Rheumatoid Arthritis: Dougados M

van Riel PL, Smolen JS, Emery P, Kalden JR, Dougados M, Strand CV, Breedveld FC. · Department of Rheumatology, University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. · J Rheumatol Suppl. · Pubmed #15170904 No free full text.

Abstract: The safety profile of leflunomide in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has been well documented in clinical trials, postmarketing surveillance, and epidemiological studies. Both postmarketing surveillance and epidemiological study results are consistent with the safety profile of leflunomide reported in clinical trials, and no increased risk was observed with leflunomide, compared with other disease modifying antirheumatic drugs; these studies have allowed a more precise representation of the incidence of adverse events occurring with leflunomide under normal conditions of care. The most common leflunomide-associated adverse events include diarrhea, elevated liver enzymes, alopecia, and rash. Ninety-five percent of the Expert Panel considered the adverse events associated with leflunomide to be manageable. If an adverse event required treatment to be stopped, many of the experts would consider subsequently restarting leflunomide. For minor adverse events, it was suggested that the physician might also consider using cholestyramine or charcoal to determine if the side effect is dose-related and, if it was, reduce the leflunomide dose accordingly. In addition to informing patients about the likelihood of side effects, it is important to emphasize that their incidence appears to diminish with continued treatment. It is also important to adequately support patients who are experiencing side effects and involve them in their disease management, for example, by offering the choice of reducing the leflunomide dose and/or having symptomatic treatment. Other patient management recommendations in this review reflect the views of the majority of participants as expressed in the meeting.

Smolen JS, Emery P, Kalden JR, Van Riel PL, Dougados M, Strand CV, Breedveld FC. · Division of Internal Medicine III, Division of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · J Rheumatol Suppl. · Pubmed #15170903 No free full text.

Abstract: This expert review of results from the leflunomide phase II and III clinical trials database demonstrates that leflunomide meets all 3 goals desired of disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy: reducing the signs and symptoms of the disease; inhibiting structural damage; and improving physical function. Further, leflunomide has a rapid onset of action, sustained efficacy, and is effective in early and late disease, regardless of whether patients have received other DMARD previously. The consistent efficacy of leflunomide across phase III clinical trials is confirmed by the findings from clinical practice. Experts agreed that it is important to observe a patient under leflunomide monotherapy for at least 3-4 months before assessing efficacy. It is possible to start maintenance therapy, with either a daily dose of leflunomide 10 mg, subsequently changing to 20 mg, or the reverse. The decision to use a loading dose when initiating leflunomide therapy depends primarily on the balance between the tolerability and rapid efficacy associated with a loading dose, and the balance desired for an individual patient. In general, the use of both maintenance and loading doses requires a flexible approach to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. During the first few weeks of leflunomide therapy, patient dropout can be avoided by using prednisolone rather than a loading dose. Moreover, to ensure good tolerability and compliance in patients receiving a loading dose, information and adequate support should be provided throughout treatment.

Gossec L, Dougados M. · René Descartes University, Cochin Hospital, Paris, France. · Clin Exp Rheumatol. · Pubmed #14969072 No free full text.

Abstract: The course of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is determined early and the goals in early RA are to prevent radiologic joint degradation and to achieve optimal clinical and biological remission. Achieving these goals means that many RA patients may be candidates for combination disease-modifying therapy. We review data from randomized clinical trials regarding the impact of these treatment strategies as the initial therapy in early RA. It appears likely that the place of combination therapy will increase in the coming decades, even in very early RA patients, where the ultimate goal is persistent remission.

Furst DE, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR, Smolen JS, Burmester GR, Dougados M, Emery P, Gibofsky A, Kavanaugh AF, Keystone EC, Klareskog L, Russell AS, van de Putte LB, Weisman MH, Kavenaugh AF. · University of California, UCLA, Rheumatology, Division Los Angeles, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #14532138 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Miceli-Richard C, Dougados M. · Cochin Hospital, AP-HP, René Descartes University, Paris, France. · Expert Opin Pharmacother. · Pubmed #12783594 No free full text.

Abstract: Leflunomide (Arava), Aventis Pharmaceuticals) is an immunomodulating drug that interferes with the metabolism of pyrimidine by inhibiting dihydro-orotate dehydrogenase (DHO-DH) in mitochondria, thereby blocking T- and B cell proliferation. Antibody production is also affected by DHO-DH blockade. Other immunomodulatory effects of leflunomide have also been reported. Symptomatic and structural effects of leflunomide in active rheumatoid arthritis have been strictly evaluated by double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled studies that were aimed at validating its use in rheumatoid arthritis. Further trials are now required to confirm efficacy and safety of this drug in combination with other agents.

