Maintenance therapy with certolizumab pegol for Crohn's disease. Certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate is significantly more effective than placebo plus methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: findings of a fifty-two-week, phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with a peptide diet: a randomized, controlled trial. Preliminary evaluation in rheumatoid arthritis activity in patients treated with TNF-alpha blocker plus methotrexate versus methotrexate or leflunomide alone. Combination of cyclosporine and leflunomide versus single therapy in severe rheumatoid arthritis. Two-year, blinded, randomized, controlled trial of treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with methotrexate. Utilization of Leflunomide in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial Investigator Group. Combination therapy with sulfasalazine and methotrexate is more effective than either drug alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a suboptimal response to sulfasalazine: results from the double-blind placebo-controlled MASCOT study. Interleukin-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab reduces disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the tocilizumab in combination with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy study. Combination of sulphasalazine and methotrexate versus the single components in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled, double-blind, 52 week clinical trial. Golimumab, a human anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody, injected subcutaneously every four weeks in methotrexate-naive patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: twenty-four-week results of a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of golimumab before methotrexate as first-line therapy for early-onset rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison of auranofin, gold sodium thiomalate, and placebo in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled clinical trial.
Certolizumab pegol is a pegylated humanized Fab' fragment with a high binding affinity for tumor necrosis factor alpha that does not induce apoptosis of T cells or monocytes.
                In our randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy of certolizumab pegol maintenance therapy in adults with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. As induction therapy, 400 mg of certolizumab pegol was administered subcutaneously at weeks 0, 2, and 4. Patients with a clinical response (defined as reduction of at least 100 from the baseline score on the Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI]) at week 6 were stratified according to their baseline C-reactive protein level and were randomly assigned to receive 400 mg of certolizumab pegol or placebo every 4 weeks through week 24, with follow-up through week 26.
                Among patients with a response to induction therapy at week 6 (428 of 668 [64%]), the response was maintained through week 26 in 62% of patients with a baseline C-reactive protein level of at least 10 mg per liter (the primary end point) who were receiving certolizumab pegol (vs. 34% of those receiving placebo, P<0.001) and in 63% of patients in the intention-to-treat population who were receiving certolizumab pegol (vs. 36% receiving placebo, P<0.001). Among patients with a response to induction therapy at week 6, remission (defined by a CDAI score of < or =150) at week 26 was achieved in 48% of patients in the certolizumab group and 29% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001). The efficacy of certolizumab pegol was also shown in patients taking and those not taking glucocorticoids or immunosuppressants and in patients who had and those who had not previously taken infliximab. Infectious serious adverse events (including one case of pulmonary tuberculosis) occurred in 3% of patients receiving certolizumab pegol and in less than 1% of patients receiving placebo. Antinuclear antibodies developed in 8% of the patients in the certolizumab group; antibodies against certolizumab pegol developed in 9% of all patients who entered the induction phase.
                Patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease who had a response to induction therapy with 400 mg of certolizumab pegol were more likely to have a maintained response and a remission at 26 weeks with continued certolizumab pegol treatment than with a switch to placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00152425 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
                Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2 dosage regimens of lyophilized certolizumab pegol (a novel PEGylated anti-tumor necrosis factor agent) as adjunctive therapy to methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to MTX therapy alone.
                In this 52-week, phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, 982 patients were randomized 2:2:1 to receive treatment with subcutaneous certolizumab pegol at an initial dosage of 400 mg given at weeks 0, 2, and 4, with a subsequent dosage of 200 mg or 400 mg given every 2 weeks, plus MTX, or placebo plus MTX. Co-primary end points were the response rate at week 24 according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20) and the mean change from baseline in the modified total Sharp score at week 52.
                At week 24, ACR20 response rates using nonresponder imputation for the certolizumab pegol 200-mg and 400-mg groups were 58.8% and 60.8%, respectively, as compared with 13.6% for the placebo group. Differences in ACR20 response rates versus placebo were significant at week 1 and were sustained to week 52 (P < 0.001). At week 52, mean radiographic progression from baseline was reduced in patients treated with certolizumab pegol 200 mg (0.4 Sharp units) or 400 mg (0.2 Sharp units) as compared with that in placebo-treated patients (2.8 Sharp units) (P < 0.001 by rank analysis). Improvements in all ACR core set of disease activity measures, including physical function, were observed by week 1 with both certolizumab pegol dosage regimens. Most adverse events were mild or moderate.
