Intragastric acidity and omeprazole exposure during dosing with either PA32540 (enteric-coated aspirin 325 mg + immediate-release omeprazole 40 mg) or enteric-coated aspirin 325 mg + enteric-coated omeprazole 40 mg - a randomised, phase 1, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin therapy is associated with adverse upper gastrointestinal effects. PA32540 is a coordinated-delivery tablet containing enteric-coated aspirin (EC-ASA) 325 mg and immediate-release (IR) omeprazole 40 mg. Immediate-release omeprazole (located in outer layer of tablet) is available for instantaneous dissolution rapidly after ingestion, while dissolution of the EC-ASA core is delayed until pH >5.5. AIM: To compare the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects of PA32540 (EC-ASA 325 mg + IR-omeprazole 40 mg) vs. enteric-coated (EC)-omeprazole 40 mg. METHODS: This single-centre, open-label, randomised, two-way crossover study in healthy volunteers compared 7 days of once-daily dosing with PA32540 with 7 days of once-daily EC-ASA 325 mg + EC-omeprazole 40 mg dosed concomitantly. The primary endpoint was per cent time intragastric pH >4 over 24 h on Day 7. A key secondary endpoint was determination of the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole and salicylic acid. RESULTS: Twenty-six subjects (mean age 29 years) were enrolled into the study. On Day 7, mean per cent time intragastric pH >4 was 50.6% for PA32540 and 57.6% for EC-omeprazole 40 mg (P = 0.004) and geometric least squares mean AUC0-24 for omeprazole was 1446 h*ng/mL for PA32540 and 2558 h*ng/mL for EC-omeprazole 40 mg. Day 7 median Tmax of omeprazole was 0.5 h for PA32540 and 1.25 h for EC-omeprazole 40 mg. CONCLUSION: Total exposure to omeprazole from PA32540 was 57% of that from EC-omeprazole for the same dose amount (40 mg), while absolute difference in 24-h acid control was 7%. Omeprazole exposure and pH control with PA32540 appear similar to EC-omeprazole 20 mg.

Clinical trial: the incidence of NSAID-associated endoscopic gastric ulcers in patients treated with PN 400 (naproxen plus esomeprazole magnesium) vs. enteric-coated naproxen alone.

BACKGROUND: Gastroprotective co-therapy may reduce the risk of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated gastric ulcers, but adherence is suboptimal. AIM: To compare the incidence of gastric ulcers with PN 400 [enteric-coated (EC) naproxen 500 mg and immediate-release esomeprazole 20 mg], or EC naproxen. METHODS: Two randomized, double-blind, multicentre studies (PN400-301, PN400-302). Patients [stratified by low-dose aspirin (< or =325 mg) use] aged > or =50 years or 18-49 years with a history of ulcer, received PN 400 BID (301, n = 218; 302, n = 210) or EC naproxen 500 mg BID (301, n = 216; 302, n = 210) for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of endoscopic gastric ulcers. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of gastric ulcers was significantly lower with PN 400 vs. EC naproxen (301: 4.1% vs. 23.1%, P < 0.001; 302: 7.1% vs. 24.3%, P < 0.001). PN 400 was associated with a lower combined incidence of gastric ulcers vs. EC naproxen in low-dose aspirin users (n = 201) (3.0% vs. 28.4%, P < 0.001) and non-users (n = 653) (6.4% vs. 22.2%, P < 0.001). The incidence of, and discontinuations due to, upper gastrointestinal (UGI) AEs was significantly lower with PN 400 relative to EC naproxen (P < 0.01, both studies). CONCLUSIONS: PN 400 significantly reduces the incidence of gastric ulcers, regardless of low-dose aspirin use, in at-risk patients, and is associated with improved UGI tolerability relative to EC naproxen (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00527782).

