Rheumatoid Arthritis: Schiff MH

Furst DE, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR, Smolen JS, Burmester GR, Sieper J, Emery P, Keystone EC, Schiff MH, Mease P, van Riel PL, Fleischmann R, Weisman MH, Weinblatt ME. · David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA - RM 32-59, 1000 Veteran Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90025, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #17934088 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Schiff MH. · Denver Arthritis Clinic Research Unit, Denver, Colorado 80230, USA. · Drugs. · Pubmed #15516150 No free full text.

Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic and progressive inflammatory disease that ultimately leads to disability and functional decline. Because patients usually develop RA in mid-life, they may experience its consequences for 20-30 years or longer. Proinflammatory cytokines, notably interleukin (IL)-1 and tumour necrosis factor-alpha, are believed to play significant pathophysiological roles. Clinical trials of biologicals that block these cytokines confirm their importance.Anakinra, a recombinant human IL-1 receptor antagonist, improves clinical signs and symptoms, and slows radiographic progression in patients with active RA. In clinical trials, patients receiving anakinra doses >1 mg/kg, whether administered alone or in combination with methotrexate, were two to three times more likely than patients receiving placebo to achieve a sustained ACR20 (American College of Rheumatology criteria) response. Notably, bone erosion slows to a greater extent and shows accelerated benefit when anakinra treatment is continued for periods beyond 24 weeks. Anakinra has a rapid onset of action, with substantial improvements in biochemical indices (C-reactive protein) seen within 1 week and clinical responses (ACR20 or joint counts) seen within 4 weeks of starting treatment. Anakinra is generally well tolerated, with injection site reactions being the most common adverse event. These reactions are generally mild and typically resolve within 2-3 weeks of treatment. The anakinra product labelling does include a warning regarding an increased risk of infections of 2% in anakinra-treated patients versus <1% in patients receiving placebo.

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.

Schiff MH, Whelton A. · University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA. · Semin Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #11124283 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To provide a review of the renal toxicity of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) currently used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Papers in American and European medical journals related to renal toxicity of DMARDs used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis were reviewed. Specific DMARDs reviewed were cyclosporine, gold, D-penicillamine, methotrexate, azathioprine, antimalarials, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, etanercept, infliximab, and DMARD combination therapy. RESULTS: The renal toxicity of DMARDs varies widely. Cyclosporine, gold, and D-penicillamine all have a serious potential for renal side effects, particularly in the elderly or in patients with compromised renal function. Concomitant use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increases the potential for renal damage. In contrast, methotrexate, azathioprine, antimalarials, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, etanercept, and infliximab have relatively little renal toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The potential for renal toxicity should always be considered when determining which DMARD to use for RA therapy. DMARDs that combine efficacy with negligible renal adverse effects should be used for the treatment of patients susceptible to DMARD-associated renal damage.

Schiff MH. · Denver Arthritis Clinic, 4545 E 9th Avenue, Suite 510, Denver, CO 80220, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #11053099 links to  free full text

Abstract: Chronic arthritis is characterised by chronic joint inflammation and concurrent joint erosion and destruction. The inflammatory cytokine interleukin 1 (IL1) has been shown to be a key mediator in the autoimmune disease rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Interleukin 1 mediates bone resorption and cartilage destruction, but may not play as dominant a part in joint swelling and inflammation. Interleukin 1 receptor antagonist (IL1Ra) selectively inhibits the effects of IL1 by competing for the IL1 receptor on all surfaces of the synovium. In a randomised controlled trial in 472 patients with active disease, IL1Ra 30 mg/day, 75 mg/day or 150 mg/day given by subcutaneous injection significantly reduced the signs and symptoms of RA at 24 weeks. An American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% response was seen in 43% of the patients treated with 150 mg/day at 24 weeks. IL1Ra was well tolerated; injection site reactions were the most common adverse event. In another trial, in 419 patients with active RA treated concomitantly with methotrexate, there were ACR 20% responses after 24 weeks in 42% of the patients treated with 1 mg/kg/day by subcutaneous injection and in 35% of those treated with 2 mg/kg/day. I1Ra offers a unique selective, targeted mechanism of action to block the IL1 mediated effects of RA.

