Rheumatoid Arthritis: Moreland L

Moreland L, Bate G, Kirkpatrick P. · Department of Medicine, University of Alabama, 1717 6th Ave South, Birmingham, Alabama 35294-7201, USA. · Nat Rev Drug Discov. · Pubmed #16557658 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Moreland L. · University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. · Arthritis Res Ther. · Pubmed #15960819 No free full text.

Abstract: Until the pathophysiology/etiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is better understood, treatment strategies must focus on disease management. Early diagnosis and treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are necessary to reduce early joint damage, functional loss, and mortality. Several clinical trials have now clearly shown that administering appropriate DMARDs early yields better therapeutic outcomes. However, RA is a heterogeneous disease in which responses to treatment vary considerably for any given patient. Thus, choosing which patients receive combination DMARDs, and which combinations, remains one of our major challenges in treating RA patients. In many well controlled clinical trials methotrexate and other DMARDs, including the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors, have shown considerable efficacy in controlling the inflammatory process, but many patients continue to have active disease. Optimizing clinical response requires the use of a full spectrum of clinical agents with different therapeutic targets. Newer therapies, such as rituximab, that specifically target B cells have emerged as viable treatment options for patients with RA.

Mikuls T, Moreland L. · Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1813 6th Avenue South, MEB 625, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. · Curr Rheumatol Rep. · Pubmed #12010602 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Mikuls T, Moreland L. · Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1813 6th Avenue South, MEB 625, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. · Curr Rheumatol Rep. · Pubmed #11123027 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Furst DE, Breedveld FC, Burmester GR, Crofford L, Emery P, Feldman M, Kalden JR, Kavanaugh A, Keystone E, Lipsky PE, Maini RN, Moreland L, Smolen JS, Van De Putte L, Vischer T, Weinblatt M, Weissman M. · No affiliation provided · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #10577989 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Moreland L. · Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1813 6th Avenue South, MEB 625, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. · Curr Rheumatol Rep. · Pubmed #15355744 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Moreland L. · Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1813 6th Avenue South, MEB 625, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. · Curr Rheumatol Rep. · Pubmed #15355743 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Genovese MC, Cohen S, Moreland L, Lium D, Robbins S, Newmark R, Bekker P, Anonymous00003. · Stanford University, 1000 Welch Road, Suite 203, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #15146410 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential for additive or synergistic effects of combination therapy with the selective anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agent etanercept and the anti-interleukin-1 agent anakinra. METHODS: Two hundred forty-four patients in whom rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was active despite methotrexate therapy were treated with subcutaneous etanercept only (25 mg twice weekly), full-dosage etanercept (25 mg twice weekly) plus anakinra (100 mg/day), or half-dosage etanercept (25 mg once weekly) plus anakinra (100 mg/day) for 6 months in a double-blind study at 41 centers in the US. Patients had never previously received anticytokine therapy. Patient response was measured with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set criteria, a health-related quality-of-life questionnaire, and the Disease Activity Score. Safety was assessed by the number of adverse events and clinical laboratory values. Plasma concentrations of both agents and antibody formation against both agents were also assessed. RESULTS: Combination therapy with etanercept plus anakinra provided no treatment benefit over etanercept alone, regardless of the regimen, but was associated with an increased safety risk. Thirty-one percent of the patients treated with full-dosage etanercept plus anakinra achieved an ACR 50% response, compared with 41% of the patients treated with etanercept only. This result was not statistically significant (P = 0.914). The incidence of serious infections (0% for etanercept alone, 3.7-7.4% for combination therapy), injection-site reactions, and neutropenia was increased with combination therapy. Combination therapy had no effect on the pharmacokinetics or immunogenicity of either agent. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with etanercept and anakinra provides no added benefit and an increased risk compared with etanercept alone and is not recommended for the treatment of patients with RA.

