Rheumatoid Arthritis: Pedersen R

van der Heijde D, Landewé R, Klareskog L, Rodríguez-Valverde V, Settas L, Pedersen R, Fatenejad S. · Rheumatology Department, University Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #15641062 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate different methods of presentation and analysis of radiographic data in a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A double-blind randomized controlled trial including 682 patients with active RA who were treated with methotrexate, etanercept, or a combination of the 2 drugs was used for this study. Probability plots of the change from baseline to year 1 were produced to visualize progression, and were compared with usual descriptive statistics. The primary analysis of the trial (based on annualized actual mean change from baseline in total Sharp score at 1 year, using linear imputation) was challenged using various ways of handling missing information with alternative imputation methods, and by various statistical analyses including analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and mixed model analysis on both raw and log-transformed data. RESULTS: Probability plots provided detailed insight into the differentiated treatment effects between the 3 arms of this study. As adjuncts to formal hypothesis testing, these plots were more useful for presenting data than were summary descriptive statistics or use of preset cutoff points to define lack of progression. Additional analyses presented here support the results obtained with the per-protocol analysis that showed an advantage of the combination treatment compared with the monotherapy arms and for etanercept versus methotrexate alone. Various ways of handling missing information confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, both ANCOVA and mixed model analyses on raw and on log-transformed data produced similar results. CONCLUSION: We suggest a panel of alternative analysis methods and alternative ways of handling missing information to verify that the radiographic results reported in an randomized controlled trial are not influenced by technical factors, such as interpolation, handling of missing data, and choice of statistical tests.

Klareskog L, van der Heijde D, de Jager JP, Gough A, Kalden J, Malaise M, Martín Mola E, Pavelka K, Sany J, Settas L, Wajdula J, Pedersen R, Fatenejad S, Sanda M, Anonymous00113. · Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institute/Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm 17176, Sweden. · Lancet. · Pubmed #15001324 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Etanercept and methotrexate are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but no data exist on concurrent initiation or use of the combination compared with either drug alone. We aimed to assess combination treatment with etanercept and methotrexate versus the monotherapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomised, clinical efficacy, safety, and radiographic study, 686 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated to treatment with etanercept 25 mg (subcutaneously twice a week), oral methotrexate (up to 20 mg every week), or the combination. Clinical response was assessed by criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The primary efficacy endpoint was the numeric index of the ACR response (ACR-N) area under the curve (AUC) over the first 24 weeks. The primary radiographic endpoint was change from baseline to week 52 in total joint damage and was assessed with the modified Sharp score. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Four patients did not receive any drug; thus 682 were studied. ACR-N AUC at 24 weeks was greater for the combination group compared with etanercept alone and methotrexate alone (18.3%-years [95% CI 17.1-19.6] vs 14.7%-years [13.5-16.0], p<0.0001, and 12.2%-years [11.0-13.4], p<0.0001; respectively). The mean difference in ACR-N AUC between combination and methotrexate alone was 6.1 (95% CI 4.5-7.8, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was 2.5 (0.8-4.2, p=0.0034). The combination was more efficacious than methotrexate or etanercept alone in retardation of joint damage (mean total Sharp score -0.54 [95% CI -1.00 to -0.07] vs 2.80 [1.08 to 4.51], p<0.0001, and 0.52 [-0.10 to 1.15], p=0.0006; respectively). The mean difference in total Sharp score between combination and methotrexate alone was -3.34 (95% CI -4.86 to -1.81, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was -27 (-3.81 to -0.74, p=0.0469). The number of patients reporting infections or adverse events was similar in all groups. INTERPRETATION: The combination of etanercept and methotrexate was significantly better in reduction of disease activity, improvement of functional disability, and retardation of radiographic progression compared with methotrexate or etanercept alone. These findings bring us closer to achievement of remission and repair of structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis.

