Fibromyalgia: management strategies for primary care providers.

AIMS: Fibromyalgia (FM), a chronic disorder defined by widespread pain, often accompanied by fatigue and sleep disturbance, affects up to one in 20 patients in primary care. Although most patients with FM are managed in primary care, diagnosis and treatment continue to present a challenge, and patients are often referred to specialists. Furthermore, the lack of a clear patient pathway often results in patients being passed from specialist to specialist, exhaustive investigations, prescription of multiple drugs to treat different symptoms, delays in diagnosis, increased disability and increased healthcare resource utilisation. We will discuss the current and evolving understanding of FM, and recommend improvements in the management and treatment of FM, highlighting the role of the primary care physician, and the place of the medical home in FM management. METHODS: We reviewed the epidemiology, pathophysiology and management of FM by searching PubMed and references from relevant articles, and selected articles on the basis of quality, relevance to the illness and importance in illustrating current management pathways and the potential for future improvements. RESULTS: The implementation of a framework for chronic pain management in primary care would limit unnecessary, time-consuming, and costly tests, reduce diagnostic delay and improve patient outcomes. DISCUSSION: The patient-centred medical home (PCMH), a management framework that has been successfully implemented in other chronic diseases, might improve the care of patients with FM in primary care, by bringing together a team of professionals with a range of skills and training. CONCLUSION: Although there remain several barriers to overcome, implementation of a PCMH would allow patients with FM, like those with other chronic conditions, to be successfully managed in the primary care setting.

Factorial randomised controlled trial of glucocorticoids and combination disease modifying drugs in early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Treating early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) monotherapy achieves incomplete outcomes and intensive treatment seems preferable. As the relative benefits of combining two DMARDs, one DMARD with glucocorticoids and two DMARDs with glucocorticoids are uncertain we defined them in a factorial trial. METHODS: A 2-year randomised double-blind factorial trial in patients with RA within 2 years of diagnosis treated with methotrexate studied the benefits of added ciclosporin, 9 months intensive prednisolone or both (triple therapy). The primary outcome was the number of patients with new erosions. Secondary outcomes included Larsen's x-ray scores, disability, quality of life and adverse events. FINDINGS: 1391 patients were screened and 467 randomised. Over 2 years 132 (28%) changed therapy and 88 (19%) were lost to follow-up. The number of patients with new erosions was reduced by nearly half by adding ciclosporin or prednisolone (p = 0.01 and 0.03); both treatments reduced increases in Larsen's x-ray scores by over 2 units (p = 0.008 and 0.003). A further reduction in erosive damage was seen with combined use of both treatments. Their effects on erosive damage appeared independent. Triple therapy reduced disability and improved quality of life compared with methotrexate; ciclosporin and prednisolone acted synergistically. More patients withdrew because of adverse events with triple therapy, without an increase in serious adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the existence of a "window of opportunity" in early RA, when intensive combination therapy produces sustained benefits on damage and disability. Although methotrexate-prednisolone combinations reduce erosive damage, the synergistic effect of two DMARDs is needed to improve quality of life.

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a recombinant version of human alpha-fetoprotein (MM-093) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) tends to remit during pregnancy, with more patients achieving remission in the third trimester, coinciding with an increase in levels of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). In vitro and animal studies have shown that AFP has immunomodulatory properties. MM-093 is a non-glycosylated, recombinant version of human AFP. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, tolerability and clinical effects of MM-093 during a 12-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. METHODS: 12 patients with RA, who had active disease and were on stable doses of methotrexate, received weekly subcutaneous injections of placebo or 21 mg of MM-093. Assessments were carried out at baseline and weekly thereafter. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. There was one dropout in the placebo group, due to flare of disease. Treatment with MM-093 was well tolerated. No serious adverse event was observed. By day 85, MM-093 produced a significant mean improvement from baseline in Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28; 0.913 vs 0.008, p = 0.033) and patient's global assessment (28.9% vs -36.3%, p = 0.02) compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomised, controlled trial of MM-093, a recombinant version of human AFP, in patients with RA. MM-093 was well tolerated. Evidence of efficacy was observed, suggesting that MM-093 may have therapeutic potential in RA.

