Rheumatoid Arthritis: Schiff M

Schiff M. · Denver Arthritis Clinic, Denver, Colorado 80230, USA. · Clin Ther. · Pubmed #12852713 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease with diverse and fluctuating manifestations. Because no single variable fully captures disease activity or severity, clinical trials of antirheumatic drugs typically employ composite indices, such as the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core criteria, to assess disease status. Drug effects (as demonstrated with these indices) are usually assessed at discrete time points, which may obscure information about the time of onset or duration of improvements. An alternative methodology is the use of summary measurements based on area under the curve (AUC) analyses of disease activity. For these analyses, response is plotted over time, and the area under the response curve is calculated. Because disease variables are quantified over time, AUC measures summarize the therapeutic effects during the entire course of the trial or treatment course. Trials of RA agents have used AUC-based calculations in data analyses. OBJECTIVE: We examined the use of summary AUC measurements for the assessment of the effects of antirheumatic therapies. METHODS: Results provided by summary measurements from studies identified by a MEDLINE search (years, 1990-2002; search terms, rheumatoid arthritis, clinical trial, American College of Rheumatology, disease activity, and radiographic progression) were evaluated to assess the relevance of AUC analyses in the determination of disease activity. RESULTS: Results from these trials suggest that summary AUC measurements produce more precise treatment-effect estimates and are more sensitive than end-of-study data to differences between slower and more rapidly acting agents. Some research suggests that AUC analyses may be more stable and more sensitive to interpatient differences than other measures. AUC measures based on numeric ACR scores have been used successfully to determine treatment effects over time. CONCLUSIONS: Summary measurements are more sensitive to treatment differences than single-time-point assessments and should be considered for use in future RA clinical trials.

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.

Smolen J, Landewé RB, Mease P, Brzezicki J, Mason D, Luijtens K, van Vollenhoven RF, Kavanaugh A, Schiff M, Burmester GR, Strand V, Vencovsky J, van der Heijde D. · Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna and 2nd Department of Medicine, Hietzing Hospital, Austria. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #19015207 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Certolizumab pegol is a PEGylated tumour necrosis factor inhibitor. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol versus placebo, plus methotrexate (MTX), in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An international, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in active adult-onset RA. Patients (n = 619) were randomised 2:2:1 to subcutaneous certolizumab pegol (liquid formulation) 400 mg at weeks 0, 2 and 4 followed by 200 mg or 400 mg plus MTX, or placebo plus MTX, every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary end point was ACR20 response at week 24. Secondary end points included ACR50 and ACR70 responses, change from baseline in modified Total Sharp Score, ACR core set variables and physical function. RESULTS: Significantly more patients in the certolizumab pegol 200 mg and 400 mg groups achieved an ACR20 response versus placebo (p< or =0.001); rates were 57.3%, 57.6% and 8.7%, respectively. Certolizumab pegol 200 and 400 mg also significantly inhibited radiographic progression; mean changes from baseline in mTSS at week 24 were 0.2 and -0.4, respectively, versus 1.2 for placebo (rank analysis p< or =0.01). Certolizumab pegol-treated patients reported rapid and significant improvements in physical function versus placebo; mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI at week 24 were -0.50 and -0.50, respectively, versus -0.14 for placebo (p< or =0.001). Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with low incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events. Five patients developed tuberculosis. CONCLUSION: Certolizumab pegol plus MTX was more efficacious than placebo plus MTX, rapidly and significantly improving signs and symptoms of RA and physical function and inhibiting radiographic progression. Trial registration number: NCT00175877.

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.