Clinical trial: evaluation of gastric acid suppression with three doses of immediate-release esomeprazole in the fixed-dose combination of PN 400 (naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium) compared with naproxen 500 mg and enteric-coated esomeprazole 20 mg: a randomized, open-label, Phase I study in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: PN 400 is a fixed-dose combination formulated to provide sequential delivery of immediate-release (IR) esomeprazole and enteric-coated (EC) naproxen. AIM: To evaluate gastric acid suppression with three doses of esomeprazole in PN 400 compared with EC esomeprazole 20 mg. METHODS: In this Phase I, randomized, open-label study, 28 healthy adults received PN 400 b.d. (naproxen 500 mg plus esomeprazole 10, 20 and 30 mg) and non-EC naproxen 500 mg b.d. plus EC esomeprazole 20 mg o.d., each for 9 days in a crossover fashion. The primary endpoint was percentage of time on day 9 that intragastric pH was >4.0; secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics and safety. RESULTS: Day 9 percentage of time where intragastric pH was >4.0 was 76.5%, 71.4%, 40.9% and 56.9% [corrected] for PN 400 containing 30, 20 and 10 mg esomeprazole, and naproxen plus esomeprazole 20 mg respectively. This was significantly greater for PN 400 containing 30 and 20 mg esomeprazole vs. naproxen plus esomeprazole 20 mg (95% CI: 13.0-26.0 and 7.8-20.7 respectively). The pharmacokinetics of PN 400 were consistent with its formulation. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: PN 400 containing 20 mg esomeprazole was the lowest dose to achieve gastric acid suppression comparable to EC esomeprazole 20 mg and was selected for further evaluation.

Patient Preference for Placebo, Acetaminophen (paracetamol) or Celecoxib Efficacy Studies (PACES): two randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, crossover clinical trials in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Acetaminophen (paracetamol) is recommended as the initial pharmacological treatment for knee or hip osteoarthritis. However, survey and clinical trial data indicate greater efficacy for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclo-oxygenase-2 specific inhibitors. DESIGN: Two randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, crossover multicentre clinical trials, Patient Preference for Placebo, Acetaminophen or Celecoxib Efficacy Studies (PACES). PATIENTS: Osteoarthritis of knee or hip. INTERVENTION: "Wash out" of treatment; randomisation; 6 weeks of celecoxib 200 mg/day, acetaminophen 1000 mg four times a day, or placebo; second "wash out;" crossover to 6 weeks of second treatment. MEASUREMENTS: Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analogue pain scale, patient preference between two treatments. RESULTS: Celecoxib was more efficacious than acetaminophen in both periods in both studies; WOMAC and pain scale scores differed at p<0.05 in period II and both periods combined of PACES-a and in periods I and II and both periods combined in PACES-b, but not in period I of PACES-a. Acetaminophen was more efficacious than placebo, generally p<0.05 in PACES-b, and >0.05 in PACES-a. Patient preferences were 53% celecoxib v 24% acetaminophen in PACES-a (p<0.001) and 50% v 32% in PACES-b (p = 0.009); 37% acetaminophen v 28% placebo in PACES-a (p = 0.340) and 48% v 24% in PACES-b (p = 0.007). No clinically or statistically significant differences were seen in adverse events or tolerability among the three treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Greater efficacy was seen for celecoxib v acetaminophen v placebo, while adverse events and tolerability were similar. Variation in results and statistical significance in the two different trials are of interest.

Efficacy of celecoxib in treating symptoms of viral pharyngitis: a double-blind, randomized study of celecoxib versus diclofenac.

This study compared the efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitor celecoxib with the conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac in the symptomatic treatment of viral pharyngitis. Adult patients from 27 study centers in Latin America were treated with oral doses of celecoxib 200 mg once daily or 200 mg twice daily, or diclofenac 75 mg twice daily for 5 days in a double-blind, randomized study. The primary efficacy assessment was 'Throat Pain on Swallowing' on day 3. In addition, secondary quality-of-life assessments were performed on days 3 and 5. All adverse events and treatment-emergent signs and symptoms were recorded. Data from 313 patients were evaluable for efficacy (105 celecoxib 200 mg once daily, 107 celecoxib 200 mg twice daily, 101 diclofenac 75 mg twice daily). The upper 95% confidence limits for the visual analog scale of 'Throat Pain on Swallowing' on day 3 for celecoxib 200 mg once daily relative to diclofenac 75 mg twice daily, and celecoxib 200 mg twice daily relative to diclofenac 75 mg twice daily were 9.26 and 7.83, respectively. All secondary efficacy and quality-of-life measures were clinically similar for the three treatment groups, and no statistically significant differences were detected. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events were similar for all groups, but numerically higher among patients taking diclofenac than celecoxib. More patients in the diclofenac group reported gastrointestinal complaints (7.3%) compared with those in the celecoxib groups (4.3% in the celecoxib 200 mg once-daily group and 3.4% in the celecoxib 200 mg twice-daily group). In conclusion, 5 days of treatment with celecoxib 200 mg once daily is as effective as diclofenac 75 mg twice daily in the symptomatic treatment of viral pharyngitis. Celecoxib 200 mg once daily is also as effective as celecoxib 200 mg twice daily in this condition.