Baumgartner SW, Fleischmann RM, Moreland LW, Schiff MH, Markenson J, Whitmore JB. · Physician's Clinic of Spokane, Spokane, Washington 99204, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15290731 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare etanercept-induced improvement in disability of patients with recent onset of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to that of patients with established RA. METHODS: Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores were collected over 3 years in 2 groups of patients with RA who were treated with etanercept. The first group consisted of 207 patients with recent onset RA (mean duration of 1 year) who had not previously received methotrexate, and the second group consisted of 464 patients with established RA (mean duration of 12 years) who had failed one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. RESULTS: Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar in the 2 groups, except for HAQ scores and C-reactive protein levels, which were higher in the established RA group. Patients in both groups showed rapid and sustained clinical responses with etanercept therapy, but patients with recent onset RA showed significantly greater improvement in HAQ scores compared with patients with established RA. The difference in magnitude of HAQ score improvement between groups was observed as early as week 2 after initiation of etanercept and persisted throughout the 3-year time frame. At year 3, significantly more patients with recent onset RA had a HAQ score of zero (26%) versus those with established RA (14%, p = 0.0095). CONCLUSION: Although etanercept therapy significantly improved disability scores in both groups, patients with recent onset of RA showed greater benefit in HAQ scores than patients with established RA. These results support prompt treatment of RA at an early stage of disease to minimize patient disability.

Schiff MH, DiVittorio G, Tesser J, Fleischmann R, Schechtman J, Hartman S, Liu T, Solinger AM. · Denver Arthritis Clinic, Colorado 80230, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #15188350 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine in a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial the safety profile of daily anakinra (Kineret) use in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and concurrent comorbid conditions. METHODS: In 169 centers in 9 countries, 1,414 patients with active RA were randomly assigned to receive either anakinra (100 mg) or placebo treatment (4:1 anakinra-to-placebo allocation ratio), with study drug administered by daily subcutaneous injection for 6 months. The current post hoc analysis assessed baseline comorbid conditions, and patients were considered at high risk for the occurrence of adverse events if they had a history of at least one of the following: cardiovascular event, pulmonary event, central nervous system-related event, infection, diabetes, malignancy, or renal impairment. Within each treatment group (anakinra or placebo), incidence rates were summarized for serious adverse events, infectious events, and serious infectious events in high-risk patients and compared with these incidence rates in patients without comorbid conditions. RESULTS: The majority of patients in the trial had one or more comorbid conditions. In these high-risk patients, there were no differences in the incidence of serious adverse events or infectious events between treatment groups. The incidence of serious infectious events with anakinra use was similar between high-risk patients (2.5%) and the entire study population (2.1%) and was not attributable to any single comorbidity. CONCLUSION: Results of the analysis of adverse events in patients with active RA and coexisting comorbidities suggest that the favorable safety profile of anakinra is maintained in a high-risk patient population.

Keystone EC, Schiff MH, Kremer JM, Kafka S, Lovy M, DeVries T, Burge DJ. · Mt. Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #14872476 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of 50 mg etanercept administered subcutaneously once weekly in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Four hundred twenty RA patients were randomized to receive, in a blinded manner, the study drug for up to 16 weeks: 214 patients received 50 mg etanercept once weekly, 153 received 25 mg etanercept twice weekly, and 53 received placebo for 8 weeks followed by 25 mg etanercept twice weekly for 8 weeks. Efficacy and safety were assessed at weeks 8 and 16. Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed on serum samples from patients at selected study sites. The primary efficacy end point was achievement of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% improvement criteria (ACR20 response) at week 8. RESULTS: An ACR20 response was achieved at week 8 by 50% of the patients receiving 50 mg etanercept once weekly, by 49% of the patients receiving 25 mg etanercept twice weekly, and by 19% of the patients in the placebo group (P </= 0.0001 for each etanercept group versus placebo). Similarly, achievement of the ACR50 response was attained by 18% of patients in each of the 2 etanercept groups, compared with 6% of patients in the placebo group (P < 0.03 for each comparison). Pharmacokinetics of the 2 etanercept regimens were similar at steady state. No clinically significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed between the 2 etanercept groups. CONCLUSION: Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics were comparable between the 2 etanercept dosing regimens. Thus, comparable clinical outcomes are to be expected when patients are treated with etanercept administered either as 50 mg once weekly or as 25 mg twice weekly.