                Treatment with certolizumab pegol 200 or 400 mg plus MTX resulted in a rapid and sustained reduction in RA signs and symptoms, inhibited the progression of structural joint damage, and improved physical function as compared with placebo plus MTX treatment in RA patients with an incomplete response to MTX. Elemental diets provide food in its simplest formulation and have been used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other chronic inflammatory diseases. Such a diet is supposed to be less antigenic to the human immune system than normal food. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effect of an artificial peptide diet as a temporary supplement to conventional treatment. Patients with active RA were single-blindly randomized either to a liquid elemental peptide-diet for four weeks or to continuation of the usual food (control group). In the diet group all normal foods were renounced. Thirty patients were included and followed for six months. The outcome measurements were pain intensity, morning stiffness, HAQ-score, number of swollen joints, joint tenderness, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and patient's global assessment of health. Two of the fifteen patients assigned to the diet dropped out. The diet resulted in a transient but statistically significant improvement in the average level of pain (P = 0.02), in HAQ-score (P=0.03), and a significant reduction in Body Mass Index (P=0.001). Only one patient in the diet group had a clear remission. Side-effects were frequent but compliance good. The study showed that the peptide diet can improve some subjective and objective disease parameters. Due to the low remission ratio the peptide diet is not a treatment of choice in unselected RA-patients. but the peptide diet might be beneficial to a subset of RA-patients, e.g. patients where foods aggravate disease activity. Methotrexate (MTX) is a first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Leflunomide (LEF) and the biologic agents entered the arsenal of DMARDs in 1998. Therapeutic properties of new drugs are still under survey. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of MTX, LEF and a biologic agent (TNF-alpha blocker) combined with MTX in reducing disease activity in RA. Seventy-eight patients with active RA underwent a 24-week treatment with MTX 15 mg/week (30 pts), LEF 20 mg/day (30 pts) or a TNF-alpha blocker (etanercept 25 mg 2x weekly or infliximab 3 mg/kg in the week 0, 2, 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter) plus MTX 15 mg/week (18 pts). Only patients with RA resistant to MTX were included in groups receiving LEF or a biologic agent. During follow-up, patients' characteristics, disease characteristics, and clinical and laboratory data were registered. RA activity was evaluated using the ESR, tender and swollen joint counts, the duration of morning stiffness, disease activity score-28 (DAS 28), visual analogue scale (VAS) and health assessment questionnaire (HAQ). Treatment efficacy was demonstrated with ACR 20, 50 and 70 criteria. All groups revealed statistically significant improvement in all disease activity parameters measured. The percentage improvements were similar in groups treated with MTX and LEF and--except for VAS--significantly greater in the group treated with a biologic agent. Disease activity assessed by DAS 28 decreased significantly in all groups: the results were comparable in groups treated with MTX and LEF and significantly more prominent in the group treated with a TNF-alpha blocker. The ACR 20, 50 and 70 improvements amounted, respectively: 100, 50 and 7% in MTX group 87, 60 and 13% in LEF group and 100, 83 and 50% in a biologic agent group. The study revealed equal effectiveness of MTX and LEF in reducing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy of a TNF-alpha blocker combined with MTX was higher than that of each conventional DMARDs, especially with regard to ACR 70 criteria (considerable improvement after treatment). LEF was equally effective as MTX in patients unable to continue MTX treatment due to the drug's ineffectiveness. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of combination (COMB) of cyclosporine (CSA) and leflunomide (LEF) versus each drug alone, in the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
                One hundred six patients with active RA refractory to at least one disease modifying antirheumatic drug (methotrexate obligatorily) were entered into a 12-month open, prospective trial and were randomly allocated to receive either CSA 2.5 to 5 mg/kg/day, or LEF 20 mg/day, or the combination of both at the same initiating dose.