Weinblatt M, Schiff M, Goldman A, Kremer J, Luggen M, Li T, Chen D, Becker JC. · Rheumatology and Immunology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16935912 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of abatacept in combination with etanercept in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis during a 1-year, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase, followed by an open-label, long-term extension (LTE). METHODS: Patients continued etanercept (25 mg twice weekly) and were randomised to receive abatacept 2 mg/kg (n = 85) or placebo (n = 36). As the effective dose of abatacept was established as 10 mg/kg in a separate trial, all patients received abatacept 10 mg/kg and etanercept during the LTE. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were randomised; 80 completed double-blind treatment and entered the LTE. During double-blind treatment, the difference in the percentage of patients achieving the primary end point (modified American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at 6 months) was not significant between groups (48.2% v 30.6%; p = 0.072). At 1 year, no notable changes in modified ACR responses were observed. Subsequent to the dosing change, similar modified ACR responses were seen during the LTE. Significant improvements in quality of life were observed with abatacept and etanercept versus placebo and etanercept in five of the eight short-form 36 subscales at 1 year. More abatacept and etanercept-treated patients experienced serious adverse events (SAEs) at 1 year than patients receiving placebo and etanercept (16.5% v 2.8%), with 3.5% v 0% experiencing serious infections. CONCLUSION: The combination of abatacept (at a dose of 2 mg/kg during the double-blind phase and 10 mg/kg during the LTE) and etanercept was associated with an increase in SAEs, including serious infections, with limited clinical effect. On the basis of the limited efficacy findings and safety concerns, abatacept in combination with etanercept should not be used for rheumatoid arthritis treatment.

Furst DE, Fleischmann R, Kopp E, Schiff M, Edwards C, Solinger A, Macri M, Anonymous00372. · Department of Rheumatology, University of California at Los Angeles, California 90095, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16331754 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: In a phase 2 study, to assess the efficacy and safety of pegsunercept, a soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor type I, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive weekly subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 61) or active drug [400 microg/kg (n = 67) or 800 microg/kg (n = 66)] for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) at Week 12. Secondary efficacy measures included ACR50 and ACR70 responses, and changes in individual ACR components at Week 12. Safety assessments included summaries of adverse events including infectious episodes. RESULTS: Treatment with pegsunercept resulted in a significantly higher ACR20 response at Week 12 in the 800 microg/kg group (45%) compared with the placebo group (26%; p = 0.020). The treatment effect of pegsunercept (both doses) over the study period showed statistically significant improvement for most ACR components and health related quality of life, with the 800 microg/kg group showing greater clinical improvements in efficacy measures. The overall incidence of adverse events and infectious episodes was similar among the treatment and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: In this 12 week dose-finding study of 194 patients, weekly subcutaneous dosing with pegsunercept showed beneficial effects in improving the signs and symptoms of RA. It appeared to be safe and well tolerated in this small number of patients. Significant clinical improvements were seen in patients in the 800 microg/kg group; however, this dose may be suboptimal, and further evaluation of this product with higher doses or a more frequent dosing regimen is warranted.

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.

Fleischmann RM, Cohen SB, Moreland LW, Schiff M, Mease PJ, Smith DB, Keenan G, Kremer JM, Anonymous00083. · Radiant Research--Dallas, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX 75235, USA. · Curr Med Res Opin. · Pubmed #16083527 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Infliximab plus methotrexate (MTX) is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Based on the benefit/risk profile of this combination therapy, lower doses of MTX would be preferable when infliximab efficacy can be maintained. We evaluated the ability of patients receiving infliximab plus MTX to achieve and maintain a clinical response while the dose of MTX was tapered. METHODS: Infliximab infusions were administered at a minimum dosage of 3 mg/kg at 8-week intervals (following three loading doses at weeks 0, 2, and 6) to patients who had an inadequate response to MTX. MTX tapering was initiated at week 22 or later when at least a 40% improvement in the combined tender and swollen joint count was achieved; dosages were reduced by 5 mg every 8 weeks to a protocol-specified minimum dosage of 5 mg per week. If the required dosage of MTX after a flare was greater than the baseline dosage, the patient was considered a treatment failure. RESULTS: Of the 210 patients enrolled, 159 (76%) achieved a 40% or better improvement in the combined tender and swollen joint count and had their MTX doses tapered. In these 159 responders, the median (mean) dose of MTX was reduced from 15 (16.5) mg per week at baseline to 5 (7.1) mg per week at week 54. From the time of initial response, 79% of these patients had a zero- or a one-vial increase in infliximab, corresponding to an approximate dose increase of 1 mg/kg, through week 54. CONCLUSION: Approximately 75% of the patients participating in this trial achieved at least a 40% reduction in the combined swollen and tender joint count (correlating with an American College of Rheumatology 20% [ACR20] response in 83% of patients) while reducing the mean MTX dose by 57%.