van der Heijde D, Burmester G, Melo-Gomes J, Codreanu C, Martin Mola E, Pedersen R, Robertson D, Chang D, Koenig A, Freundlich B, Anonymous00050. · Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18718986 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of changing from etanercept or methotrexate monotherapy to etanercept plus methotrexate combination therapy on radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: Patients enrolled in this 1-year open-label study previously completed a 3-year blinded study in which they received methotrexate or etanercept monotherapy or the combination of both. All patients received the combination of etanercept 25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly plus oral methotrexate up to 20 mg/week. The primary radiographic endpoint was a change in modified total Sharp score (TSS), as assessed by blinded readers. RESULTS: At baseline, patients previously receiving methotrexate monotherapy (etanercept-added, n = 52) or etanercept monotherapy (methotrexate-added, n = 68) had moderate disease activity levels (mean disease activity score (DAS) of 2.6 and 2.5, respectively), whereas patients previously receiving combination therapy (n = 90) had a low disease activity level (mean DAS of 2.0). The addition of etanercept to methotrexate monotherapy resulted in a significant reduction in radiographic progression (p<0.05). Mean TSS changes in the previous year versus the current year were +1.79 versus +0.25 for the etanercept-added group (p<0.05); +0.51 versus -0.18 for the methotrexate-added group (NS) and +0.42 versus +0.24 for the combination group (NS). CONCLUSION: In these RA patients with on average moderate disease activity despite previous methotrexate monotherapy, combination treatment with etanercept and methotrexate inhibited radiographic progression and improved radiographic outcomes. These data, in conjunction with the previously published clinical data, support the use of combination therapy in RA patients with moderate disease activity.

van der Heijde D, Klareskog L, Landewé R, Bruyn GA, Cantagrel A, Durez P, Herrero-Beaumont G, Molad Y, Codreanu C, Valentini G, Zahora R, Pedersen R, MacPeek D, Wajdula J, Fatenejad S. · Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18050208 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: 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.

van der Heijde D, Burmester G, Melo-Gomes J, Codreanu C, Mola EM, Pedersen R, Freundlich B, Chang DJ, Anonymous00414. · Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300RC Leiden, The Netherlands. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #17728331 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine if adding etanercept (ETN) to methotrexate (MTX) or MTX to ETN for 52 weeks in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with moderate disease activity provides higher efficacy. METHODS: All patients (n = 227) received open-label ETN 25 mg subcutaneously twice-weekly and MTX orally up to 20 mg weekly for 52 weeks and had completed a 3-year study in which patients received MTX, ETN or combination therapy. Endpoints were based on Disease Activity Score (DAS) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses. RESULTS: Patients previously receiving combination therapy (Combination group; n = 96) had a lower disease activity at baseline. The mean DAS for those previously receiving MTX (ETN-added group; n = 55) and previously receiving ETN (MTX-added group; n = 76) were in the moderate disease activity range at baseline; Combination patients had a low disease activity. The greatest increase in DAS remission rates from baseline to week 52 was in the ETN-added group (23.6% to 41.8%, p<0.01), although Combination (37.6% to 50.0%, p<0.01) and MTX-added (26.7% to 36.8%, p = NS) also demonstrated improvements. DAS low disease activity and EULAR responses showed similar results. No new safety issues were identified. CONCLUSION: RA patients who were partial responders to long-term MTX or etanercept monotherapy obtained a higher efficacy with combination therapy. Responses achieved by patients with combination therapy after 3 years in the previous study were sustained or improved during the fourth year of treatment. This trial supports the higher therapeutic effect of combination treatment with etanercept and MTX in RA patients with moderate disease activity despite monotherapy with one of the two agents.

