis/laryngitis (p<0.01).
CONCLUSION: Etanercept and etanercept plus sulfasalazine are efficacious for the long-term management of patients with RA. The addition of etanercept or substitution with etanercept should be considered as treatment options for patients not adequately responding to sulfasalazine
Etanercept and sulfasalazine, alone and combined, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite receiving sulfasalazine: a double-blind comparison.
No full textOBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of etanercept and sulfasalazine, alone and in combination, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite sulfasalazine treatment.
METHODS: A double-blind, randomised study in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable sulfasalazine (2-3 g/day) treatment. The primary end point was a 20% response by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria at 24 weeks.
RESULTS: At baseline, the three treatment groups (sulfasalazine, n = 50; etanercept, n = 103; etanercept and sulfasalazine, n = 101) were comparable for demographic variables and disease activity. Lack of efficacy was the primary reason for discontinuation (sulfasalazine, n = 12; etanercept, n = 1; etanercept and sulfasalazine, n = 4; p<0.001). Significantly more patients receiving etanercept, alone or in combination (74% for each), achieved ACR 20 responses at 24 weeks than those receiving sulfasalazine (28%; p<0.01). Similarly, more patients in the etanercept groups achieved ACR 50 and ACR 70 responses than those in the sulfasalazine group (p<0.01). In the groups receiving etanercept, significant differences in the ACR core components were observed by week 2 compared with those receiving sulfasalazine alone (p<0.01). The incidences of several common adverse events (headache, nausea, asthenia) were lower with etanercept alone than with the combination (p<0.05), but infections and injection site reactions were higher with etanercept alone (p<0.05). The safety profiles of both etanercept treatment groups were comparable with previous experience of etanercept.
CONCLUSIONS: For all efficacy variables assessed, etanercept alone or in combination with sulfasalazine resulted in substantial and similar improvement in disease activity from baseline to week 24 compared with sulfasalazine alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite their sulfasalazine treatment. All three treatments were generally well tolerated
Outcomes of a multicentre randomised clinical trial of etanercept to treat ankylosing spondylitis.
No full textOBJECTIVE: A double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of etanercept to treat adult patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: Adult patients with AS at 14 European sites were randomly assigned to 25 mg injections of etanercept or placebo twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was an improvement of at least 20% in patient reported symptoms, based on the multicomponent Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) response criteria (ASAS 20). Secondary end points included ASAS 50 and ASAS 70 responses and improved scores on individual components of ASAS, the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), acute phase reactants, and spinal mobility tests. Safety was evaluated during scheduled visits. RESULTS: Of 84 patients enrolled, 45 received etanercept and 39 received placebo. Significantly more etanercept patients than placebo patients responded at the ASAS 20 level as early as week 2, and sustained differences were evident up to week 12. Significantly more etanercept patients reported ASAS 50 responses at all times and ASAS 70 responses at weeks 2, 4, and 8; reported lower composite and fatigue BASDAI scores; had lower acute phase reactant levels; and had improved spinal flexion. Etanercept was well tolerated. Most adverse events were mild to moderate; the only between-group difference was injection site reactions, which occurred significantly more often in etanercept patients. CONCLUSIONS: Etanercept is a well tolerated and effective treatment for reducing clinical symptoms and signs of AS
Disease remission and sustained halting of radiographic progression with combination etanercept and methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
No full textOBJECTIVE:
The Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate with Radiographic Patient Outcomes (TEMPO) is a 3-year, double-blind, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy and safety of etanercept, methotrexate, and the combination of etanercept plus methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The results after 1 and 2 years of the study have been previously reported. Here we provide the 3-year clinical and radiographic outcomes and safety of etanercept, methotrexate, and the combination in patients with RA.
METHODS:
In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter TEMPO study, 682 patients received etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, methotrexate < or =20 mg weekly, or the combination. Key efficacy assessments included the Disease Activity Score (DAS) and the DAS in 28 joints.
RESULTS:
Combination therapy resulted in significantly greater improvement in the DAS and in more patients with disease in remission than either monotherapy. This finding was confirmed by longitudinal analysis; patients receiving combination therapy were more than twice as likely to have disease in remission than those receiving either monotherapy. Independent predictors of remission included male sex, lower disease activity, lower level of joint destruction, and/or better physical function. Combination and etanercept therapy both resulted in significantly less radiographic progression than did methotrexate (P < 0.05). Etanercept and combination treatment were well tolerated, with no new safety findings.