St Clair EW, van der Heijde DM, Smolen JS, Maini RN, Bathon JM, Emery P, Keystone E, Schiff M, Kalden JR, Wang B, Dewoody K, Weiss R, Baker D, Anonymous00222. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #15529377 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the benefits of initiating treatment with methotrexate (MTX) and infliximab (anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNFalpha] monoclonal antibody) with those of MTX treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) of < or =3 years' duration. METHODS: RA patients were eligible if they had active disease and no prior treatment with MTX or a TNFalpha inhibitor. One thousand forty-nine patients were randomly assigned in a 4:5:5 ratio to 3 treatment groups: MTX-placebo, MTX-3 mg/kg infliximab, and MTX-6 mg/kg infliximab. MTX dosages were rapidly escalated to 20 mg/week, and infliximab or placebo infusions were given at weeks 0, 2, and 6, and every 8 weeks thereafter through week 46. RESULTS: At week 54, the median percentage of American College of Rheumatology improvement (ACR-N) was higher for the MTX-3 mg/kg infliximab and MTX-6 mg/kg infliximab groups than for the MTX-placebo group (38.9% and 46.7% versus 26.4%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Patients in the MTX-3 mg/kg infliximab and MTX-6 mg/kg infliximab groups also showed less radiographic progression than those receiving MTX alone (mean +/- SD changes in van der Heijde modification of the total Sharp score at week 54: 0.4 +/- 5.8 and 0.5 +/- 5.6 versus 3.7 +/- 9.6, respectively; P < 0.001 for each comparison). In addition, physical function improved significantly more in the MTX-3 mg/kg infliximab and MTX-6 mg/kg infliximab groups than in the MTX-placebo group. Infliximab therapy was associated with a significantly higher incidence of serious infections, especially pneumonia. CONCLUSION: For patients with active RA in its early stages, combination therapy with MTX and infliximab provides greater clinical, radiographic, and functional benefits than treatment with MTX alone.

Furst DE, Saag K, Fleischmann MR, Sherrer Y, Block JA, Schnitzer T, Rutstein J, Baldassare A, Kaine J, Calabrese L, Dietz F, Sack M, Senter RG, Wiesenhutter C, Schiff M, Stein CM, Satoi Y, Matsumoto A, Caldwell J, Harris RE, Moreland LW, Hurd E, Yocum D, Stamler DA. · University of California at Los Angeles Medical School, CA 90024, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #12209503 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, safety, and optimal dose of tacrolimus monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled monotherapy study was set in 12 community sites and 9 university-based sites. Two hundred sixty-eight patients with RA who were resistant to or intolerant of methotrexate (mean dose 15.2 mg/week) and had active disease for at least 6 months (mean tender joint count 28.2, mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate 46.5 mm/hour) were randomized to receive treatment after discontinuation of methotrexate. Those who received at least 1 dose of tacrolimus were analyzed; 141 completed the study. Stable dosages of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and low-dose prednisone were allowed during treatment. All patients were given 1, 3, or 5 mg of tacrolimus or placebo once daily for 24 weeks. The American College of Rheumatology definition of 20% improvement (ACR20) and the tender and swollen joint counts at the end of treatment were the primary outcomes. RESULTS: ACR20 response rates demonstrated a clear dose response. The ACR20 response was observed in 15.5% of patients receiving placebo (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 7.1-23.9%), 29% of the 1 mg tacrolimus group (95% CI 18.3-39.7%) (P < 0.058); 34.4% of the 3 mg group (95% CI 22.7-46.0%) (P < 0.013), and 50% of the 5 mg group (95% CI 37.8-62.3%) (P < or = 0.001). The tender joint count improved statistically significantly in all tacrolimus groups. The swollen joint count, physical function, and patient-assessed pain improved statistically significantly in the 3 mg and 5 mg groups. The incidence of creatinine elevation > or =40% above baseline levels increased in a dose-dependent manner. Dropout rates were high (41-59%) and were more common for inefficacy in the placebo patients (71.4%), whereas they were more common for toxicity in the high-dose tacrolimus groups (31-33%). Discontinuation for creatinine elevation occurred in the 3 mg (3.1%) and 5 mg (10.9%) tacrolimus groups. CONCLUSION: Tacrolimus improved disease activity in methotrexate-resistant or -intolerant patients with RA. A dose response was observed when efficacy and toxicity were assessed at different doses. The optimal dose of tacrolimus appears to be >1 mg but < or=3 mg daily.