van Riel PL, Freundlich B, MacPeek D, Pedersen R, Foehl JR, Singh A, Anonymous00146. · Department of Rheumatology Radboud University, Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #17666447 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the relative efficacy of etanercept (ETN) or etanercept and methotrexate (ETN+MTX) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an unsatisfactory response to MTX, using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of function, pain, general health, disease activity and morning stiffness. METHODS: The PROs were secondary assessments in a 16-week, prospective, randomised, parallel-group study conducted at 60 European centres. Patients with RA were randomly assigned either to monotherapy with ETN or combination therapy with ETN+MTX. PRO instruments administered included the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire, the pain visual analogue scale, the EuroQoL assessment of current health state (EQ-5D), the EQ-5D visual analogue scale, a patient global assessment of disease activity and an assessment of morning stiffness. Treatment groups were compared by percentage of patients within clinically meaningful categories. The primary endpoint for all PROs was comparison of mean improvement from baseline to week 16 between ETN and ETN+MTX groups. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifteen patients were randomised to ETN or ETN+MTX. Both treatment arms had similar Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index DI, EQ-5D, patient global assessment of disease activity, pain or morning stiffness scores and improvement from baseline to week 16. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with active RA and intolerance or unsatisfactory response to MTX, substituting ETN for MTX and adding ETN to MTX are both effective ways of reducing disability, pain, disease activity, morning stiffness, and improving general health.

van der Heijde D, Klareskog L, Rodriguez-Valverde V, Codreanu C, Bolosiu H, Melo-Gomes J, Tornero-Molina J, Wajdula J, Pedersen R, Fatenejad S, Anonymous00372. · Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16572441 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, including radiographic changes, and safety of etanercept and methotrexate (MTX), used in combination and alone, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom previous treatment with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug other than MTX had failed. METHODS: Patients with RA were treated with etanercept (25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly), oral MTX (up to 20 mg weekly), or combination therapy with etanercept plus MTX through a second year, in a double-blinded manner. Clinical response was assessed using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and the Disease Activity Score (DAS), in a modified intent-to-treat analysis with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) and in a population of completers. Radiographs of the hands, wrists, and forefeet were scored for erosions and joint space narrowing at annual intervals. RESULTS: A total of 503 of 686 patients continued into year 2 of the study. During the 2 years, significantly fewer patients receiving combination therapy withdrew from the study (29% of the combination therapy group, 39% of the etanercept group, and 48% of the MTX group). Both the LOCF and the completer analyses yielded similar results. The ACR 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses and the remission rates (based on a DAS of <1.6) were significantly higher with combination therapy than with either monotherapy (P<0.01). Similarly, improvement in disability (based on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) was greater with combination therapy (P<0.01). The combination therapy group showed significantly less radiographic progression than did either group receiving monotherapy (P<0.05); moreover, radiographic progression was significantly lower in the etanercept group compared with the MTX group (P<0.05). For the second consecutive year, overall disease progression in the combination therapy group was negative, with the 95% confidence interval less than zero. Adverse events were similar in the 3 treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Etanercept in combination with MTX reduced disease activity, slowed radiographic progression, and improved function more effectively than did either monotherapy over a 2-year period. No increase in toxicity was associated with combination treatment with etanercept plus MTX.

van Riel PL, Taggart AJ, Sany J, Gaubitz M, Nab HW, Pedersen R, Freundlich B, MacPeek D, Anonymous00046. · Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Department of Rheumatology, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16464988 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of etanercept (ETN) monotherapy compared with combination ETN and methotrexate (MTX) treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to MTX monotherapy. (The response was defined by the presence of Disease Activity Score-28 joint count (DAS28) >or=3.2 or a combination of >or=5 swollen joints, >or=5 painful joints and erythrocyte sedimentation rate >or=10 mm/h.) METHODS: Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis taking MTX >or=12.5 mg/week for >or=3 months were included in this 16 week, randomised, open-label study. Patients were randomly assigned to either ETN (25 mg subcutaneous injection twice weekly) added to the baseline dose of MTX or ETN monotherapy. RESULTS: 315 patients were randomised to ETN (n = 160) or ETN plus MTX (n = 155). The primary end point, DAS28 (4) improvement of >1.2 units, was achieved by 72.8% and 75.2% of patients treated with ETN and those treated with ETN plus MTX, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.658) between the two groups. The European League Against Rheumatism response criteria of good or moderate response was attained by 80.0% of patients in the ETN group and by 82.4% of patients in the ETN plus MTX group. American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50% and 70% response rates achieved by both groups were also similar: 71.0% v 67.1%, 41.9% v 40.1% and 17.4% v 18.4%, respectively. The rates of adverse and serious adverse events were similar between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Both the addition of ETN to MTX and the substitution of ETN for MTX in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to MTX resulted in substantial improvements in clinical signs and symptoms and were generally well-tolerated treatment strategies for improving clinical signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.