Furst DE, Schiff MH, Fleischmann RM, Strand V, Birbara CA, Compagnone D, Fischkoff SA, Chartash EK. · Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, 32-59 Rehabilitation Center, 1000 Veteran Avenue, Box 951670, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1670, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #14719195 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study, known as STAR (Safety Trial of Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis), evaluated the safety and efficacy of adalimumab (Humira), a fully human monoclonal tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) antibody, when given with standard antirheumatic therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not adequately responding to such therapies. Standard antirheumatic therapy included traditional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), low dose corticosteroids, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), and/or analgesics. METHODS: In this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 636 patients with RA were randomly assigned to receive adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously (sc) every other week (n = 318) or placebo (n = 318) while continuing standard antirheumatic therapy. The frequencies of adverse events, serious adverse events, severe or life-threatening adverse events, adverse events leading to withdrawal, infection, or serious infection were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were determined by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria. RESULTS: During the study, the majority of patients received concomitant traditional DMARD (83.5%) and/or corticosteroids, NSAID, and/or analgesics (97.3%). Overall, 56.0% of patients continued treatment with one, 23.6% with 2, and 3.9% with > or = 3 traditional DMARD. At 24 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences between the adalimumab and placebo groups in their respective rates of adverse events (86.5% vs 82.7%), serious adverse events (5.3% vs 6.9%), severe or life-threatening adverse events (11.9% vs 15.4%), or those leading to withdrawal (2.8% vs 2.2%). There were also no statistically significant differences in the rates of infections (52.2% vs 49.4%) or serious infections (1.3% vs 1.9%) between the groups. The incidence and types of adverse events did not vary between adalimumab- and placebo-treated patients by the number of concomitant traditional DMARD (0, 1, or 2). Adalimumab-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients achieved statistically superior ACR20 (52.8% vs 34.9%), ACR50 (28.9% vs 11.3%), and ACR70 (14.8% vs 3.5%) response rates at Week 24 (p < or = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that addition of adalimumab 40 mg given sc every other week to concomitant standard antirheumatic therapy is well tolerated and provides significant improvements in signs and symptoms of RA. The data indicate that adalimumab is a safe and effective therapeutic option in patients with active RA who have an inadequate response to standard antirheumatic therapy, including one or more traditional DMARD, corticosteroids, NSAID, and analgesics.

Genovese MC, Bathon JM, Martin RW, Fleischmann RM, Tesser JR, Schiff MH, Keystone EC, Wasko MC, Moreland LW, Weaver AL, Markenson J, Cannon GW, Spencer-Green G, Finck BK. · Department of Medicine, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1000 Welch Road #203, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #12115173 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received monotherapy with either etanercept or methotrexate (MTX) for 2 years and to assess the safety of this therapy. METHODS: In the Enbrel ERA (early rheumatoid arthritis) trial, 632 patients with early, active RA were randomized to receive either twice-weekly subcutaneous etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg) or weekly oral MTX (mean dosage 19 mg per week) for at least 1 year in a double-blind manner. Following the blinded phase of the trial, 512 patients continued to receive the therapy to which they had been randomized for up to 1 additional year, in an open-label manner. Radiograph readers remained blinded to treatment group assignment and the chronologic order of images. RESULTS: At 24 months, more 25-mg etanercept patients than MTX patients met American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (72% and 59%, respectively; P = 0.005), and more had no increase in total score and erosion scores on the Sharp scale (P = 0.017 and P = 0.012, respectively). The mean changes in total Sharp score and erosion score in the 25-mg etanercept group (1.3 and 0.66 units, respectively) were significantly lower than those in the MTX group (3.2 and 1.86 units, respectively; P = 0.001). Significantly more patients in the 25-mg etanercept group (55%) than in the MTX group (37%) had at least 0.5 units of improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (P < 0.001). Fewer patients in the etanercept group than in the MTX group experienced adverse events or discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Etanercept as monotherapy was safe and was superior to MTX in reducing disease activity, arresting structural damage, and decreasing disability over 2 years in patients with early, aggressive RA.

Moreland LW, Cohen SB, Baumgartner SW, Tindall EA, Bulpitt K, Martin R, Weinblatt M, Taborn J, Weaver A, Burge DJ, Schiff MH. · Arthritis Clinical Intervention Program, Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1717-6th Avenue South, Room 068, Birmingham, AL 35294-7201, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #11409115 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with etanercept (Enbrel) in controlled studies of 3 to 6 months' duration had rapid and sustained improvement of their disease, with minimal safety issues. In this study, we examine safety and clinical benefit after longer term treatment with etanercept. METHODS: All adult patients with RA with a previously inadequate response to one or more disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, and who received at least one dose of etanercept as monotherapy in controlled or open label clinical trials were evaluated for safety and clinical benefit. Adverse event rates were compared as was evidence of continued benefit over time. RESULTS: Etanercept continued to be safe and well tolerated in 628 adult patients treated for a median of 25 mo (maximum 43 mo; 1109 patient-years). Nine percent of patients withdrew due to lack of efficacy and 7% due to adverse events. Most adverse events were mild, and no statistically significant increases in frequency of events were seen when patients received etanercept over longer periods of time. Clinical benefit was maintained with longterm therapy. A 100% improvement in individual disease activity measures was achieved by 17% to 28% of the patients. Fifty-five percent of patients who were taking corticosteroids (mean dose at baseline 6.6 mg/day) decreased or discontinued corticosteroid therapy while maintaining control of their arthritis symptoms. CONCLUSION: Etanercept continued to be safe and well tolerated, and its clinical benefit was sustained for a median of 25 mo and for as long as 43 mo in patients with RA.

