Rheumatoid Arthritis: Zerbini CA

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

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding sulfasalazine to leflunomide treatment compared with switching to sulfasalazine alone in patients with RA with an inadequate response to leflunomide monotherapy. METHODS: Patients with active RA ((DAS28) >3.2) who were enrolled in the first open label phase of the RELIEF study received leflunomide for 24 weeks. Inadequate responders then entered the double blind phase and received a further 24 weeks' treatment with leflunomide (20 mg once daily) plus sulfasalazine (final dose 2 g once daily), or placebo plus sulfasalazine (dose as above). The primary efficacy variable was the DAS28 response rate, and secondary efficacy outcomes were ACR 20%, 50%, and 70% response rates. Adverse events, including standard laboratory tests, were recorded. RESULTS: 106 inadequate responders entered the double blind phase; 56 received leflunomide plus sulfasalazine, and 50 placebo plus sulfasalazine. In the intention to treat population, more patients receiving leflunomide plus sulfasalazine (25/56 (45%)) achieved a DAS28 response than those receiving placebo plus sulfasalazine (17/50 (34%)) (p = 0.179). In week 24 completers, more patients receiving leflunomide plus sulfasalazine (17/56 (30%)) were DAS28 responders than those receiving placebo plus sulfasalazine (10/50 (20%)) (p = 0.081). Comparable numbers in each group were ACR 20% responders; the ACR 50% response rate was significantly higher in the leflunomide plus sulfasalazine group (8.9%) than in the placebo plus sulfasalazine group (0%) (p = 0.038). The safety profiles of both groups were comparable. CONCLUSION: Patient numbers are small and firm conclusions cannot be reached, but a non-significant benefit is indicated for combining leflunomide with sulfasalazine compared with switching to sulfasalazine alone in patients inadequately responding to leflunomide.

Dougados M, Emery P, Lemmel EM, de la Serna R, Zerbini CA, Brin S, van Riel P. · René Descartes University, Hôpital Cochin, 27 rue du Faubourg Saint-Jacques, 75679 Paris Cedex 14, France. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #14719196 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The RELIEF investigation was a 48-week, multicenter, international study comprising 2 phases. Results from the first phase, a 24-week open-label cohort study that evaluated the safety and efficacy of leflunomide, as well as predisposing factors to treatment response, are reported here. METHODS: Patients received leflunomide 100 mg once daily for 3 days, followed by 20 mg once daily thereafter. All adverse events were documented. Efficacy variables were the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria using the Disease Activity Score (DAS 28) responder rate and the response rate according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. At Week 24, baseline data were analyzed to determine predictive factors for treatment response. RESULTS: A total of 969 patients were entered in the trial. No adverse events that have not previously been seen with leflunomide were reported. Among 968 evaluable patients, 673 (69.6%) completed 24 weeks of treatment and were responders according to DAS 28 response rate, and 587 (60.6%) completed 24 weeks of treatment and were responders according to ACR 20%. Thus, there was a high correlation between the EULAR and ACR criteria in determining treatment response. In addition, 240 (24.8%) patients had a low DAS 28 (< or = 3.2) and 123 (12.7%) patients fulfilled the disease remission criteria (DAS 28 < 2.6) at the end of the study. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that leflunomide is well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that seen previously in Phase III studies, and confirms the efficacy of leflunomide across a range of patient categories.

Kremer JM, Bloom BJ, Breedveld FC, Coombs JH, Fletcher MP, Gruben D, Krishnaswami S, Burgos-Vargas R, Wilkinson B, Zerbini CA, Zwillich SH. · Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #19565475 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of 3 different dosages of CP-690,550, a potent, orally active JAK inhibitor, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom methotrexate, etanercept, infliximab, or adalimumab caused an inadequate or toxic response. METHODS: Patients (n = 264) were randomized equally to receive placebo, 5 mg of CP-690,550, 15 mg of CP-690,550, or 30 mg of CP-690,550 twice daily for 6 weeks, and were followed up for an additional 6 weeks after treatment. The primary efficacy end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response rate at 6 weeks. RESULTS: By week 6, the ACR20 response rates were 70.5%, 81.2%, and 76.8% in the 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg twice daily groups, respectively, compared with 29.2% in the placebo group (P < 0.001). Improvements in disease activity in CP-690,550-treated patients compared with placebo were seen in all treatment groups as early as week 1. ACR50 and ACR70 response rates significantly improved in all treatment groups by week 4. The most common adverse events reported were headache and nausea. The infection rate in both the 15 mg twice daily group and the 30 mg twice daily group was 30.4% (versus 26.2% in the placebo group). No opportunistic infections or deaths occurred. Increases in mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and increases in mean serum creatinine level (0.04-0.06 mg/dl) were seen in all CP-690,550 treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that CP-690,550 is efficacious in the treatment of RA, resulting in rapid, statistically significant, and clinically meaningful reductions in the signs and symptoms of RA. Further studies of CP-690,550 in RA are warranted.