van der Heijde D, Klareskog L, Singh A, Tornero J, Melo-Gomes J, Codreanu C, Pedersen R, Freundlich B, Fatenejad S. · Rheumatology, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16079172 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare patient reported measures of function, health related quality of life (QoL), and satisfaction with medication among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with methotrexate (MTX), etanercept, or both for up to 1 year. METHODS: In a 52 week, double blind, clinical trial, patients with active RA were randomised to receive etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, methotrexate up to 20 mg weekly, or combination therapy. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index, EuroQoL health status visual analogue scale (EQ-5D VAS), patient global assessment, and patient general health VAS were administered at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 32, 40, 48, and 52. Satisfaction with the medication was compared at 52 weeks. RESULTS: Of 682 enrolled patients, 522 completed 52 weeks of treatment. Mean improvement from baseline in HAQ score was 0.65, 0.70, and 1.0 for MTX, etanercept, and the combination, respectively. The mean percentage and absolute improvement in the HAQ was significantly higher (p<0.01) for combination therapy than for either of the monotherapies. Combination therapy produced significantly more rapid achievement of HAQ < or =0.5 sustained for 6 months than either of the monotherapies (p<0.01). Compared with patients receiving monotherapy, those receiving combination therapy achieved a significantly better (p<0.05) health state as measured by the EQ-5D VAS (mean (SD) 63.7 (3.2), 66.8 (3.2), 72.7 (3.1) for MTX, etanercept, and the combination, respectively). Results were similar for other assessments (p<0.01). Patients in combination and etanercept groups were significantly more likely (p<0.0001, p = 0.0009, respectively) to report satisfaction with the medication. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate improved function, QoL, and satisfaction with the medication significantly more than monotherapy.

van der Heijde D, Klareskog L, Boers M, Landewé R, Codreanu C, Bolosiu HD, Pedersen R, Fatenejad S, Anonymous00064. · Rheumatology Department, University Hospital, Maastricht, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, P Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #15860509 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess methods to calculate achieving and sustaining remission in a double blind randomised trial in patients with RA who received etanercept, methotrexate, or an etanercept/methotrexate combination. METHODS: Remission was defined as DAS <1.6, DAS28 <2.6, and ACR70 response. Sustaining remission was analysed in three ways: (a) analysis of sustained DAS remission, DAS28 remission, or ACR70 response continuously for 6 months; (b) analysis of sustained remission appraised through a continuity rewarded scoring system, which is the weighted sum of all intervals in the study in which patients are in DAS or DAS28 remission; or (c) longitudinal modelling of remission odds using generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: Significantly more patients treated with the etanercept/methotrexate combination reached DAS remission (37%) than those treated with either methotrexate (14%) or etanercept (18%) alone (p<0.01). Results for DAS28 and for the ACR70 response were similar. Agreement between DAS remission and DAS28 remission was good, but agreement between either of these and the ACR70 response was less. Patients in DAS or DAS28 remission had a lower level of disease activity (fewer active joints, lower ESR) than those achieving ACR70 response; the converse was seen using pain VAS. The three methods were comparable for sustainability of remission and showed significant advantage for combination therapy, which increased the number and durability of remission periods. CONCLUSIONS: DAS and DAS28 remission results were similar for assessing achieving and sustaining remission in RA, frequently differing from patients classified as ACR70 responders. The three methods of examining duration of remission produced comparable results.