Cohen S, Hurd E, Cush J, Schiff M, Weinblatt ME, Moreland LW, Kremer J, Bear MB, Rich WJ, McCabe D. · Department of Rheumatology, St. Paul Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75235, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #11920396 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anakinra in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients with moderate-to-severe active RA who were receiving MTX for 6 consecutive months, with stable doses for > or = 3 months (those with disease duration of >6 months but <12 years) were randomized into 6 groups: placebo or 0.04, 0.1, 0.4, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg of anakinra administered in a single, daily, subcutaneous injection. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of subjects who met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (attained an ACR20 response) at week 12. RESULTS: A total of 419 patients were randomized in the study. Patient demographics and disease status were similar in the 6 treatment groups. The ACR20 responses at week 12 in the 5 active treatment plus MTX groups demonstrated a statistically significant (P = 0.001) dose-response relationship compared with the ACR20 response in the placebo plus MTX group. The ACR20 response rate in the anakinra 1.0-mg/kg (46%; P = 0.001) and 2.0-mg/kg (38%; P = 0.007) dose groups was significantly greater than that in the placebo group (19%). The ACR20 responses at 24 weeks were consistent with those at 12 weeks. Similar improvements in anakinra-treated subjects were noted in individual ACR components, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, onset of ACR20 response, sustainability of ACR20 response, and magnitude of ACR response. Anakinra was safe and well tolerated. Injection site reaction was the most frequently noted adverse event, and this led to premature study withdrawal in 7% (1.0-mg/kg group) to 10% (2.0-mg/kg group) of patients receiving higher doses. CONCLUSION: In patients with persistently active RA, the combination of anakinra and MTX was safe and well tolerated and provided significantly greater clinical benefit than MTX alone.

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.

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.

Altman RD, Schiff M, Kopp EJ. · University of Miami, Miami Veterans Affairs Medical Center, FL 33101, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #10529124 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the lowest effective starting dose and residual benefit of cyclosporine A (CSA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to other agents. METHODS: In a double blind (masked observer), controlled, multicenter study, patients with RA started CSA 0 (placebo; n = 61), 1.5 (n = 89), or 2.5 (n = 94) mg/kg/day in a 21 week study that permitted dose escalation after 8 weeks, 1 week tapering of dose at 16 weeks, and post-therapy observation for 4 weeks. RESULTS: Patients with RA taking CSA 2.5 mg/kg/day fared better than those in the placebo or CSA 1.5 mg/kg/day groups in Patient Global Assessment, Examiner Global Assessment, Pain/Tender Joint Count and Index, Swollen Joint Count, and the "Ability at this moment" part of a modified Health Assessment Questionnaire. There was no difference in response between CSA 1.5 mg/kg/day and placebo groups. In the CSA 2.5 mg/kg/day group: improvement occurred between 8 and 12 weeks of therapy; average CSA dose escalation resulted in CSA 2.85 mg/kg/day by Week 16; benefit was not maintained during post-therapy observation and 7 patients discontinued the study because of an adverse event. Adverse events were common in all groups and included gastrointestinal discomfort, hypertension, and increased creatinine. Adverse events remitted with adjustment of dose or after washout in most patients. CONCLUSION: In RA, treatment of patients with CSA 2.5 mg/kg/day, but not 1.5 mg/kg/day, resulted in improvement of 4 of 5 primary efficacy variables when compared to placebo. Adverse events were mostly manageable. CSA was an effective therapy for patients with RA who had failed at least one second line agent.

Keystone E, Freundlich B, Schiff M, Li J, Hooper M. · Mount Sinai Hospital, The Rebecca MacDonald Centre for Arthritis and Autoimmunity, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #19228659 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This analysis examined clinical and radiographic responses to methotrexate (MTX), etanercept (ETN), and combination ETN and MTX in patients with moderate versus severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in both early and late disease. METHODS: Data from the Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate With Radiographic Patient Outcomes (TEMPO) and the Early Rheumatoid Arthritis trials were used. Patients were classified with moderate or severe RA based on Disease Activity Score including 28-joint count (DAS28). Outcomes included DAS28 remission, DAS28 low disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores, Total Sharp Score (TSS) progression, no radiographic progression (annualized change in TSS > or = 0), change from baseline in TSS, and the change in TSS for patients who had radiographic progression (TSS > 0). RESULTS: Patients with moderate disease generally achieved better clinical outcomes than patients with severe disease, including significant differences in DAS28 remission, low disease activity, and HAQ < or =0.5 at Month 12. Patients with baseline severe disease had higher ACR and DAS responses than patients with moderate disease. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe RA disease activity achieved substantial clinical improvement with high-dose MTX and/or ETN treatment, but patients with moderate disease were more likely to reach a lower disease activity state. These findings were independent of disease duration. The results support the opportunity for excellent clinical outcomes, particularly with combination therapy, in patients with moderate RA.