Bathon JM, Martin RW, Fleischmann RM, Tesser JR, Schiff MH, Keystone EC, Genovese MC, Wasko MC, Moreland LW, Weaver AL, Markenson J, Finck BK. · Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allegy Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. · N Engl J Med. · Pubmed #11096165 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Etanercept, which blocks the action of tumor necrosis factor, reduces disease activity in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis. Its efficacy in reducing disease activity and preventing joint damage in patients with active early rheumatoid arthritis is unknown. METHODS: We treated 632 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis with either twice-weekly subcutaneous etanercept (10 or 25 mg) or weekly oral methotrexate (mean, 19 mg per week) for 12 months. Clinical response was defined as the percent improvement in disease activity according to the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology. Bone erosion and joint-space narrowing were measured radiographically and scored with use of the Sharp scale. On this scale, an increase of 1 point represents one new erosion or minimal narrowing. RESULTS: As compared with patients who received methotrexate, patients who received the 25-mg dose of etanercept had a more rapid rate of improvement, with significantly more patients having 20 percent, 50 percent, and 70 percent improvement in disease activity during the first six months (P<0.05). The mean increase in the erosion score during the first 6 months was 0.30 in the group assigned to receive 25 mg of etanercept and 0.68 in the methotrexate group (P= 0.001), and the respective increases during the first 12 months were 0.47 and 1.03 (P=0.002). Among patients who received the 25-mg dose of etanercept, 72 percent had no increase in the erosion score, as compared with 60 percent of patients in the methotrexate group (P=0.007). This group of patients also had fewer adverse events (P=0.02) and fewer infections (P= 0.006) than the group that was treated with methotrexate. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with oral methotrexate, subcutaneous [corrected] etanercept acted more rapidly to decrease symptoms and slow joint damage in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis.

Yocum DE, Allard S, Cohen SB, Emery P, Flipo RM, Goobar J, Jayawardena S, Job-Deslandre C, Jubb RW, Krüger K, Lopes Vaz A, Manger B, Mur E, Nygaard H, Weiner SM, Rainer F, Sack MR, Schiff MH, Schnitzer TJ, Trigg LB, Whatmough I, Schmidt AG. · Arizona Arthritis Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #10725065 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, tolerability and efficacy of the new oral microemulsion formulation of cyclosporin A (CyA; Sandimmun Neoral) and the original CyA formulation (Sandimmun), in patients with severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), over a 12-month period. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicentre study, patients were randomized to treatment with Neoral or Sandimmun, starting with 2.5 mg/kg/day, with dose adjustments after 4 weeks. Primary efficacy criteria included patients' assessment of disease activity. Pharmacokinetic and safety assessments were performed at regular intervals. RESULTS: Compared with Sandimmun, Neoral showed a consistent trend towards greater clinical efficacy from week 12 onwards, including a significant difference in patients' assessment of disease activity at the study end-points. A significantly lower increase in dose from baseline was observed with Neoral at week 24. Pharmacokinetic assessments at week 24 showed increased absorption and decreased variability with Neoral. No differences in safety were found between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: These observations indicate that Neoral is as safe and at least as effective as Sandimmun and have important implications for patient management given the increasing role for CyA in the treatment of severe, active RA.

Schiff MH. · University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver Arthritis Clinic Research Unit 80220, USA. · Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. · Pubmed #10668525 No free full text.