Maheu E, Ayral X, Dougados M. · Department of Rheumatology, Cochin Hospital, Université René Descartes, Paris, France. · Int J Clin Pract. · Pubmed #12510956 No free full text.

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to review the intra-articular treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee with the hyaluronan preparation 500-730 kDa (Hyalgan). Reviewing the results of 24 clinical trials, it can be concluded that 3-5 weekly injections of Hyalgan significantly improve the pain and functional status of patients with OA. Although the onset of improvement is delayed by 3-4 weeks, the effect can last at least six months and up to one year after treatment cessation. The benefits of Hyalgan compared with intra-articular corticosteroids are also addressed. The potential for Hyalgan to have a structure-modifying action by retarding stuctural progression in OA of the knee is considered. However, further studies of Hyalgan in OA in other joints, and in damaged joints in rheumatoid arthritis, are needed.

Dougados M, Smolen JS. · Hĵpital Cochin, Department of Rheumatology, Paris, France. · J Rheumatol Suppl. · Pubmed #12435165 No free full text.

Abstract: Treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have involved a variety of single agent and combination therapies with one paramount goal, to slow disease progression and bone destruction. However, data indicate that not all drug combinations are equally efficacious in all patients with RA, and toxicity levels can be difficult to manage. In addition to these concerns, studies are difficult to compare because of methodologic differences and differing drug doses and schedules, for example. To more accurately discern how to best manage early RA, and because treating RA within 3 months of diagnosis appears crucial for improved outcomes, this review summarizes studies that compared combination to monotherapies in early RA, while attempting to consider factors that could complicate the results. These reports utilized disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) with known efficacy among patients with RA, but more importantly a number also used varying levels of glucocorticoids as well. Collectively, these data are beginning to shed light on how to best treat early RA, suggesting that DMARD work best when given very early.

Simon LS, Smolen JS, Abramson SB, Appel G, Bombardier C, Brater DC, Breedveld FC, Brune K, Burmester GR, Crofford LJ, Dougados M, DuBois RN, Fitzgerald GA, Frishman W, García Rodríguez LA, Hochberg MC, Kalden JR, Laine L, Langman MJ, Prescott SM, van de Putte LB, Whelton A, White WB, Willaims GH. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12136912 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Emery P, Breedveld FC, Dougados M, Kalden JR, Schiff MH, Smolen JS. · Department of Rheumatology and Rehabilitation, University of Leeds School of Medicine, Leeds, UK. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #11874828 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Effective treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) requires early diagnosis and early disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment to have an impact on long term morbidity and mortality. Clinical criteria would facilitate early referral of the patient with suspected RA to a rheumatologist for definitive diagnosis and initiation of DMARD treatment at that point in the disease most likely to have an impact on the long term outcome. OBJECTIVE: To develop a referral recommendation that may serve as a clinical guide for primary care doctors, enabling them to identify patients with suspected RA during the early inflammatory stages. METHODS: Key points of the referral criteria were formed based on a thorough literature review targeting early RA, early arthritis clinics, DMARD treatment for early RA, prognostic factors of disease progression, early RA clinical trials, and quality of life. Evidence was graded using the methods defined by Shekelle et al. A draft version of the criterion was circulated among the authors for critical evaluation. A consensus integrated these comments. RESULTS: Clinical evidence strongly supports the observations that structural damage occurs early in active RA and that early DMARD treatment improves the long term outcome of the disease. The observations indicate that rapid referral to a rheumatologist is advised when RA is suspected. This may be supported by the presence of any of the following: >or=3 swollen joints, metatarsophalangeal/metacarpophalangeal involvement, and morning stiffness of >or=30 minutes. CONCLUSION: The proposed early referral recommendation is a viable tool for primary care doctors to identify potential patients with active RA early in the disease. Early referral to a rheumatologist for definitive diagnosis and early DMARD treatment should improve the long term outcome of RA.

Dougados M. · Université René-Descartes, Department of Rheumatology B, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #11808999 No free full text.