Wells G, Becker JC, Teng J, Dougados M, Schiff M, Smolen J, Aletaha D, van Riel PL. · Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18490431 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To validate and compare the definition of the Disease Activity Score 28 based on C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP)) to the definition based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). METHODS: Data were analysed from two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of abatacept of 6-month and 12-month duration in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria and the proportion of patients in remission (DAS28 <2.6) based on the two DAS28 definitions were examined. Trends in radiographic progression (erosion score, joint space narrowing score and total score) and physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)) across the EULAR responder states (none, moderate and good) were analysed. RESULTS: There was general agreement in determining the EULAR responder state using both DAS28 definitions (kappa = 0.80, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.83). Overall, there was 82.4% agreement on the EULAR response criteria; when disagreements occurred, the DAS28 (CRP) yielded a better EULAR response more often then DAS28 (ESR) (12.6% vs 4.9%, respectively). There was also agreement in determining remission: kappa = 0.69 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.78). Radiographic progression decreased in patients treated with abatacept across EULAR states (from none to moderate to good) based on both definitions. For patients treated with placebo, the trend was not as pronounced, with radiographic scores higher for moderate vs non-responders. For physical function, similar trends were observed across the EULAR states for both DAS28 definitions. CONCLUSIONS: The DAS28 (CRP) has been validated against radiographic progression and physical function. While the DAS28 (CRP) yielded a better EULAR response more often than the DAS28 (ESR), the validation profile was similar to the DAS28 (ESR), indicating that both measures are useful for assessing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Genovese MC, Schiff M, Luggen M, Becker JC, Aranda R, Teng J, Li T, Schmidely N, Le Bars M, Dougados M. · Stanford University, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, 1000 Welch Road #203, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #17921185 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of abatacept during 2 years of the ATTAIN (Abatacept Trial in Treatment of Anti-TNF INadequate responders) trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Patients completing the 6-month, double-blind period were eligible to enter the long-term extension; patients received abatacept approximately 10 mg/kg, plus disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Safety and efficacy (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria responses, DAS28 (C-reactive protein), HAQ-DI, SF-36, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Problems Index, fatigue VAS) were assessed through 2 years. RESULTS: 317 patients (218 from the abatacept and 99 from the placebo group) entered and 222 (70%) completed 18 months of long-term extension treatment. The incidence and type of adverse events were consistent between the double-blind and cumulative (double-blind plus long-term extension) periods. Rates of serious adverse events were 25.6 and 23.4 per 100 patient-years in the double-blind versus cumulative period. At 6 months and 2 years, using non-responder analyses, ACR responses in abatacept-treated patients were: ACR 20, 59.4% and 56.2%; ACR 50, 23.5% and 33.2%; ACR 70, 11.5% and 16.1%; HAQ-DI responses were 54.4% and 47.9%. At 6 months and 2 years, using post-hoc as-observed analyses, the percentage of patients (95% confidence interval) achieving DAS28 (C-reactive protein) low disease activity score (< or = 3.2) and DAS28 (C-reactive protein)-defined remission (< 2.6) increased from 18.3% (13.0, 23.5) to 32.0% (24.6, 39.4) and 11.1% (6.8, 15.3) to 20.3% (13.9, 26.6). Clinically meaningful improvements in SF-36, pain, fatigue and sleep problems were also maintained throughout the 2 years of abatacept treatment. CONCLUSION: No unique safety observations were reported during open-label exposure. Improvements in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, physical function and health-related quality of life observed after 6 months, were maintained throughout the 2 years in this population with difficult-to-treat disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00124982.