Immunosuppressant and immunomodulatory treatment for dermatomyositis and polymyositis.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies are chronic skeletal diseases with significant mortality and morbidity despite treatment by corticosteroids. Immunosuppressive agents and immunomodulatory therapy are used to improve disease control and reduce the long-term side effects of corticosteroids. While these treatments are used commonly in routine clinical practice, the optimal therapeutic regimen remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of immunosuppressants and immunomodulatory treatments for dermatomyositis and polymyositis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group trials register (searched February 2002 and updated in November 2003) and MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2002). We checked bibliographies of identified trials and wrote to disease experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials including patients with probable or definite dermatomyositis and polymyositis as defined by the criteria of Bohan and Peter or definite, probable or mild/early by the criteria of Dalakas. Patients with inclusion body myositis should have been excluded by muscle biopsies. Any immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory treatment including corticosteroids, azathioprine, methotrexate, ciclosporin, chlorambucil, cyclophosphamide, intravenous immunoglobulin, interferon and plasma exchange was considered. Primary outcome was assessment of muscle strength after at least six months. Other outcomes were: change in disability, number of relapses and time to relapse, number of patients in remission and time-to-remission, cumulative corticosteroid dose and serious adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (EC and JH) independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Four authors independently assessed each study. Methodological criteria and the results of each study were recorded on data extraction forms. MAIN RESULTS: Seven potentially relevant randomised controlled trials were identified. One trial was excluded. Three studies compared immunosuppressant with placebo control, one trial compared one immunosuppressant (methotrexate) with another (azathioprine), another trial compared ciclosporin A with methotrexate and the final trial compared intramuscular methotrexate with oral methotrexate plus azathioprine. The study comparing intravenous immunoglobulin with placebo concluded that the former was superior. Two randomised placebo-controlled trials assessing plasma exchange, leukapheresis and azathioprine produced negative results. The fourth study compared azathioprine with methotrexate and found azathioprine and methotrexate equally effective but methotrexate had a better side effect profile. The fifth study comparing ciclosporin A with methotrexate and the sixth study comparing intramuscular methotrexate with oral methotrexate plus azathioprine found no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups. Immunosuppressants are associated with significant side effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights the lack of high quality randomised controlled trials that assess the efficacy and toxicity of immunosuppressants in inflammatory myositis.

A meta-analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of combining disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis based on patient withdrawal.

INTRODUCTION: Combinations of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are increasingly used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Early trials showed their toxicity while recent trials suggest superior efficacy. Trials of DMARD combinations have enrolled different types of patient (early or established RA), used different designs (step-up, parallel or step-down) and utilized a range of outcome measures. We undertook a systematic review of combination DMARD therapy for RA and carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate the evidence for efficacy and toxicity. METHOD: Medline, PubMed and EmBase were searched using MESH headlines 'arthritis, rheumatoid', 'drug therapy, combination' and 'randomized controlled trial' (RCT) for papers published from 1975 to April 2004. References from published articles were also searched. Three independent assessors evaluated abstracts and selected trials for detailed examination. Trials were excluded if their quality was poor, were not published in English or studied DMARDs not licensed to treat RA. Two independent assessors extracted data. Efficacy was assessed by the numbers of patients withdrawn due to lack of efficacy. Toxicity was assessed by the numbers of patients withdrawn due to adverse events. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and meta-analysis was carried out based on a random effects model. Sensitivity analyses evaluated different treatment combinations, trial designs, study populations and outcome measures. RESULTS: Fifty-three potentially relevant RCTs were identified. Twelve were excluded due to: using unlicensed DMARDs (n = 3); reporting in journal supplements of RCTs already included (n = 2); follow-up of an earlier RCT, report of biological outcomes or pharmacokinetics (n = 5); and non-English language publications (n = 2). Forty-one RCTs were evaluated in detail and another five excluded (three open-labelled studies and two with high patient attrition); 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis. These comprised 13 step-up, 16 parallel and 7 step-down trials. Nine assessed early RA and 27 established RA. Seven added steroids to DMARD monotherapy and one study added steroids to DMARD combinations. Six assessed methotrexate (MTX) plus tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. Overall, combination DMARD therapy was more effective than monotherapy (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.28, 0.45) although the risk of toxicity was also slightly higher (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.16, 1.62). Combinations of MTX with TNF inhibitors and MTX with sulphasalazine or anti-malarials showed good efficacy/toxicity ratios. CONCLUSIONS: DMARD combinations vary in their efficacy/toxicity ratio. MTX plus sulphasalazine and/or anti-malarials and MTX plus TNF inhibitors have particularly favourable benefit/risk ratios.