Abstract: The management of patients with spondyloarthropathy is undergoing radical changes in several areas and for several reasons. The main reason seems to be improved awareness of the fairly high prevalence of this group of disorders, which is close to that of rheumatoid arthritis. Evaluation of the various treatment modalities has benefited from work by the international Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis group (ASAS) group aimed at developing standardized evaluation criteria. Controlled treatment trials have provided useful information on non-pharmacological treatments such as physical exercise programs and patient information. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) remain the cornerstone of the pharmacological treatment. Recent studies have shown that NSAIDs capable of selectively inhibiting type 2 cyclooxygenase have a better gastrointestinal safety profile and are as effective in relieving clinical symptoms as conventional NSAIDs. Importantly, maintenance treatment seems effective not only on peripheral joint manifestations but also on axial manifestations that fail to respond to NSAIDs. Thalidomide and TNF antagonists are promising maintenance agents.

Richard-Miceli C, Dougados M. · Clinique de Rhumatologie, Hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université René Descartes, 27 rue du Fauborg Saint-Jacques, 75679 Paris Cedex 14, France. · BioDrugs. · Pubmed #11437690 No free full text.

Abstract: Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha has been found to play a central role in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis, leading to development of novel drug therapies that neutralise the deleterious effects of this cytokine. This new concept of immunobiological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has yielded successful results. Although the 2 currently available TNFalpha blockers, infliximab and etanercept, differ in structure, mechanism of action and pharmacokinetics, they have provided similar benefits both in clinical improvement and in slowing and even arresting the progression of radiographic damage. This therapeutic response seems to be unequalled by "conventional" treatments in rheumatoid arthritis, and is incontestably a turning point in the therapeutic management of this disease.

Dougados M. · Hôpital Cochin, Institut de Rhumatologie, Université René Descartes, Paris, France. · Scand J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #10665737 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Westhovens R, Kremer JM, Moreland LW, Emery P, Russell AS, Li T, Aranda R, Becker JC, Qi K, Dougados M. · Department of Rheumatology, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B 3000 Leuven, Belgium. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #19273451 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of abatacept plus methotrexate (MTX) over 5 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Patients were randomized to abatacept 10 or 2 mg/kg or placebo, plus MTX. Patients completing the 1-year, double-blind period entered the longterm extension, where all patients received a fixed dose of abatacept ~10 mg/kg. We describe safety analyses for all patients who received at least 1 dose of abatacept and efficacy analyses for the original ~10 mg/kg abatacept-treated group, over 5 years. RESULTS: Of the 235 abatacept- or placebo-treated patients completing the double-blind period, 219 entered the longterm extension; 130 (59.4%) were continuing at Year 5. No unexpected safety events were observed during the longterm extension compared with the double-blind period. Incidence rates of adverse events (AE) and serious AE were 489.7 and 20.0/100 patient-years in Year 1 versus 374.9 and 18.9/100 patient-years in the cumulative period, respectively. Using exploratory analyses, improvements observed at Year 1 in the 10 mg/kg group were maintained at Year 5, as assessed by ACR responses (ACR20=77.1% vs 82.7%; ACR50=53.0% vs 65.4%; ACR70=28.9% vs 40.4% at Years 1 and 5, respectively) and disease activity (Low Disease Activity State=48.2% vs 58.5%; Disease Activity Score-28-defined remission=25.3% vs 45.3% at Years 1 and 5, respectively). CONCLUSION: Abatacept maintained the efficacy observed at Year 1 over 5 years of treatment, and demonstrated consistent safety and tolerability. These data, along with relatively high retention rates, support the longterm clinical benefit provided by selective T cell costimulation modulation. Clinical trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; clinical trial registration number: NCT00254293.