Abstract: This paper compares and contrasts the results of two major Phase III clinical trials that compared the efficacy and safety of leflunomide, a new disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), and methotrexate. In both the American trial (US301) and the multinational trial (MN302), patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were given either leflunomide (20 mg/day after a loading dose of 100 mg/day for 3 days) or methotrexate (7.5-15 mg/week) for 52 weeks. US301 was also placebo-controlled. Folate supplementation was mandatory in US301 but was given to < 10% of the patients in MN302. In US301, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% response rates and improvement in tender and swollen joints were significantly better than placebo in both treatment groups, but were not significantly different from each other. Both treatments significantly retarded radiographically assessed progression of RA compared to placebo, but the degree of retardation was significantly greater with leflunomide. In MN302, the ACR response rate and improvement in tender and swollen joints with leflunomide were similar to those seen in US301. The ACR response rate and improvements in all efficacy variables with methotrexate were significantly greater than with leflunomide, however. Radiographically assessed disease progression was not statistically different with the two treatments. Use of methotrexate without folate in MN302 was associated with a higher incidence of clinically significant elevations of liver enzyme levels. These results indicate that both leflunomide and methotrexate are effective DMARDs. The symptomatic relief provided by both drugs is similar when they are given with folate supplementation.

Moreland LW, Schiff MH, Baumgartner SW, Tindall EA, Fleischmann RM, Bulpitt KJ, Weaver AL, Keystone EC, Furst DE, Mease PJ, Ruderman EM, Horwitz DA, Arkfeld DG, Garrison L, Burge DJ, Blosch CM, Lange ML, McDonnell ND, Weinblatt ME. · Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 35294-7201, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #10075615 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: In a phase II study, etanercept (recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor [p75]:Fc fusion protein) safely produced rapid, dose-dependent improvement in rheumatoid arthritis over 3 months. OBJECTIVE: To confirm the benefit of etanercept therapy of longer duration and simplified dosing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with blinded joint assessors. SETTING: 13 North American centers. PATIENTS: 234 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. INTERVENTION: Twice-weekly subcutaneous injections of etanercept, 10 or 25 mg, or placebo for 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end points were 20% and 50% improvement in disease activity according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses at 3 and 6 months. Other end points were 70% ACR responses at 3 and 6 months and other measures of disease activity at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Etanercept significantly reduced disease activity in a dose-related fashion. At 3 months, 62% of the patients receiving 25 mg of etanercept and 23% of the placebo recipients achieved 20% ACR response (P < 0.001). At 6 months, 59% of the 25-mg group and 11% of the placebo group achieved a 20% ACR response (P < 0.001); 40% and 5%, respectively, achieved a 50% ACR response (P < 0.01). The respective mean percentage reduction in the number of tender and swollen joints at 6 months was 56% and 47% in the 25-mg group and 6% and -7% in the placebo group (P < 0.05). Significantly more etanercept recipients achieved a 70% ACR response, minimal disease status (0 to 5 affected joints), and improved quality of life. Etanercept was well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Etanercept can safely provide rapid, significant, and sustained benefit in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

Cohen SB, Cohen MD, Cush JJ, Fleischmann RM, Mease PJ, Schiff MH, Simon LS, Weaver AL. · The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Office of Continuing Education, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390-9059. · J Rheumatol Suppl. · Pubmed #19193621 No free full text.

Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, multisystem, inflammatory disorder of the joints that affects about 1% of the world population. The ultimate goals of therapy include remission of disease and prevention of joint damage. Reaching these goals has become a realistic outcome for an increasing number of patients as treatment options have expanded over the past 3 decades. In addition to older therapies, such as methotrexate (MTX), other disease modifying drugs (DMARD), and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, newer biologic treatments have become available. For the substantial number of patients who experience an inadequate response to standard medications, biologic response modifiers (BRM) provide an important therapeutic alternative. The availability of multiple treatment options in the absence of clear definitions or criteria for remission and inadequate response, however, makes clinical decisions about measuring outcomes, predicting response to treatment, and prescribing pharmacologic therapies challenging. In this program, distinguished rheumatologists weigh the evolving body of clinical evidence to draw sound conclusions and resolve key issues in managing inadequate response to treatment and in achieving optimal outcomes in RA.