Doria AS, de Castro CC, Kiss MH, Sernik RA, Vitule LF, Silva CH, Zerbini CA, Arantes PR, Lucato L, Germano MA, Cerri GG. · Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Heart Institute (InCor) and Radiology Institute (InRad), Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. · Pediatr Radiol. · Pubmed #12904917 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the inter- and intrareader variability for interpretation of a modified Larsen's radiographic classification system for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) focused on osteochondral lesions and a conventional Larsen's classification system, compared to a reference MR scoring system of corresponding images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five radiographs of 60 children with JRA, performed within a short interval of time from the MR examinations, were independently evaluated by three experienced radiologists, three diagnostic imaging residents and three rheumatologists, in two separate sessions, according to the two different classification methods, blinded to the corresponding MR images. RESULTS: The inter- and intrareader concordance rates between the two radiographic classification systems and the MR-related radiographs were respectively poor and poor/moderate. The interobserver range of weighted kappa values for the conventional and the modified Larsen's system respectively was 0.25-0.37 vs 0.19-0.39 for radiologists, 0.25-0.37 vs 0.18-0.30 for residents and 0.19-0.51 vs 0.17-0.29 for rheumatologists. The intrareader rate ranged from 0.17-0.55 for radiologists, 0.2-0.56 for residents, and 0.14-0.59 for rheumatologists. CONCLUSION: Although the proposal of a new radiographic classification system for JRA focused on osteochondral abnormalities sounds promising, the low inter- and intrareader concordance rates with an MR-related radiographic system makes the clinical applicability of such a radiographic system less suitable.

Berthelot JM, Bernelot-Moens HJ, Klarlund M, McGonagle D, Calin A, Schumacher HR, Combe B, De Bandt M, Drosos AA, Flipo RM, Harris BJ, Kaarela K, Le Goff P, Meyer O, Punzi L, Zerbini CA, Saraux A, Anonymous00207. · Department of Rheumatology, Nantes University Medical School, CHU Nantes, France. · Clin Exp Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12051392 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To determine areas of agreement and disagreement among experts in the interpretation of the published criteria for RA (ACR) and spondylarthropathies ( ESSG). METHODS: Thirty-two experts (16 from France and 16 from 10 other countries) replied anonymously to a mailed questionnaire. RESULTS: Tenosynovitis and 'sausage-like' painless swelling of the toes were considered as criteria for RA by 18 and 14 experts, respectively. The definition of symmetry differed widely among experts (symmetry of only one group of joints was sufficient for 13). Twenty-five experts considered erosions of other joints than the wrists and fingers as a criterion for RA, 17 thought that fulfilment of criteria could be achieved cumulatively, and 19 would appreciate clarifications of the current criteria. Among possible clarifications for RA, it was frequently recommended that morning stiffness and nodules be eliminated and that new marker antibodies, X-rays of the feet, and exclusion criteria be added. Twenty-three of the 29 experts who gave an opinion (79%) agreed with the notion of SP in the absence of axial signs and sacroiliitis, 26/31 (84%) indicated that a patient can have both RA and SP, and 19/30 (63%) thought that RA and SP could be regarded as syndromes more than diseases. Only 5/32 experts relied more on the criteria than on their clinical judgement in diagnosing RA. CONCLUSIONS: There would seem to be a needfor the optimisation of RA and ESSG criteria, particularly within the context of early arthritis.

Berthelot JM, Klarlund M, McGonagle D, Bernelot-Moens HJ, Calin A, Harrison B, Schumacher HR, Kaarela K, Drosos AA, Hülsemann JL, Koh WH, Konttinen YT, Punzi L, Tanimoto K, Williams HJ, Wolfe F, Zerbini CA, Saraux A, Anonymous00239. · Department of Rheumatology, Nantes University Medical School, CHU Nantes, France. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #11361225 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine how experts would classify 10 early-arthritis cases (7 atypical) and to study discrepancies in diagnoses relative to ACR criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or ESSG criteria for spondyloarthropathy (SpA). METHODS: Ten real cases (5 met ACR criteria for RA, 6 ESSG criteria for SpA, 3 both and 2 neither) followed for 28.5 +/- 4.8 months were sent as paper cases to 20 international and 12 French experts. Each expert selected a diagnosis among 8 possible choices and rated it on a 0-10 confidence scale. For each case, 3 analog scales (0-100 mm) were used to indicate the probability of RA, SpA or undifferentiated arthritis (UA). RESULTS: Experts often disagreed about diagnoses (up to 5 different diagnoses for a given case, with a mean of 3.9 per case). Similarly, expert opinions on probabilities for RA and SpA differed widely, with great overlap between confidence for RA, SpA and UA. Fulfilment of ACR or ESSG criteria was poorly related to the experts' diagnosis and evaluation of probabilities for RA and SpA. However, UA was a relatively infrequent choice (19%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no general consensus about the nosology of early RA and SpA. Classification of atypical early arthritis was not resolved by currently available criteria for RA and SpA. This may have implications for therapy in early disease.