Dougados M, Schmidely N, Le Bars M, Lafosse C, Schiff M, Smolen JS, Aletaha D, van Riel P, Wells G. · Rene Descartes University, Medicine Faculty, UPRES-EA 4058, APHP, Cochin Hospital, Rheumatology B Department, Paris, France. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #19074177 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To evaluate different methods of reporting response to treatment or disease status for their ability to discriminate between active therapy and placebo, or to reflect structural progression or patient satisfaction with treatment using an exploratory analysis of the Abatacept in Inadequate Responders to Methotrexate (AIM) trial. METHODS: 424 active (abatacept approximately 10 mg/kg) and 214 placebo-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were evaluated. METHOD: of reporting included: (1) response (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria) versus state (disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) criteria); (2) stringency (ACR20 vs 50 vs 70; moderate disease activity state (MDAS; DAS28 <5.1) vs low disease activity state (LDAS; DAS28 <or=3.2) vs DAS28-defined remission (DAS28 <2.6)); (3) time to onset (time to first ACR50/LDAS) and (4) sustainability of ACR50/LDAS for consecutive visits. Methods were assessed according to: (1) discriminatory capacity (number of patients needed to study (NNS)); (2) structural progression (Genant-modified Sharp score) and (3) patient satisfaction with treatment. Positive likelihood ratios (LR) evaluated the ability of the above methods to reflect structural damage and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: MDAS and ACR20 had the highest discriminatory capacity (NNS 49 and 69). Sustained LDAS best reflected no radiographic progression (positive LR >or=2). More stringent criteria (at least ACR50/LDAS), faster onset (<or=3 months) and sustainability (>3 visits) of ACR50/LDAS best reflected patient satisfaction (positive LR >10). CONCLUSIONS: The optimal method for reporting a measure of disease activity may differ depending on the outcome of interest. Time to onset and sustainability can be important factors when evaluating treatment response and disease status in patients with RA.

Courvoisier N, Dougados M, Cantagrel A, Goupille P, Meyer O, Sibilia J, Daures JP, Combe B. · Service de Rhumatologie, Hôpital Saint Antoine, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, Paris, 75012, France. · Arthritis Res Ther. · Pubmed #18771585 links to  free full text

Abstract: INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study were to determine the predictive factors of long-term radiographic outcome of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to describe the relationship between joint damage and disability over the course of the disease. METHODS: A cohort of 191 patients with early RA referred from primary care physicians were prospectively followed for 10 years. To determine the predictive factors of radiographic outcome, univariate analysis of the relationship between baseline values and outcome measures was undertaken using a chi-squared or Fisher's exact test. Stepwise multiple logistic regression was also performed to select independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: From data available for 112 patients, univariate analysis revealed a total Sharp score at 10 years that was significantly correlated with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), presence and level of IgA rheumatoid factor, presence of an anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA), serum level of matrix metalloproteinase-3 and radiographic score at baseline. Logistic regression identified the baseline erosion score to be the most important baseline parameter as an independent prognostic factor of total radiographic score at 10 years (odds ratio = 5.64; 95% confidence interval = 1.78 to 17.86). After excluding radiographic scores from the entry parameters, the presence of ACPA and ESR were also predictive of the final total Sharp score. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score was strongly correlated with disease activity parameters, such as disease activity score and pain, at baseline and at three, five and 10 years. No correlation was found between total radiographic Sharp score and HAQ score throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, baseline radiographic score, ESR and ACPA were the best predictive factors of 10-year radiographic outcome in early RA. HAQ disability was associated with disease activity throughout the 10-year follow-up but not with joint damage. This discrepancy with previous reports may be due in part to the early start of therapy with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

Keystone E, Emery P, Peterfy CG, Tak PP, Cohen S, Genovese MC, Dougados M, Burmester GR, Greenwald M, Kvien TK, Williams S, Hagerty D, Cravets MW, Shaw T. · Division of Rheumatology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18388156 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine if treatment with a B cell-targeted therapy can inhibit the progression of structural joint damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), exhibiting an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. METHODS: In this phase III study, patients with an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor and receiving methotrexate were randomised to rituximab or placebo. Radiographs were obtained at baseline, week 24 and week 56 after randomisation. Patients with an inadequate response to their randomised therapy could receive rescue medication from week 16. From week 24, eligible patients from both treatment arms could receive open-label rituximab. Patients were analysed according to their original treatment group. Radiographs were scored using the Genant-modified Sharp method. The primary radiographic endpoint was change in total Genant-modified Sharp score at week 56. RESULTS: Rituximab treatment caused significant reduction in joint damage progression compared with placebo. The mean change from baseline in the total Genant-modified Sharp score at week 56 was significantly lower for patients treated with rituximab than for patients treated with placebo (1.00 vs 2.31; p = 0.005), and was supported by changes in erosion score (0.59 and 1.32 for rituximab plus methotrexate vs placebo plus methotrexate, respectively; p = 0.011) and joint space narrowing score (0.41 and 0.99, respectively; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first evidence that a B cell-targeted therapy-rituximab-can significantly inhibit the progression of structural joint damage in patients with RA with long-standing, active and treatment-resistant disease.