Cohen S, Cannon GW, Schiff M, Weaver A, Fox R, Olsen N, Furst D, Sharp J, Moreland L, Caldwell J, Kaine J, Strand V. · St Paul Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #11592358 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Three 6-12-month, double-blind, randomized, controlled trials have shown leflunomide (LEF; 20 mg/day, loading dose 100 mg x 3 days) to be effective and safe for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis of the North American trial assessed whether the clinical benefit evident at month 12 was sustained over 24 months of treatment with LEF as compared with the efficacy and safety of methotrexate (MTX), an equivalent disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, at 24 months. METHODS: The year-2 cohort, comprising patients continuing into the second year of treatment with > or = 1 dose of study medication and > or = 1 followup visit after week 52, consisted of 235 patients (LEF n = 98; placebo n = 36; MTX n = 101). The mean (+/- SD) maintenance dose of LEF was 19.6 +/- 1.99 mg/day in year 2 and that of MTX was 12.6 +/- 4.69 mg/week. Statistical analyses used an intent-to-treat (ITT) approach. Statistical comparisons of the active treatments only were prospectively defined in the protocol. RESULTS: In total, 85% and 79% of LEF and MTX patients, respectively, who entered year 2 completed 24 months of treatment. From month 12 to month 24, the American College of Rheumatology improvement response rates of > or = 20% (LEF 79% versus MTX 67%; P = 0.049), > or = 50% (LEF 56% versus MTX 43%; P = 0.053), and > or = 70% (LEF 26% versus MTX 20%; P = 0.361) were sustained in both of the active treatment groups. The mean change in total Sharp radiologic damage scores at year 2 compared with year 1 and baseline (LEF 1.6 versus MTX 1.2) showed statistically equivalent sustained retardation of radiographic progression in the active treatment groups. Maximal improvements evident at 6 months in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (HAQ DI) and the physical component score of the Medical Outcomes Survey 36-item short form were sustained over 12 months and 24 months; improvement in the HAQ DI with LEF4(-0.60) was statistically significantly superior to that with MTX (-0.37) at 24 months (P = 0.005). Over 24 months in the ITT cohort, serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 1.6% of the LEF-treated patients and 3.7% of the MTX-treated patients. Frequently reported adverse events included upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, rash, reversible alopecia, and transient liver enzyme elevations. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy of LEF and MTX were maintained over the second year of this 2-year trial. Both active treatments retarded radiographic progression over 24 months. LEF was statistically significantly superior to MTX in improving physical function as measured by the HAQ DI over 24 months of treatment. Results indicate that LEF is a safe and effective initial treatment for active RA, with clinical benefit sustained over 2 years of treatment without evidence of new or increased toxicity.

Moreland L, Gugliotti R, King K, Chase W, Weisman M, Greco T, Fife R, Korn J, Simms R, Tesser J, Hillson J, Caldwell J, Schnitzer T, Lyons D, Schwertschlag U. · Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. · Arthritis Res. · Pubmed #11438043 links to  free full text

Abstract: Interleukin-11 (IL-11) is a pleiotropic cytokine that regulates the growth and development of hematopoietic stem cells and decreases the proinflammatory mediators of cytokine and nitric oxide production. In animal models of arthritis, treatment with recombinant human IL-11 (rhIL-11) reduces both the level of synovitis and the histologic lesion scores in the joints.The goal of this phase-I/II study in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was to evaluate the safety and clinical activity of different doses and schedules of rhIL-11 in patients with active RA for whom treatment with at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug had failed.This was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that evaluated the safety and tolerability of rhIL-11 in 91 patients with active RA. rhIL-11 was administered subcutaneously; patients were randomized into one of five treatment groups (ratio of rhIL-11 to placebo, 4:1). Patients were treated for 12 weeks with either 2.5 or 7.5 microg/kg of rhIL-11 or placebo twice per week or 5 or 15 microg/kg of rhIL-11 or placebo once per week. The status of each subject's disease activity in accordance with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria was assessed before, during, and after completion of administration of the study drug.Administration of rhIL-11 was well tolerated at all doses and schedules. The most frequent adverse event was a reaction at the injection site. The data suggest a statistically significant reduction in the number of tender joints (P < 0.008) at the 15 microg/kg once-weekly dose schedule but showed no overall significant benefit at the ACR criterion of a 20% response.The trial showed rhIL-11 to be safe and well tolerated at a variety of doses and schedules over a 12-week treatment period in patients with active RA. The only adverse event clearly associated with rhIL-11 administration was reaction at the injection site.