Smolen JS, Han C, van der Heijde D, Emery P, Bathon JM, Keystone E, Kalden JR, Schiff M, Bala M, Baker D, Han J, Maini RN, St Clair EW. · Medical University of Vienna and Lainz Hospital, Vienna, Austria. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16508932 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of infliximab therapy on the employment status of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with active early RA were randomly allocated to receive MTX plus placebo or MTX plus infliximab (3 mg/kg or 6 mg/kg) at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and then every 8 weeks through week 46. Data for patients younger than age 65 years were included in the analyses. A patient was categorized as employable if he or she was employed or felt well enough to work if a job were available. RESULTS: The change in actual employment was not significantly different between patients receiving MTX plus infliximab and those receiving MTX plus placebo (0.5% versus 1.3%; P > 0.5). However, the proportion of patients whose status changed from employable at baseline to unemployable at week 54 was smaller in the group receiving MTX plus infliximab compared with that in the group receiving MTX alone (8% versus 14%; P = 0.05). Patients who were treated with infliximab plus MTX had a significantly greater likelihood of improvement rather than deterioration in employability (odds ratio 2.4; P < 0.001); this likelihood was not significantly greater in patients receiving MTX alone. The proportion of employed patients who lost workdays during the trial was smaller in the MTX plus infliximab group than in the MTX-alone group (P = 0.010). CONCLUSION: The actual employment rates among patients in the 2 treatment groups were not different. However, patients with early RA who were treated with MTX plus infliximab had a higher probability of maintaining their employability compared with those who were treated with MTX alone.

Smolen JS, Van Der Heijde DM, St Clair EW, Emery P, Bathon JM, Keystone E, Maini RN, Kalden JR, Schiff M, Baker D, Han C, Han J, Bala M, Anonymous00105. · Medical University of Vienna and Lainz Hospital, Vienna, Austria. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16508926 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To identify disease characteristics leading to progression of joint damage in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with methotrexate (MTX) versus those treated with infliximab plus MTX. METHODS: Patients who had not previously been treated with MTX with active RA were randomly assigned to receive escalating doses of MTX up to 20 mg/week plus placebo or infliximab at weeks 0, 2, and 6, and every 8 weeks thereafter through week 46. Radiographic joint damage was assessed using the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS). The relationship between disease activity measures at baseline and week 14, as well as those averaged over time, were examined in relation to the change in SHS from baseline through week 54. RESULTS: C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and swollen joint count were associated with greater joint damage progression in the MTX-only group, while none of these parameters was associated with progression in the infliximab plus MTX group. Mean changes in SHS among patients in the highest CRP (> or = 3 mg/dl) and ESR (> or = 52 mm/hour) tertiles in the MTX-only group were 5.62 and 5.89, respectively, compared with 0.73 and 1.12 in the infliximab plus MTX group (P < 0.001). Patients with greater joint damage at baseline (SHS > or = 10.5) showed less progression with infliximab plus MTX compared with MTX alone (-0.39 versus 4.11; P < 0.001). Patients receiving MTX alone who had persistently active disease at week 14 showed greater radiographic progression of joint damage than those taking MTX plus infliximab. CONCLUSION: High CRP level, high ESR, or persistent disease activity was associated with greater radiographic progression in the group taking MTX alone, while little radiographic progression was seen in patients receiving both MTX and infliximab, regardless of the abnormal levels of these traditional predictors.

Hansen KE, Cush J, Singhal A, Cooley DA, Cohen S, Patel SR, Genovese M, Sundaramurthy S, Schiff M. · University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #15077264 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To report the safety and efficacy of leflunomide (LEF) in combination with infliximab (INF) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In an open, multicenter, retrospective study, data were collected on the safety and efficacy of LEF and INF. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients received the combination of LEF and INF for an average of 6.6 months and a total exposure of 581 patient-months. The mean duration of LEF was 17 +/- 9 months (range 3-32 months; median 18.5 months) with an average of 4.8 INF infusions per patient. In all but 3 subjects, LEF was used initially and INF was added later. Infusion reactions occurred in 3 patients (0.7% of all infusions). A total of 34% of subjects experienced adverse events and in 6 (6.8% of the group) these were deemed serious. Ten infections occurred when patients were taking the combination; 9 patients recovered fully and 1 died of bacterial pneumonia. A lifetime smoker developed lung cancer and another patient was found to have colon cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The adverse events noted within the combination therapy group were in keeping with the known risks of each drug when used individually. Limited data were available on efficacy, but a general improvement in disease control was noted with the combination of drugs, which for most patients involved the addition of INF to previous use of LEF.