Briot K, Roux C, Gossec L, Charni N, Kolta S, Dougados M, Garnero P. · Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Descartes, UPRES-EA 4058, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #18203315 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies provide symptomatic benefit in patients with spondyloarthropathy (SpA). Their effect on structural lesions has not yet been assessed. Biochemical markers of cartilage turnover revealing type II collagen degradation and synthesis are associated with joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis; their role in SpA is unknown. We describe the effects of etanercept on biochemical markers of type II collagen synthesis and degradation in patients with SpA followed for 2 years. METHODS: A total of 29 patients with SpA aged 22-68 years were included in a prospective 2-year study. Each patient received etanercept (25 mg twice a week) because of active disease despite optimal treatment. Cartilage degradation was investigated by measuring serum levels of the type II collagen fragments Helix-II and C2C, whereas the C-terminal propeptide of type II collagen (PIICP) was used as a marker of type II collagen synthesis. These markers were measured at baseline and after 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of treatment. RESULTS: Over 2 years, there was a significant decrease of serum C2C (p = 0.0035 by repeated Friedman's test) and serum Helix-II (p = 0.004). Compared to baseline, the decrease of serum C2C was significant at Month 12 (-12.1%; p = 0.004), whereas the decrease of serum Helix-II was observed as early as 1 month (-18.1%; p = 0.015) after start of therapy, reaching a maximum decrease of -33.4% (p = 0.0079) at Month 12. Conversely, PIICP increased significantly by 17% (p = 0.006) at 24 months. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that etanercept may have beneficial effects on cartilage metabolism in patients with SpA.

Schiff M, Keiserman M, Codding C, Songcharoen S, Berman A, Nayiager S, Saldate C, Li T, Aranda R, Becker JC, Lin C, Cornet PL, Dougados M. · Denver Arthritis Clinic, 200 Spruce Street #100, Denver, CO 80230, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18055472 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: This double-blind trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score (based on erythrocyte sedimentation rates; DAS28 (ESR)) for the abatacept vs placebo groups at day 197. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) were randomised 3:3:2 to abatacept ( approximately 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks, n = 156), infliximab (3 mg/kg every 8 weeks, n = 165), or placebo (every 4 weeks, n = 110) and background MTX. Safety and efficacy were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Similar patient demographics and clinical characteristics were present at baseline between groups, with mean scores of approximately 1.7 for HAQ-DI and 6.8 for DAS28 (ESR). At 6 months, mean changes in DAS28 (ESR) were significantly greater for abatacept vs placebo (-2.53 vs -1.48, p<0.001) and infliximab vs placebo (-2.25 vs -1.48, p<0.001). For abatacept vs infliximab treatment at day 365, reductions in the DAS28 (ESR) were -2.88 vs -2.25. At day 365, the following response rates were observed for abatacept and infliximab, respectively: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 72.4 and 55.8%; ACR 50, 45.5 and 36.4%; ACR 70, 26.3 and 20.6%; low disease activity score (LDAS), 35.3 and 22.4%; DAS28-defined remission, 18.7 and 12.2%; good European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses, 32.0 and 18.5%; and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 57.7 and 52.7%. Mean changes in physical component summary (PCS) were 9.5 and 7.6, and mental component summary (MCS) were 6.0 and 4.0, for abatacept and infliximab, respectively. Over 1 year, adverse events (AEs) (89.1 vs 93.3%), serious AEs (SAEs) (9.6 vs 18.2%), serious infections (1.9 vs 8.5%) and discontinuations due to AEs (3.2 vs 7.3%) and SAEs (2.6 vs 3.6%) were lower with abatacept than infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, abatacept and infliximab (3 mg/kg every 8 weeks) demonstrated similar efficacy. Overall, abatacept had a relatively more acceptable safety and tolerability profile, with fewer SAEs, serious infections, acute infusional events and discontinuations due to AEs than the infliximab group. Trial registration number: NCT00095147.

