Rheumatoid Arthritis: Csuka ME

Gazi H, Pope JE, Clements P, Medsger TA, Martin RW, Merkel PA, Kahaleh B, Wollheim FA, Baron M, Csuka ME, Emery P, Belch JF, Hayat S, Lally EV, Korn JH, Czirjak L, Herrick A, Voskuyl AE, Bruehlmann P, Inanc M, Furst DE, Black C, Ellman MH, Moreland LW, Rothfield NF, Hsu V, Mayes M, McKown KM, Krieg T, Siebold JR. · Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17299843 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To obtain a consensus on the minimal clinically relevant treatment effect in various scleroderma disease outcome measures to be used in future clinical trials. METHODS: A Delphi consensus building exercise using a survey was sent out to members of the Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium (SCTC). The 65 SCTC members were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 was informed, in a cover letter, of the usual American College of Rheumatology 20% response results in randomized trials using effective biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, while Group 2 was not. The first round of the exercise presented the scleroderma experts with a survey composed of 95 questions/clinical scenarios divided into 8 categories. These included situations where the treatment group improved, or worsened, or where some outcome measures improved, while others worsened. From the responses of this first round, a mean, mode, median, and range of responses for each of the 95 questions was obtained. This information was sent out, in the second round of the Delphi exercise, only to those respondents who answered the first round. The respondent's previous answer and the mean and range from the first round were provided for each question. It gave respondents the option to change any of their initial responses. The median of their responses in the second round was used to calculate the values for the minimal clinically relevant treatment effect. RESULTS: Thirty-two of the 65 SCTC members returned the first round of the Delphi exercise. Twenty-eight members returned the second round. Intraclass correlation coefficients between responses to round 1 and 2 were calculated for the questions. These varied from 0.99 (excellent agreement) to 0.02 (poor agreement). The p value was under 0.09 for 9 questions and under 0.19 for 20 questions. Standard deviations (SD) were calculated and were found to be lesser for each of the questions in round 2 when compared to the SD in responses from round 1, thus indicating a movement towards a consensus by the second round. An average of 33% of the responses were changed by the respondents in the second round of the Delphi exercise to a value closer to the median/average of the first round's responses. A range in required values for the minimal clinically relevant treatment effect for Modified Rodnan skin score is 3 to 7.5 units, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) 0.2 to 0.25 units, HAQ pain 0.2 to 0.3 units, MD global (100 mm visual analog scale) 8 to 13, patient global assessment 10 to 12, and diffusing capacity (percentage predicted) 9 to 10. The scenarios were especially weighted towards overall disease modification, thus organ-specific measures, such as 6 minute walk time (which has been used in many pulmonary artery hypertension trials), forced vital capacity, and a dyspnea rating (which may be important in scleroderma lung trials), were not included in the survey. CONCLUSION: Our study begins to address the current deficiency in our knowledge of appropriate values for the minimal clinically relevant treatment effect in various scleroderma disease outcome measures. A consensus could be achieved, or at least a range of minimal clinically relevant treatment effect values could be found for several outcome measurements. Of course, this consensus statement will be modified by evidence as it accrues in each consensus area.

Prajapati DN, Knox JF, Emmons J, Saeian K, Csuka ME, Binion DG. · Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA. · J Clin Gastroenterol. · Pubmed #12869881 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Immunomodulator therapy with the purine analogs azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP), is efficacious in the treatment of moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD), but is not tolerated by a significant minority of patients. The pyrimidine analog, leflunomide, has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Because established RA immunomodulator agents may demonstrate success in the treatment of CD, we reviewed our clinical open-label experience with leflunomide in a refractory CD population.GOALS Assess the effect of leflunomide 20 mg daily, on disease activity, steroid requirement and serologic measures of inflammatory activity in our series of CD patients intolerant to azathioprine/6-MP. STUDY: CD patients intolerant of azathioprine/6-MP were offered leflunomide treatment. The Harvey-Bradshaw (H-B) disease activity index, global assessment, serologic parameters and ability to taper corticosteroids of those who accepted were retrospectively assessed. RESULTS: Leflunomide was well tolerated and resulted in a significant reduction in the H-B score, global assessment and serologic parameters in 8/12 patients. Average follow-up was 38 weeks and a majority of steroid-dependent patients were able to successfully taper following leflunomide initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Our case series demonstrates that the pyrimidine analog leflunomide may be effective for treating moderate to severe CD patients intolerant to standard immunomodulator therapy and warrants further investigation in a randomized controlled trial.