CONCLUSION:
Etanercept plus methotrexate showed sustained efficacy through 3 years and remained more effective than either monotherapy, even after adjustment for patient withdrawal. Combination therapy for 3 years led to disease remission and inhibition of radiographic progression, 2 key goals for treatment of patients with RA
Subtle changes in individual joints result in both positive and negative change scores in a patient: results from a clinical trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
No full textRadiographic progression in clinical trials is assessed by interpreting changes in total radiographic joint score, and the reliability of those scores depends on an evaluation of sum scores. It is not known how consistently changes in individual joints are identified by independent readers and in independent readings. Patients and 7255 single joints from 178 patients who participated in the Trial of Etanercept and Methothrexate with Radiographic Patient Outcomes (TEMPO) trial were evaluated. Every image was independently scored twice according to the Sharp-van der Heijde method by two independent readers, so that four scores per joint were available. Absolute agreement and consistency of negative and positive erosion change scores across readers and readings were compared on a per-joint level, as well as on a per-patient level. The number of joints showing a change for erosion was very low in this trial: 691/7255 analysed joints had at least one non-zero change score out of four readings. Absolute agreement between readings was remarkably poor: only 12 joints showed a consistently positive or negative change in all four readings. Change scores in opposite directions in the same joint across independent readings were rare (25 joints). Frequency of opposite joint scores in the same patient (mixed change patterns) was reader dependent. Substantial intra and interreader disagreement in scoring change in individual joints is common. Opposite joint scores in the same patient, however, are rare and reader dependent. Notwithstanding these subtle inconsistencies on the individual joint level, the total Sharp score is a useful and discriminatory outcome measur
Reliability and sensitivity to change of the Simple Erosion Narrowing Score compared with the Sharp-van der Heijde method for scoring radiographs in rheumatoid arthritis
No full textTo compare the performance of a simplified scoring method for structural damage on radiographs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (the Simple Erosion Narrowing Score or SENS) with the Sharp-van der Heijde Score (SHS) as reference. We used the radiographic data from the Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate with Radiographic Patient Outcomes (TEMPO trial). The SENS was derived from the crude SHS data. Inter-observer reliability for status scores and change scores was determined by intraclass correlation coefficients and by the Smallest Detectable Change method. The ability to discriminate between treatment groups was assessed by the Mann-Whitney U test. Stratifying the sensitivity to change and discriminative ability for different levels of disease severity assessed a potential ceiling effect. Inter-observer reliability was similar for both methods. Intraclass correlation coefficients were higher for status scores than for change scores. The Smallest Detectable Change was 4.98 (1.1% of possible maximum score) for SHS and 2.28 (3.5%) for SENS. Sensitivity of SENS to detect progression above the Smallest Detectable Change, with reference SHS, ranged from 45.0 to 88.7%. Specificity ranged from 81.5 to 97.3%, and the kappa coefficient (between-method agreement) ranged from 0.58 to 0.66. Discriminative ability between treatment groups was good and similar for both methods. A ceiling effect could not be detected. With regard to most of the tested properties, the performance of SENS is as good as that of SHS. This confirms that SENS is a valuable method, which may be feasible in clinical practic
Population-based pharmacokinetics of the soluble TNFr etanercept: a clinical study in 43 patients with ankylosing spondylitis compared with post hoc data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis
No full textDisconnect between inflammation and joint destruction after treatment with etanercept plus methotrexate -: Results from the trial of etanercept and methotrexate with radiographic and patient outcomes
No full textLevel of radiographic damage and radiographic progression are determinants of physical function: a longitudinal analysis of the TEMPO trial
No full textOlokizumab, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-6, in combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis inadequately controlled by tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy: efficacy and safety results of a randomised controlled phase III study
No full textObjectives To assess the efficacy and safety of olokizumab (OKZ), a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 (IL-6) cytokine, versus placebo (PBO) in patients with prior inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IRs).Methods In this 24-week multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, the patients were randomised in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneously administered OKZ 64 mg once every 2 weeks (q2w), OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks (q4w) or PBO plus methotrexate. At week 16, the patients on PBO were randomised to receive either OKZ regime. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 12. Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP)) <3.2 at week 12 was the major secondary efficacy endpoint. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed.Results In 368 patients randomised, ACR20 response rates were 60.9% in OKZ q2w, 59.6% in OKZ q4w and 40.6% in PBO (p<0.01 for both comparisons). Achievement of DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 was significantly different, favouring the OKZ arms. Improvements in efficacy and patientreported outcomes were maintained throughout 24 weeks and were noted after week 16 in patients who switched from PBO.Dose-related treatment-emergent serious adverse events were 7% in OKZ q2w, 3.2% in OKZ q4w and none in the PBO group.Conclusions Direct inhibition of IL-6 with OKZ resulted in significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis compared with PBO in TNFi-IR patients with a similar safety profile as observed for monoclonal antibodies to the IL-6 receptor