Keystone E, Fleischmann R, Emery P, Furst DE, van Vollenhoven R, Bathon J, Dougados M, Baldassare A, Ferraccioli G, Chubick A, Udell J, Cravets MW, Agarwal S, Cooper S, Magrini F. · Mount Sinai Hospital, and University of Toronto, 600 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18050221 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of additional courses of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An open-label extension analysis of RA patients previously treated with rituximab was conducted. Patients who had participated in any of 3 double-blind trials were eligible for additional courses (2 infusions of 1,000 mg given 2 weeks apart) if they exhibited a swollen joint count and tender joint count of > or =8 with > or =16 weeks elapsing after the previous course. Safety was assessed in patients receiving all or a portion of a rituximab course. Efficacy was assessed 24 weeks after each course, using the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20), ACR50, ACR70, European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, the disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire, and Short Form 36 scores, stratified according to prior tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure. RESULTS: A total of 1,039 patients received > or =1 course of rituximab. Of these, 570 received 2 courses, 191 received 3 courses, and 40 received 4 courses, for a total of 1,669 patient-years. Irrespective of prior TNF inhibitor exposure, ACR20 responses were comparable at week 24 after course 1 and at week 24 after course 2 (65% versus 72%), as were ACR50 and ACR70 responses. EULAR moderate/good responses were also comparable in course 2 relative to course 1 (88% versus 79%), with EULAR remission occurring in a 2-fold higher proportion of patients after course 2 than after course 1 (13% versus 6%). The most common adverse events, which were mild-to-moderate acute infusion-related events, decreased with each course. The serious infection rate after course 1 (5.1 per 100 patient-years) remained stable through additional courses. The proportion of patients with circulating IgM and IgG levels below the lower limit of normal (LLN) increased with subsequent courses; however, serious infection rates in these patients (5.6 per 100 patient-years in patients with low IgM levels and 4.8 per 100 patient-years in patients with low IgG levels were comparable with those in patients with immunoglobulin levels above the LLN (4.7 per 100 patient-years). Patients with human antichimeric antibody (9.2%) did not exhibit decreasing efficacy or present additional safety concerns. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that patients treated with repeated courses of rituximab have sustained clinical responses with no new adverse events.

Assous N, Gossec L, Dougados M, Kahan A, Allanore Y. · No affiliation provided · Clin Exp Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17631755 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Cohen SB, Emery P, Greenwald MW, Dougados M, Furie RA, Genovese MC, Keystone EC, Loveless JE, Burmester GR, Cravets MW, Hessey EW, Shaw T, Totoritis MC, Anonymous00118. · Radiant Research, Dallas, Texas 75235, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16947627 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies and to explore the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rituximab in this population. METHODS: We evaluated primary efficacy and safety at 24 weeks in patients enrolled in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA (REFLEX) Trial, a 2-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of rituximab therapy. Patients with active RA and an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF agents were randomized to receive intravenous rituximab (1 course, consisting of 2 infusions of 1,000 mg each) or placebo, both with background MTX. The primary efficacy end point was a response on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks. Secondary end points were responses on the ACR50 and ACR70 improvement criteria, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria at 24 weeks. Additional end points included scores on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index (DI), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) instruments, as well as Genant-modified Sharp radiographic scores at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Patients assigned to placebo (n = 209) and rituximab (n = 311) had active, longstanding RA. At week 24, significantly more (P < 0.0001) rituximab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients demonstrated ACR20 (51% versus 18%), ACR50 (27% versus 5%), and ACR70 (12% versus 1%) responses and moderate-to-good EULAR responses (65% versus 22%). All ACR response parameters were significantly improved in rituximab-treated patients, who also had clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, disability, and health-related quality of life (demonstrated by FACIT-F, HAQ DI, and SF-36 scores, respectively) and showed a trend toward less progression in radiographic end points. Rituximab depleted peripheral CD20+ B cells, but the mean immunoglobulin levels (IgG, IgM, and IgA) remained within normal ranges. Most adverse events occurred with the first rituximab infusion and were of mild-to-moderate severity. The rate of serious infections was 5.2 per 100 patient-years in the rituximab group and 3.7 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: At 24 weeks, a single course of rituximab with concomitant MTX therapy provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in disease activity in patients with active, longstanding RA who had an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF therapies.