Weinblatt ME, Schiff MH, Ruderman EM, Bingham CO, Li J, Louie J, Furst DE. · Rheumatology and Immunology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18576334 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with 50 mg of etanercept twice a week plus weekly methotrexate (MTX; > or =15 mg) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had a suboptimal response to 50 mg of etanercept once a week plus weekly MTX (> or =15 mg). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active drug-controlled study, suboptimal responders to treatment with MTX plus etanercept 50 mg once weekly were given MTX plus etanercept 50 mg twice weekly (n = 160) or MTX plus etanercept 50 mg once weekly plus a placebo (n = 40) for 12 weeks. In a subsequent 12-week open-label period, patients who responded to etanercept 50 mg twice weekly decreased their dosage to 50 mg once weekly, those who had a partial response to etanercept 50 mg once weekly increased their dosage to 50 mg twice weekly, and those who had no response to etanercept 50 mg twice weekly were discontinued. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a response on the Disease Activity Score 28-joint assessment (DAS28) at week 12. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were randomized; 187 completed 12 weeks, and 102 completed 24 weeks. At week 12 (double-blind period), the DAS28 response in the 50 mg twice weekly and the 50 mg once weekly groups was not significantly different (45.6% versus 35.0%; P = 0.285), and similar proportions of patients in the groups taking 100 mg and 50 mg experienced adverse events (34.4% versus 37.5%; P = 0.711). Serious adverse events occurred in 7 of 160 of the 50 mg twice weekly group and 0 of 40 of the 50 mg once weekly group (P = 0.387), and serious infectious events occurred in 3 of 160 patients in the 50 mg twice weekly group (P = 0.884). CONCLUSION: Etanercept 50 mg once weekly is an optimal dosage in most patients with RA. Increasing the dosage from 50 mg once weekly to 50 mg twice weekly in suboptimal responders did not significantly improve their DAS28 responses.

Schiff MH, Hobbs KF, Gensler T, Keenan GF. · Denver Arthritis Clinic, Denver, CO 80230, USA. · Curr Med Res Opin. · Pubmed #17519063 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess how in-office magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the hand/wrist or feet are utilized in a rheumatology practice to make clinical evaluations regarding therapeutic options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: In a large clinical practice, a retrospective review was conducted on the first 300 RA patients who had office-based MRI scans at baseline. Information was collected on demographics, baseline therapy, and whether any change in therapy occurred at the time of the MRI scans. MR images of the affected wrist were obtained with a low-field strength dedicated extremity unit. RESULTS: Of the 300 patients, 99 patients (33%) had MRIs that exhibited signs of erosions, joint space narrowing, or bone edema. These patients were classified as MRI-positive. The remaining 201 patients (67%) were classified as MRI-negative. A substantial majority (85%) of MRI-positive patients received a change in their therapeutic regimen, compared with only 9.5% of the MRI-negative patients (p < 0.001). In the 84 MRI-positive patients who had their therapy changed, 65% received a new prescription for a biologic or an increase in the dose of their existing biologic and 34% of the MRI-positive patients received a DMARD. In the 19 MRI-negative patients with a therapeutic change, 11% received a biologic agent and 88% received a DMARD. The major limitation of this study is that it was a retrospective analysis and the assessments of MRI findings were qualitative. CONCLUSION: In this large population of RA patients, there was an association between MRI detection of joint space narrowing, erosions, and/or bone edema and change in therapeutic management.

Furst DE, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR, Smolen JS, Burmester GR, Emery P, Keystone EC, Schiff MH, van Riel PL, Weinblatt ME, Weisman MH. · David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA - RM 32-59, 1000 Veteran Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90025, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #17038465 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Moreland LW, Weinblatt ME, Keystone EC, Kremer JM, Martin RW, Schiff MH, Whitmore JB, White BW. · Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology,University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294-7201, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16541481 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of longterm etanercept treatment in patients with disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Safety results are reported for 714 patients who received etanercept in one of 7 initial trials or a longterm extension. Efficacy results are reported for 581 patients who enrolled in the extension. RESULTS: Of the 714 patients enrolled in the initial trials, 581 (81%) enrolled in the extension, and 388 (54%) patients are continuing to receive etanercept therapy. The longest individual treatment was 8.2 years, with 3139 total patient-years of etanercept exposure. Rates of serious adverse events (overall rate=14.8 events/100 patient-yrs), serious infections (overall rate=4.2 events/100 patient-yrs), cancer (overall rate=1.0 events/100 patient-yrs), and deaths (overall rate=0.7 events/100 patient-yrs) were stable each year, through 8 years of etanercept exposure. For 356 patients who completed 6 years of etanercept treatment, response rates were ACR20=73%, ACR50=52%, ACR70=27%, DAS28 CRP good response=52%, and DAS28 CRP remission=37% of patients. Similar responses occurred in 167 patients who completed Year 7. Doses of concomitant methotrexate or corticosteroids were reduced in many patients who maintained clinical responses. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of etanercept was consistent over time, with rates of adverse events similar to those reported for patients with RA in general. Durable clinical responses were observed in some patients for 7 years or more. The benefit-to-risk ratio for longterm etanercept treatment remains highly favorable.