                The American College of Rheumatology 50% (ACR50) response rates for the 3 groups were COMB 80%, CSA 40%, and LEF 42% (p = 0.001). Combination therapy was also significantly better than CSA and LEF at the more stringent 70% response rate (69% vs 34% vs 30%, respectively; p = 0.001). Comparable Disease Activity Score 28 reduction rates were noted at trial termination for all 3 treatment arms: COMB -2.74 vs CSA -2.53 vs LEF -2.28 (p nonsignificant). Discontinuation rates were more common in LEF vs CSA arm (p = 0.046). No unexpected or serious adverse drug effects were identified in the combination group during the 12-month period.
                The combination of CSA and LEF in patients with refractory RA provided statistically significant benefit in ACR50 and ACR70. Adverse events were not substantially increased. 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.
                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.
                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.
                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. Optimal use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis is vital if progression of disease is to be reduced. Methotrexate (MTX) and sulfasalazine (SASP) are widely used inexpensive DMARDs, recently often combined despite no firm evidence of benefit from previous studies. Aim: To establish whether a combination of SASP and MTX is superior to either drug alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a suboptimal response to 6 months of SASP.
                A randomised controlled study of step-up DMARD treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis. In phase I, 687 patients received SASP for 6 months. Those with a disease activity score (DAS) > or =2.4 were offered additional treatment in phase II (SASP alone, MTX alone or a combination of the two). The primary outcome measure was change in DAS.
                At 6 months, 191 (28%) patients had a DAS <2.4, 123 (18%) were eligible but did not wish to enter phase II, 130 (19%) stopped SASP because of reversible adverse events and 165 (24%) entered phase II. DAS at 18 months was significantly lower in those who received combination treatment compared with those who received either SASP or MTX: monotherapy arms did not differ. Improvement in European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology 20, 50 and 70 scores favoured combination therapy.
                In this "true-to-life" study, an inexpensive combination of DMARDs proved more effective than monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a suboptimal response to SASP. There was no increase in toxicity. These results provide an evidence base for the use of this combination as a component of tight control strategies. To examine the efficacy and safety of the humanized anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab combined with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
                A total of 1,220 patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) in the phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter TOWARD (Tocilizumab in Combination With Traditional DMARD Therapy) study. Patients remained on stable doses of DMARDs and received tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo (control group) every 4 weeks for 24 weeks.
                At week 24, the proportion of patients achieving a response according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) was significantly greater in the tocilizumab plus DMARD group than in the control group (61% versus 25%; P<0.0001). Secondary end points including 50% or 70% improvement (ACR50/70), the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), DAS28 remission responses (DAS28<2.6), European League Against Rheumatism responses, and systemic markers such as the C-reactive protein and hemoglobin levels showed superiority of tocilizumab plus DMARDs over DMARDs alone. Seventy-three percent of patients in the tocilizumab group had >or=1 adverse event (AE), compared with 61% of patients in the control group. AEs leading to withdrawal from the study were infrequent (4% of patients in the tocilizumab group and 2% of those in the control group). Serious AEs occurred in 6.7% and 4.3% of patients in the tocilizumab and control groups, respectively, and serious infections occurred in 2.7% and 1.9%, respectively. Elevations in the alanine aminotransferase level, from normal at baseline to >3-fold the upper limit of normal, occurred in 4% of patients in the tocilizumab group and 1% of those in the control group, and elevated total cholesterol levels were observed in 23% and 6% of patients, respectively. Sixteen patients started lipid-lowering therapy during the study. Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 3.7% of patients receiving tocilizumab and none of the patients in the control group, and no grade 4 neutropenia was reported.