How the health care system can improve mammography-screening rates for underserved women: a closer look at the health care delivery system.

The way care is delivered has dramatic impact on the patient-provider interaction and the outcomes experienced by the patient. This article explores a deceptively simple but very powerful method for evaluating and improving care delivery. Mammography is a routine screening procedure. However, many factors can influence how frequently women seek and obtain mammograms. Twenty-five low-income women identified empowering factors and barriers they experienced when trying to obtain a mammogram.

Cyclooxygenase-2--specific inhibitors and cardiorenal function: a randomized, controlled trial of celecoxib and rofecoxib in older hypertensive osteoarthritis patients.

BACKGROUND: Arthritis and hypertension are common comorbid conditions affecting elderly adults. Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients treated with antihypertensive medication can lead to destabilization of blood pressure control and other cardiorenal events. The potential for similar interactions with cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitors has not been fully explored. The authors evaluated the cardiorenal safety of two new cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitors, celecoxib and rofecoxib. METHODS: This study was a 6-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind trial in patients with osteoarthritis who were > or =65 years of age and were taking antihypertensive agents. Patients received once-daily celecoxib 200 mg or rofecoxib 25 mg. The primary endpoints were the development of edema, changes in systolic blood pressure, and changes in diastolic blood pressure as measured at any time point in the study. Measurements occurred at baseline and after 1, 2, and 6 weeks of treatment. FINDINGS: Eight hundred ten patients received study medication (celecoxib, n = 411; rofecoxib, n = 399). Nearly twice as many rofecoxib- compared with celecoxib-treated patients experienced edema (9.5% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.014). Systolic blood pressure increased significantly in 17% of rofecoxib- compared with 11% of celecoxib-treated patients (P = 0.032) at any study time point. Diastolic blood pressure increased in 2.3% of rofecoxib- compared with 1.5% of celecoxib-treated patients (P = 0.44). At week 6, the change from baseline in mean systolic blood pressure was +2.6 mmHg for rofecoxib compared with -0.5 mmHg for celecoxib (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Patients taking antihypertensive therapy and receiving cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitors should be monitored for the development of cardiorenal events. Patients receiving celecoxib experienced less edema and less destabilization of blood pressure control compared with those receiving rofecoxib.

COX-2 specific inhibitors in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee: a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study.

COX-2 specific inhibitors have demonstrated significant safety advantages and comparable efficacy in osteoarthritis (OA) compared with conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), but no direct comparative trials between COX-2 specific inhibitors have been published. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multicenter study, 182 patients (> or =40 years old) with OA of the knee were randomly assigned to treatment with celecoxib 200 mg q.d. (n = 63), rofecoxib 25 mg q.d. (n = 59), or placebo (n = 60) for 6 weeks. Arthritis assessments were performed at baseline and Weeks 3 and 6, or at early termination. At Week 6, celecoxib and rofecoxib treatment resulted in similar mean changes from baseline (p > 0.55) in arthritis pain visual analogue scale, patient's global assessment, and total score for WOMAC; all changes were superior to placebo (p < 0.05). In the patient's global assessment of arthritis pain at Week 6, 79% of celecoxib-treated and 78% of rofecoxib-treated patients improved by > or =1 grade, compared with 50% of placebo patients (celecoxib, p = 0.025; rofecoxib, p = 0.020). Adverse event incidences were similar among the active comparators; however, celecoxib-treated patients had significantly fewer adverse gastrointestinal symptoms compared with rofecoxib-treated patients, which suggests that celecoxib may have a better gastrointestinal tolerability profile than rofecoxib at these doses. Adverse events that prompted withdrawal occurred in fewer than 7% of patients, and the overall incidences were similar between the active agents. Once-daily doses of celecoxib 200 mg and rofecoxib 25 mg offer comparable efficacy and are an effective alternative to conventional NSAIDs in the management of OA.