Schiff MH, Yu EB, Weinblatt ME, Moreland LW, Genovese MC, White B, Singh A, Chon Y, Woolley JM. · Denver Arthritis Clinic, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado 80230, USA. · Drugs Aging. · Pubmed #16536638 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The impact of long-term therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in elderly (> or = 65 years of age) and younger (< 65 years of age) patients, especially on patient-reported outcomes, has not been well studied. We evaluated patient-reported outcomes in elderly patients treated with etanercept, in contrast to outcomes in younger patients, using data from multiple controlled and open-label extension studies of patients with early RA (ERA; < or = 3 years) and late RA (LRA; disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD]-refractory RA). METHODS: This post hoc analysis included adult patients with RA enrolled in controlled, double-blind studies (up to 2 years) and subsequent open-label extension studies (up to 4 years). Patients were evaluated according to age at baseline of the original study. Patients may have received etanercept, placebo or methotrexate during the blinded treatment phases, but all patients had been receiving etanercept 25 mg twice weekly for at least 4 years. Both ERA and LRA extension studies are ongoing. Patient-reported outcome assessments included improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), proportions of patients achieving an improvement in HAQ-DI > or = 0.22 points, patients exhibiting worsening of HAQ-DI and patients achieving an HAQ-DI score of 0. RESULTS: Elderly patients, with either ERA or LRA, had significantly worse baseline mean HAQ-DI scores than younger patients (p < 0.05, Student's t-test) in most studies, indicating greater disability. Improvement in HAQ-DI was greatest during the first 3 months after starting etanercept treatment in the controlled phase and appeared to be sustained over 3-6 months in patients with early or DMARD-refractory RA. Across the various controlled trials, mean improvements from baseline in HAQ-DI ranged from 0.39 to 0.92 points in elderly patients and from 0.57 to 1.00 points in younger patients. Patients with ERA and LRA, regardless of age group, maintained their improvement in HAQ-DI throughout the open-label extension trials for up to a total of 6 years of etanercept therapy. Change from baseline in HAQ-DI was moderately correlated with 28-joint Disease Activity Score within each age group across the multiple trials. CONCLUSION: Both elderly and younger patients with RA treated with etanercept exhibited similar and rapid improvements in functional status during controlled studies, and these improvements were sustained during open-label extension trials.

Johnsen AK, Schiff MH, Mease PJ, Moreland LW, Maier AL, Coblyn JS, Helfgott SM, Leff JA, Weinblatt ME. · Division of Rheumatology, Immunology, and Allergy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16482646 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of etanercept 50 mg administered twice weekly versus 25 mg administered twice weekly as monotherapy in patients with tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) blocker-naäve active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with RA were randomized in an unequal allocation (2:1) in a blinded fashion to receive either 50 mg (51 patients) or 25 mg (26 patients) of etanercept twice a week for 24 weeks. RESULTS: The primary outcome measure, the ACR-N AUC at 24 weeks, showed no difference between the 2 dose groups. In addition, there was no difference in ACR 20, 50, and 70 responses or in EULAR response criteria by Week 24. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in the proportion of patients with any non-infectious adverse event. The proportion of patients with upper respiratory tract infections was significantly higher in patients receiving 50 mg etanercept compared with those receiving 25 mg (26% vs 4%, p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Etanercept as a monotherapy at 50 mg twice weekly does not provide increased efficacy when compared to the standard dose of 25 mg twice weekly in TNF-alpha blocker-naäve patients.

Schiff MH, Burmester GR, Kent JD, Pangan AL, Kupper H, Fitzpatrick SB, Donovan C. · Clinical Research, Denver Arthritis Clinic, 200 Spruce Street, Suite 100, Denver, CO 80230, USA, and Department of Rheumatology, Charité Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16439435 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of adalimumab in global clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Safety data for adalimumab treated patients from randomised controlled trials, open label extensions, and two phase IIIb open label trials were analysed. In addition, postmarketing spontaneous reports of adverse events in the United States were collected following Food and Drug Administration approval of adalimumab on 31 December 2002. RESULTS: As of 15 April 2005, the RA clinical trial safety database analysed covered 10,050 patients, representing 12,506 patient-years (PYs) of adalimumab exposure. The rate of serious infections, 5.1/100 PYs, was comparable to that reported on 31 August 2002 (4.9/100 PYs), and to published reports of RA populations naive to anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. Following implementation of tuberculosis (TB) screening in clinical trials, the rate of TB decreased. There were 34 cases of TB as of this analysis (0.27/100 PYs). The standardised incidence ratio for lymphoma was 3.19 (95% CI 1.78 to 5.26), consistent with the observed increased incidence in the general RA population. As of 30 June 2005, there were an estimated 78 522 PYs of exposure to adalimumab in the US postmarketing period. Seventeen TB cases were spontaneously reported (0.02/100 PYs) from the US. Rates of other postmarketing events of interest, such as congestive heart failure, systemic lupus erythematosus, opportunistic infections, blood dyscrasias, lymphomas, and demyelinating disease, support observations from clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Analyses of these data demonstrate that long term adalimumab treatment is generally safe and well tolerated in patients with RA.