Therapeutic benefit of blocking interleukin-6 activity with an anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of MRA, a recombinant human anti-interleukin-6 (anti-IL-6) receptor monoclonal antibody of the IgG1 subclass that inhibits the function of IL-6, in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial was conducted in 45 patients with active RA, as defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) revised criteria. Patients were sequentially allocated to receive a single intravenous dose of either 0.1, 1, 5, or 10 mg/kg of MRA or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was meeting the ACR 20% response criteria at week 2 after treatment. RESULTS: Demographic features were similar between treatment groups. At week 2, a significant treatment difference was observed between the 5 mg/kg of MRA and placebo, with 5 patients (55.6%) in the MRA cohort and none in the placebo cohort achieving ACR 20% improvement. There was no statistically significant difference in the ACR 20% response between the other 3 MRA cohorts and placebo at week 2. The mean disease activity score at week 2 in those who received 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg of MRA was 4.8 and 4.7 (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001 by analysis of variance), respectively. These mean scores were statistically significantly lower than those in the 0.1- and 1-mg/kg MRA and the placebo cohorts (6.4, 6.2, and 7.0, respectively). The erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein values fell significantly in the 5- and 10-mg/kg MRA cohorts and normalized 2 weeks after treatment. Seventeen patients (5, 4, 6, 2, and 0 patients in the placebo, 0.1-, 1-, 5-, and 10-mg/kg MRA cohorts, respectively) required corticosteroid or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment because of active disease before study end. They were regarded as nonresponders from the time they received these treatments. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event, occurring in 8% of patients. Seven patients (15.6%) reported a severe adverse event (3, 1, 2, and 2 patients in the placebo, 0.1-, 1-, and 10-mg/kg MRA cohorts). There were no serious adverse events that were thought to be related to the study drug. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized controlled trial showing that inhibition of IL-6 significantly improved the signs and symptoms of RA and normalized the acute-phase reactants. Further research with multiple dosing is necessary to define the most appropriate therapeutic regimen of MRA in RA.

Efficacy of a novel PEGylated humanized anti-TNF fragment (CDP870) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a phase II double-blinded, randomized, dose-escalating trial.

OBJECTIVE: Biological products that neutralize tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) are beneficial in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We studied the effects of CDP870, a novel anti-TNF-alpha antibody fragment modified to obtain a prolonged plasma half-life ( approximately 14 days). METHODS: Thirty-six patients were randomized in a double-blind, ascending-dose group study to a single intravenous infusion of placebo (n = 12) or 1, 5 or 20 mg/kg CDP870 (each n = 8). The patients were predominantly female (30/36), had a mean age of 56 yr and a mean duration of RA of 13 years. They had received a mean of five DMARDs or experimental therapies (with 1 month washout before the study started) and had active disease. Continuation of NSAIDs and up to 7.5 mg prednisolone daily was allowed. Following the blinded dosing period, 32 patients received a single open-label infusion of either 5 or 20 mg/kg CDP870. RESULTS: In the blinded dosing period, 6/12 placebo patients withdrew from the study (for deteriorating RA < or =4 weeks after dosing). Two of 24 CDP870-treated patients withdrew, both in the 1 mg/kg group (for deteriorating RA or lost to follow up >4 weeks after dosing). The proportion of patients with ACR20 improvement for the per-protocol population with the last observation carried forward was 16.7, 50, 87.5 and 62.5% after 0, 1, 5 and 20 mg/kg CDP870 respectively (combined treatment effect, P = 0.012, primary analysis) at 4 weeks and 16.7, 25, 75 and 75% (P = 0.032) at 8 weeks. The proportion of patients with ACR50 improvement for the per-protocol population with the last observation carried forward was 0, 12.5, 12.5 and 50% after 0, 1, 5 and 20 mg/kg CDP870 respectively (combined treatment effect, P = 0.079) at 4 weeks and 0, 12.5, 12.5 and 50% (P = 0.079) at 8 weeks. Following the open-label dose of CDP870, similar beneficial effects were achieved. CONCLUSION: CDP870 is effective, was very well tolerated in this small study, and has an extended duration of action following one or more intravenous doses.

Repeat-cycle study of high-dose intravenous 4162W94 anti-CD4 humanized monoclonal antibody in rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Results of an earlier open-label pilot study showed that 4162W94 was a relatively non-depleting anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody that induced >80% down-modulation of CD4 molecules from the surface of T lymphocytes. This placebo-controlled repeat-cycle study was conducted in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients to determine the duration of CD4 blockade required to achieve lasting clinical benefit. METHODS: Following DMARD washout, 48 patients (i.e. three cohorts of 16 patients) with ACR-defined RA were to be dosed with 1 (cohort 1), 2 (cohort 2) or 3 (cohort 3) cycles of 5x300 mg 4162W94 or placebo (12 and 4 patients per cohort respectively) at monthly intervals. There was at least 3 months of follow-up after dosing. Clinical outcome was assessed in evaluable patients (receiving at least 80% of each dose course) using ACR20 criteria (required on two consecutive visits). CD4 lymphocyte counts and adverse events were also monitored. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were dosed in each of the first two cohorts; however, the dose was reduced in cohort 3 after five patients had received up to two dose cycles due to accumulating evidence of a high frequency of skin rash. These patients were analysed according to the number of cycles received. A further eight patients received 5x100 mg for one to three cycles prior to stopping the study for administrative reasons. Four of 13 (P=0.119 vs placebo) and 7/13 (P=0.015 vs placebo) in cohorts 1 and 2 respectively achieved ACR20 response on at least two consecutive occasions. No patient receiving 5x100 mg/day or placebo achieved ACR20. Four patients were still responding at the end of the 3-month follow-up period. CD4 lymphocyte suppression (<0.2x10(9)/l on at least two successive occasions) occurred in 11/34 patients who received 4162W94 vs none on placebo. Rash occurred in 21/34 monoclonal antibody-treated patients, including one case of biopsy-confirmed cutaneous vasculitis and 1/11 placebo patients. CONCLUSION: 4162W94 demonstrated significant clinical efficacy in this study. However, because of unacceptable CD4 lymphopenia and rash, the original hypothesis that prolonged CD4 blockade would give lasting clinical benefit was not tested.