Strand V, Cohen S, Schiff M, Weaver A, Fleischmann R, Cannon G, Fox R, Moreland L, Olsen N, Furst D, Caldwell J, Kaine J, Sharp J, Hurley F, Loew-Friedrich I. · Stanford University, Calif, USA. · Arch Intern Med. · Pubmed #10573044 links to  free full text

Abstract: CONTEXT: Leflunomide is a reversible inhibitor of de novo pyrimidine synthesis shown to be effective in a phase 2 trial in 402 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of leflunomide treatment with placebo and methotrexate treatment in patients with active RA. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo, and active-controlled 12-month study. SETTING: Forty-seven university and private rheumatology practices in the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: Diagnosis of RA by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for duration of 6 months or longer and no previous methotrexate treatment. INTERVENTION: Leflunomide treatment (20 mg/d), placebo, or methotrexate treatment (7.5-15 mg/wk). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: American College of Rheumatology success rate (completed 52 weeks of treatment and met the ACR > or = 20% response criteria), disease progression as assessed by x-ray films, and improvement in function and health-related quality of life using the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: The 482 patients studied were predominantly women (mean age, 54 years; mean disease duration, 6.7 years) for whom a mean of 0.8 disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs had failed. The ACR response and success rates for patients receiving leflunomide treatment (52% and 41%, respectively) and methotrexate treatment (46% and 35%, respectively) were significantly higher than those for patients receiving placebo (26% and 19%, respectively) (P<.001), and they were statistically equivalent, with mean time to initial response at 8.4 weeks for patients receiving leflunomide vs 9.5 weeks for patients receiving methotrexate therapy. X-ray analyses demonstrated less disease progression with leflunomide (P=.001) and methotrexate (P = .02) therapy than with placebo. Leflunomide and methotrexate treatment improved measures of physical function and health-related quality of life significantly more than placebo (P<.001 and P<.05, respectively). Common adverse events for patients receiving leflunomide treatment included gastrointestinal complaints, skin rash, and reversible alopecia. Asymptomatic transaminase elevations resulted in treatment discontinuations for 7.1% of patients receiving leflunomide therapy, 1.7% of patients receiving placebo, and 3.3% of patients receiving methotrexate therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical responses following administration of leflunomide, a new therapeutic agent for the treatment of RA, were statistically superior to those with placebo and equivalent to those with methotrexate treatment. Both active treatments improved signs and symptoms of active RA, delayed disease progression as demonstrated by x-ray films, and improved function and health-related quality of life.

Crawford M, Moreland L. · No affiliation provided · Curr Rheumatol Rep. · Pubmed #17969944 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Moreland L. · Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1813 6th Avenue South, MEB 625, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. · Curr Rheumatol Rep. · Pubmed #15355742 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Russak SM, Croft JD, Furst DE, Hohlbauch A, Liang MH, Moreland L, Ofman JJ, Paulus H, Simon LS, Weisman M, Tugwell P, Anonymous00333. · Zynx Health Incorporated, Beverly Hills, California, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #12910566 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The utilization of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) patient questionnaires by clinical rheumatologists is limited. Yet, considerable literature exists defining the value of such data. In an effort to understand this apparent paradox, we performed a literature review and conducted a survey to describe what has been learned over the past 2 decades concerning the use of these measures in clinical care and explore the reasons for their underutilization. METHODS: A panel of rheumatologists with extensive clinical experience was convened to review the relevant literature pertaining to the use of HRQOL patient instruments in clinical practice. Additionally, a survey of all American College of Rheumatology practicing clinicians was conducted to assess the use of and beliefs about these measures. RESULTS: The literature provided evidence to support the use of HRQOL patient measures in clinical practice. Forty-seven percent of the responding rheumatologists stated that none of their patients complete HRQOL patient questionnaires. The majority of respondents (63%) reported that such information is "somewhat valuable." The most frequently reported reason for the underutilization was that such instruments "require too much staff time." CONCLUSIONS: The literature supports the potential value of HRQOL patient questionnaires in clinical practice. Few rheumatologists routinely gather such information as part of patient care. Reasons for this discrepancy between utility and use are given along with recommendations intended to help increase their utilization in clinical care.