Soubrier M, Zerkak D, Dougados M. · Service de Rhumatologie, Hôpital G. Montpied, Clermont-Ferrand, France. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16845709 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom lowering low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) should be considered in accord with the ATPIII guidelines. The treatment goals are based on the number of risk factors (RF) other than LDL-C. The goal for 0-1 RF is < 160 mg/l, for multiple RF < 130 mg/l, and < 100 mg/l for coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD risk equivalent (other clinical atherosclerotic diseases and diabetes mellitus). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 145 patients with RA. We recorded the patients' characteristics, the potential risk factors for CHD, and results of lipid profile tests [total cholesterol (TC), high density lipoprotein cholesterol, and LDL-C]. RESULTS: Of the 145 patients recruited, 23 had LDL-C lowering therapy. Of the remaining 122 patients (mean age 54 +/- 15 years), of whom 101 (83%) were women, 109 were taking a disease modifying antirheumatic drug. At the time of the study, disease duration was 12 +/- 10 years. Twenty-seven (22%) of the 122 patients needed lowering of LDL-C. If RA was considered as an additional risk factor or a major risk factor, like diabetes mellitus, 35 patients (29%) and 86 (70%) patients, respectively, needed lowering therapy. CONCLUSION: Our study shows the high percentage of patients with RA for whom LDL-C intervention should be considered. As cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is increased in patients with RA, it would be useful to determine whether RA should be considered as an independent cardiovascular risk factor or as a major risk factor like diabetes that warrants more aggressive cardiac prevention measures.

Genovese MC, Becker JC, Schiff M, Luggen M, Sherrer Y, Kremer J, Birbara C, Box J, Natarajan K, Nuamah I, Li T, Aranda R, Hagerty DT, Dougados M. · Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif, USA. · N Engl J Med. · Pubmed #16162882 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: A substantial number of patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an inadequate or unsustained response to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to at least three months of anti-TNF-alpha therapy. METHODS: Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to anti-TNF-alpha therapy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive abatacept or placebo on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 28 days thereafter for 6 months, in addition to at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Patients discontinued anti-TNF-alpha therapy before randomization. The rates of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses (indicating a clinical improvement of 20 percent or greater) and improvement in functional disability, as reflected by scores for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index, were assessed. RESULTS: After six months, the rates of ACR 20 responses were 50.4 percent in the abatacept group and 19.5 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001); the respective rates of ACR 50 and ACR 70 responses were also significantly higher in the abatacept group than in the placebo group (20.3 percent vs. 3.8 percent, P<0.001; and 10.2 percent vs. 1.5 percent, P=0.003). At six months, significantly more patients in the abatacept group than in the placebo group had a clinically meaningful improvement in physical function, as reflected by an improvement from baseline of at least 0.3 in the HAQ disability index (47.3 percent vs. 23.3 percent, P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events and peri-infusional adverse events was 79.5 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively, in the abatacept group and 71.4 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively, in the placebo group. The incidence of serious infections was 2.3 percent in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept produced significant clinical and functional benefits in patients who had had an inadequate response to anti-TNF-alpha therapy.

Kremer JM, Dougados M, Emery P, Durez P, Sibilia J, Shergy W, Steinfeld S, Tindall E, Becker JC, Li T, Nuamah IF, Aranda R, Moreland LW. · Center for Rheumatology, Albany, NY 12206, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16052582 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of abatacept (CTLA-4Ig), a selective costimulation modulator, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that has remained active despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy. METHODS: This was a 12-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. A total of 339 patients with active RA despite MTX therapy were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg/kg abatacept (n = 115), 2 mg/kg abatacept (n = 105), or placebo (n = 119). This report focuses on the results observed at month 12 of a phase IIb trial. RESULTS: A significantly greater percentage of patients treated with 10 mg/kg abatacept met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at 1 year compared with patients who received placebo (62.6% versus 36.1%; P < 0.001). Greater percentages of patients treated with 10 mg/kg abatacept also achieved ACR50 responses (41.7% versus 20.2%; P < 0.001) and ACR70 responses (20.9% versus 7.6%; P = 0.003) compared with patients who received placebo. For patients treated with 10 mg/kg abatacept, there were also statistically significant and clinically important improvements in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire scores compared with patients who received placebo (49.6% versus 27.7%; P < 0.001). Abatacept at a dosage of 10 mg/kg elicited an increase in rates of remission (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints of <2.6) compared with placebo at 1 year (34.8% versus 10.1%; P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the groups, and no significant formation of neutralizing antibodies was noted. CONCLUSION: Abatacept was associated with significant reductions in disease activity and improvements in physical function that were maintained over the course of 12 months in patients with RA that had remained active despite MTX treatment. Abatacept was found to be well tolerated and safe over the course of 1 year. Abatacept in combination with MTX has the potential to play an important role in future RA therapy.

Dougados M, Emery P, Lemmel EM, Zerbini CA, Brin S, van Riel P. · Hôpital Cochin, René Descartes University, 27, Rue du Faubourg Saint-Jacques, 75679 Paris Cedex 14, France. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #15271770 links to  free full text

Abstract: 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.