Rheumatoid Arthritis: Brannemark S

Hafström I, Ringertz B, Spångberg A, von Zweigbergk L, Brannemark S, Nylander I, Rönnelid J, Laasonen L, Klareskog L. · Department of Rheumatology, Karolinska Institutet at Huddinge University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #11600749 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Whether food intake can modify the course of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an issue of continued scientific and public interest. However, data from controlled clinical trials are sparse. We thus decided to study the clinical effects of a vegan diet free of gluten in RA and to quantify the levels of antibodies to key food antigens not present in the vegan diet. METHODS: Sixty-six patients with active RA were randomized to either a vegan diet free of gluten (38 patients) or a well-balanced non-vegan diet (28 patients) for 1 yr. All patients were instructed and followed-up in the same manner. They were analysed at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months, according to the response criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). Furthermore, levels of antibodies against gliadin and beta-lactoglobulin were assessed and radiographs of the hands and feet were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients in the vegan group and 25 patients in the non-vegan diet group completed 9 months or more on the diet regimens. Of these diet completers, 40.5% (nine patients) in the vegan group fulfilled the ACR20 improvement criteria compared with 4% (one patient) in the non-vegan group. Corresponding figures for the intention to treat populations were 34.3 and 3.8%, respectively. The immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody levels against gliadin and beta-lactoglobulin decreased in the responder subgroup in the vegan diet-treated patients, but not in the other analysed groups. No retardation of radiological destruction was apparent in any of the groups. CONCLUSION: The data provide evidence that dietary modification may be of clinical benefit for certain RA patients, and that this benefit may be related to a reduction in immunoreactivity to food antigens eliminated by the change in diet.

Jonsdottir T, Forslid J, van Vollenhoven A, Harju A, Brannemark S, Klareskog L, van Vollenhoven RF. · Department of Rheumatology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #15066863 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and clinical impact of anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with infliximab and etanercept. METHODS: 121 patients from the Stockholm tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) follow up registry (STURE) treated with infliximab or etanercept were studied. RESULTS: At baseline 9/65 (14%) infliximab and 10/56 (18%) etanercept treated patients had positive aCL. After 3 months the frequencies of aCL positivity were 29% (p<0.05 compared with baseline) and 27%, respectively, and after 6 months 28% and 25%. Increases were seen for both IgG and IgM aCL. Increasing age, a higher number of prior DMARDs, and higher DAS28 were predictors for the development of aCL. In the infliximab treated patients, 26/30 (87%) aCL(-) but only 7/14 (50%) aCL(+) patients met the ACR20 criteria (p<0.05), and the frequency of treatment limiting infusion reactions in the aCL(+) patients was higher than expected (17%). aCL positivity in the etanercept treated patients did not show such a clinical correlate. Four patients had thromboembolic events, of whom two were aCL(+) and two aCL(-). CONCLUSION: Frequencies of both IgM and IgG aCL positivity increase in patients treated with these TNFalpha antagonists for 3 months or longer. Increasing age, a greater number of prior DMARDs and a greater disease activity at baseline are predictors for the development of aCL. The development of aCL during treatment with infliximab, but not etanercept, is associated with worse clinical results and more frequent serious infusion reactions. aCL are an important class of autoantibodies associated with TNFalpha blocking therapy.

van Vollenhoven RF, Brannemark S, Klareskog L. · Department of Rheumatology, Karolinska Hospital, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #15020338 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine whether increased infliximab doses result in better clinical outcome in rheumatic diseases. METHODS: Subjects were 124 patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological agents at a single institute. Index cases were 44 patients whose infliximab doses had been increased. Controls were patients treated with infliximab without dose increase (n = 44), and patients treated with etanercept (n = 36). Disease activity score (DAS28), ACR28 swollen joint counts, and numerical ACR responses were compared before and after dose increases. For the controls, the point at which the DAS28 value showed any increase (despite infliximab/etanercept treatment) was used as the reference time point. Comparisons were made between three sets of outcomes: best outcome achieved before the dose increase (cases) or before the reference time point (controls); outcomes at this point; and best outcomes after this point. RESULTS: Following dose increase, disease activity showed modest but statistically significant improvements. The improvement achieved after dosage escalation was equal to, but not better than, the best values before dose escalation. While this finding could be interpreted as "recapturing" the previous response, similar improvements were seen in both control groups. Thus the same pattern of worsening and subsequent improvement was seen with or without the infliximab dose increase. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical improvement with increased infliximab dose, and the impression that a previous response can be "recaptured" with higher doses, cannot be taken at face value, as similar improvements occurred in two control groups. The use of infliximab at doses higher than 3 mg/kg needs to be evaluated further.

van Vollenhoven R, Harju A, Brannemark S, Klareskog L. · Department of Rheumatology, Karolinska Hospital, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #14644858 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: When one TNFalpha blocker (etanercept or infliximab) has failed, to determine whether it makes sense to treat patients with the other. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since 1999 patients treated with etanercept or infliximab have been systematically followed up at our institution in the STURE database. We identified 31 patients who had received both agents. RESULTS: Eighteen patients received etanercept first; discontinuation was mostly due to lack of efficacy. DAS28 values had improved only slightly with etanercept, with a mean (SEM) best DAS28 value of 4.8 (0.6). After switching to infliximab, the mean best DAS28 was 3.6 (0.6)-significantly better than the previous result (p<0.05). Similarly, the mean best ACR-N during etanercept treatment was 17.2 (6.65) and during subsequent infliximab treatment 40.4 (10.6) (p = 0.08). Thirteen patients received infliximab first; discontinuation was mainly due to adverse events. The best DAS28 value achieved during etanercept was 3.6 (0.4) compared with 4.1 (0.4) for infliximab (p<0.05), but the change in DAS28 was not different and ACR-N were similar for infliximab and etanercept in this group. CONCLUSION: For patients with insufficient efficacy from etanercept, treatment with infliximab provided better results, suggesting that a trial of infliximab is reasonable for such patients. For patients who discontinued infliximab owing to adverse events, treatment with etanercept gave at least similar clinical efficacy. Taken together, these data provide support for a trial of the reciprocal TNFalpha blocker in patients when one such agent has failed.