                Tocilizumab combined with any of the DMARDs evaluated was safe and effective in reducing articular and systemic symptoms in patients with an inadequate response to these agents. To compare the efficacy of sulphasalazine, methotrexate, and the combination of both in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), not treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs previously, we conducted a double-blind, double-dummy, controlled, clinical trial. One hundred and five patients with active, early RA, rheumatoid factor and/or HLA DR1/4 positive were randomized between sulphasalazine (SSZ) 2000 (maximum 3000) mg daily, or methotrexate (MTX) 7.5 (maximum 15) mg weekly, or the combination (COMBI) of both, and were followed up by a single observer for 52 weeks. The mean change over time per patient, including all visits, in Disease Activity Score (DAS) was: SSZ: -1.6 (95% CI -2.0 to -1.2); MTX: -1.7 (-2.0 to -1.4); COMBI: -1.9 (-2.2 to -1.6); the difference week 0-week 52 (SSZ, MTX, COMBI respectively); DAS: -1.8, -2.0, -2.3, Ritchie articular index: -9.2, -9.5, -10.6, swollen joints: -9.2, -12.4, -14.3, erythrocyte sedimentation rate: -17, -21, -28. Nausea occurred significantly more in the COMBI group. The numbers of drop-outs due to toxicity were SSZ 9, MTX 2, COMBI 5. In conclusion, there were no significant differences in efficacy between combination and single therapy, only a modest trend favouring COMBI. The results of MTX and SSZ were very comparable. Nausea occurred more often in the COMBI group: the number of withdrawals due to adverse events did not differ significantly. To assess the safety and efficacy of golimumab in methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
                MTX-naive patients with RA (n = 637) were randomized to receive placebo plus MTX (group 1), golimumab 100 mg plus placebo (group 2), golimumab 50 mg plus MTX (group 3), or golimumab 100 mg plus MTX (group 4). Subcutaneous injections of golimumab or placebo were administered every 4 weeks. The dosage of MTX/placebo capsules started at 10 mg/week and escalated to 20 mg/week. The primary end point, the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR50 response) at week 24, required significant differences between groups 3 and 4 combined (combined group) versus group 1 and significant differences in a pairwise comparison (group 3 or group 4 versus group 1).
                An intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the ACR50 response at week 24 did not show a significant difference between the combined group and group 1 (38.4% and 29.4%, respectively; P=0.053), while a post hoc modified ITT analysis (excluding 3 untreated patients) of the ACR50 response showed statistically significant differences between the combined group and group 1 (38.5% versus 29.4%; P=0.049) and between group 3 (40.5%; P=0.038) but not group 4 (36.5%; P=0.177) and group 1. Group 2 was noninferior to group 1 for the ACR50 response at week 24 (33.1%; 95% confidence interval lower bound -5.2%; predefined delta value for noninferiority -10%). The combination of golimumab plus MTX demonstrated a significantly better response compared with placebo plus MTX in most other efficacy parameters, including response/remission according to the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Serious adverse events occurred in 7%, 3%, 6%, and 6% of patients in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
                Although the primary end point was not met, the modified ITT analysis of the primary end point and other prespecified efficacy measures demonstrated that the efficacy of golimumab plus MTX is better than, and the efficacy of golimumab alone is similar to, the efficacy of MTX alone in reducing RA signs and symptoms in MTX-naive patients, with no unexpected safety concerns. A prospective controlled, double-blind multicenter trial compared placebo, auranofin (an orally administered gold complex), and parenteral gold sodium thiomalate (GST) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Of 193 patients who received any treatment, the only important improvement identified for either auranofin or GST was for pain/tenderness scores. When 161 patients who completed 20 weeks of treatment were examined, both auranofin and GST treatments were superior to placebo as measured by improvement in number of painful and/or tender joints, joint pain/tenderness scores, physician's assessment of disease activity, and decrease in erythrocyte sedimentation rate when elevated at entry. GST was superior to placebo in improvement of joint swelling scores, anemia, thrombocytosis, and rheumatoid factor. No drug-related remissions were observed. The only statistically significant advantages of GST over auranofin for efficacy were an increase in hemoglobin concentration and decrease of thrombocytosis with GST. Withdrawals for adverse effects were 5 times more frequent with GST treatment. Thrombocytopenia, proteinuria, elevated liver enzymes, "nitritoid" reactions, and "gold pneumonitis" were observed only in the GST treatment group. These results confirm that both parenteral and oral gold may be effective for the treatment of RA, that GST tends to show greater efficacy than auranofin, and that auranofin has fewer significant adverse effects than GST. However, long-term benefits, tolerability, and safety cannot be inferred from this study.
With an overall high grade of evidence this review revealed an improvement of clinical results (ACR50, 28 joint disease activity score (DAS-28) remission and HAQ scores) with certolizumab pegol. Adverse events were more frequent with certolizumab; there was a statistically significant increase in the number of serious adverse events, infections and hypertension.