Fleischmann RM, Tesser J, Schiff MH, Schechtman J, Burmester GR, Bennett R, Modafferi D, Zhou L, Bell D, Appleton B. · University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Radiant Research, 5939 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75235, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16396977 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety profile of anakinra after extended exposure in a diverse clinical trial population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: A six month, randomised, double blind phase comparing anakinra (100 mg/day) with placebo was followed by open label anakinra treatment for up to three years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Concomitant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, and other disease modifying antirheumatic drugs were permitted. RESULTS: In all 1346 patients with rheumatoid arthritis received anakinra for up to three years. Patients had varying levels of disease severity, concomitant drug use, and comorbid conditions. Cumulative, exposure adjusted event (EAE) rates for all adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and deaths were similar during each year of anakinra treatment; the overall rate (0 to 3 years) was similar to that observed for controls during the blinded phase. The most frequent AEs were injection site reactions (122.26 events/100 patient-years), rheumatoid arthritis progression (67.80 events/100 patient-years), and upper respiratory infections (26.09 events/100 patient-years). The EAE rate of serious infections was higher for patients treated with anakinra for 0 to 3 years (5.37 events/100 patient-years) than for controls during the blinded phase (1.65 events/100 patient-years). However, if the patient was not receiving corticosteroid treatment at baseline, the serious infection rate was substantially lower (2.87 event/100 patient-years). The overall incidence of malignancies was consistent with expected rates reported by SEER. Neutralising antibodies developed in 25 patients, but appeared to be transient in 12; neutralising antibody status did not appear related to occurrence of malignancies or serious infections. There were no clinically significant trends in laboratory data related to anakinra. CONCLUSION: Anakinra is safe and well tolerated for up to three years of continuous use in a diverse population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Weaver AL, Lautzenheiser RL, Schiff MH, Gibofsky A, Perruquet JL, Luetkemeyer J, Paulus HE, Xia HA, Leff JA, Anonymous00550. · University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. · Curr Med Res Opin. · Pubmed #16393444 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of select biologics, methotrexate (MTX), and other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in the management of adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in routine clinical practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: RADIUS (Rheumatoid Arthritis DMARD Intervention and Utilization Study) comprises two prospective, 5-year, observational registries of over 10 000 patients. Over 4600 patients who initiated MTX or a biologic regimen (etanercept [ETN], infliximab [INF], ETN + MTX, and INF + MTX) and who had at least one on-regimen, follow-up evaluation, were included in this analysis. Adalimumab was not included because it had not yet received FDA approval at RADIUS initiation. Other common DMARD regimens (N = 762) were also compared with MTX. Patients who initiated less commonly used regimens, such as anakinra or cyclosporine, and those who did not have at least one on-regimen, follow-up evaluation, were not eligible for this analysis. Because ESR/CRP measurements were often not available, a modified ACR20 response (mACR20), defined as three out of four response criteria excluding ESR/CRP, was used to assess response at 12 months. Logistic regression analysis was performed to control for baseline covariates that may affect outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a mACR20 response at 12 months post-RADIUS entry. RESULTS: After adjusting for baseline covariates, patients receiving either ETN + MTX or ETN monotherapy were more likely to achieve a mACR20 response at 12 months than patients receiving MTX alone (odds ratio [OR] 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.52; p < 0.01 and OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02-1.47; p < 0.05, respectively). Conversely, patients treated with MTX + leflunomide (LEF) were less likely to achieve a mACR20 response than those receiving MTX alone (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96; p < 0.05). Significant differences were not observed between patients receiving MTX alone and either INF + MTX, MTX + hydroxychloroquine, MTX + hydroxychloroquine + sulfasalazine, INF monotherapy, or LEF monotherapy. CONCLUSION: These data from routine rheumatology clinical practice settings highlight the effectiveness of common biologic and DMARD therapies, and provide additional data beyond those of randomized, controlled trials.