Treating rheumatoid arthritis early with disease modifying drugs reduces joint damage: a randomised double blind trial of sulphasalazine vs diclofenac sodium.

BACKGROUND: Current disease management in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has moved towards "inverting the therapeutic pyramid" by introducing disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) early. Despite the logic of early DMARD therapy, there is a dearth of supportive evidence for this approach. We report a randomised controlled trial comparing sulphasalazine monotherapy with diclofenac monotherapy in early RA. The primary aim was to provide unequivocal evidence that early DMARDs prevent erosive damage. The secondary aim was to evaluate if sulphasalazine used alone has comparable symptomatic benefits to NSAIDs. METHODS: 117 patients with RA for under 12 months of diagnosis (mean 2 months) were randomised (62 sulphasalazine; 55 diclofenac). Sulphasalazine patients comprised 76% women, and 58% were rheumatoidfactor positive. Diclofenac patients comprised 74% women, and 54% were seropositive. 36% completed 12 months of therapy (16 sulphasalazine; 26 diclofenac); sulphasalazine was given for a mean period of 21 weeks and diclofenac for a mean period of 33 weeks. Results were analysed on an intention to treat basis. RESULTS: After 12 months the mean number of new erosions in patients randomised to receive sulphasalazine was 2.0 (95%CI 0.9, 3.1) and in patients randomised to receive diclofenac was 7.5 (95%CI 4.1, 10.9; p = 0.002 by Student's unpaired t-test). An analysis of valid compliant completers showed the mean number of new erosions in patients who received 12 months therapy with sulphasalazine was 2.3 (95%CI 0.6, 4.0) and in patients who received 12 months diclofenac was 10.5 (95%CI 5.0, 15.9; p = 0.018 by Student's unpaired t-test). The Ritchie articular index, swollen joint counts and pain scores decreased with both sulphasalazine and diclofenac, with mean falls in both groups of 15-20% at 2 weeks and 30-40% at 4 and 8 weeks. There were no differences between treatments. Disease activity scores showed similar highly significant mean decreases within both treatment groups (P < 0.001 in all cases) of 0.5 at 2 weeks and 1.0 at 4 weeks; at 12 and 26 weeks they were significantly lower with sulphasalazine (p = 0.036 and 0.045). 75% of the patients given sulphasalazine and 65% of those given diclofenac had one or more adverse events with no major differences between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that an accelerated dosing schedule of sulphasalazine has identical effects to diclofenac in reducing symptoms, indicating it is a rapidly effective DMARD. They also provide unequivocal evidence, analysed on an intention to treat basis, that early treatment with sulphasalazine significantly reduces the extent of radiological progression in active RA.

Treatment of dermatomyositis and polymyositis.

Since idiopathic inflammatory myositis is relatively uncommon, randomized placebo controlled trials are rare. Although corticosteroids have not been tested in randomized controlled trials, general clinical consensus among physicians has accepted it as effective therapy. However, corticosteroid toxicity leads to significant disability in many patients. For patients with refractory dermatomyositis, intravenous immunoglobulin is an effective short-term treatment but its long-term effect remains unknown. Immunosuppressants are commonly used in refractory inflammatory myositis; evidence for their efficacy, with very few exceptions, has been derived from case reports and open studies with small numbers of patients. Even in randomized trials, the lack of validated and generally accepted outcome measures makes it difficult to compare the effect of interventions in different studies. Although the balance of evidence suggests that immunosuppressants are equally effective in dermatomyositis and polymyositis, there are no randomized controlled trials to show if any of these drugs, individually or in combination, is best. For uncommon diseases, such as inflammatory myositis, only multicentre randomized controlled trials involving rheumatologists and neurologists will define the optimal therapy.