Health-related quality-of-life effects of oxaprozin and nabumetone in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly prescribed for the treatment of signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA). Nabumetone and oxaprozin are 2 of the newer NSAIDs and have been shown to have similar safety and efficacy profiles. Nabumetone 1000 mg to 1500 mg once a day (QD) and oxaprozin 1200 mg QD are commonly recommended doses. This study compared the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients receiving oxaprozin 1200 mg QD with that of patients receiving nabumetone 1000 mg QD or nabumetone 1500 mg QD for the treatment of signs and symptoms of OA of the knee. Two similarly designed, independent, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trials were conducted. In trial 1, patients were randomized to receive oxaprozin 1200 mg QD (n = 109), nabumetone 1000 mg QD (n = 110), or placebo (n = 109); in trial 2, patients received oxaprozin 1200 mg QD (n = 116), nabumetone 1500 mg QD (n = 115), or placebo (n = 116). HRQOL was measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form-36 Health Survey (1-week recall period) at baseline and weeks 2 and 6. Data from the 2 trials were combined to assess differences across the 4 groups in 8 domains and 2 summary scores at baseline, and changes in HRQOL scores at weeks 2 and 6. At week 2, the oxaprozin group showed significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in role physical, vitality, and mental component summary (MCS) scores (P < 0.05), and in physical functioning, bodily pain, social functioning, and physical component summary (PCS) scores (P < 0.01). The nabumetone 1500-mg group showed significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in bodily pain and social functioning (P < 0.05), and in vitality and MCS score (P < 0.01). No significant differences were observed between the nabumetone 1000-mg and placebo groups. At week 2, the oxaprozin group showed a greater change than the nabumetone 1000-mg group in PCS score (P < 0.05). At week 6, oxaprozin treatment resulted in significantly greater improvement than placebo in physical functioning, role physical, and bodily pain (P < 0.05); social functioning, role emotional, and mental health (P < 0.01); and vitality and MCS score (P < 0.001). The nabumetone 1500-mg group showed significantly greater responses than the placebo group in vitality (P < 0.05), mental health (P < 0.01), and MCS score (P < 0.001). The oxaprozin group had significantly better scores than the nabumetone 1500-mg group in the PCS (P < 0.05), and it showed significantly greater improvement than the nabumetone 1000 mg group in role physical and PCS score (P < 0.01) and in role emotional (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between placebo and nabumetone 1000 mg at week 6. Results of this study suggest that oxaprozin 1200 mg QD has a significant positive impact on the HRQOL of patients with OA of the knee compared with nabumetone 1000 mg QD and placebo.

Diclofenac/misoprostol compared with diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Arthrotec Osteoarthritis Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: Gastric (GU) and duodenal ulcers (DU) are common adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Endoscopically diagnosed upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulceration occurs in about 24% of longterm NSAID users. Coadministration of misoprostol with the NSAID reduces the incidence of NSAID induced GU and DU and their complications. However, compliance is limited by the different dosing regimens of misoprostol and NSAID and GI symptoms associated with misoprostol at its recommended q.i.d. dose. We compared the efficacy, safety, and incidence of endoscopic upper GI ulceration associated with the administration of 2 combinations of diclofenac (50 or 75 mg) and misoprostol 200 microg (D50/M200 t.i.d., D75/M200 b.i.d.), diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d., and placebo in a 6 week, randomized, double blind study in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip. METHODS: A total of 572 patients with symptomatic OA of the knee or hip and history of GU, DU. or 10 or more erosions were randomized to receive D50/M200 t.i.d., D75/M200 b.i.d., diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d., or placebo for 6 weeks. Arthritis assessments were performed at baseline, 2, and 6 weeks, and upper GI endoscopies at baseline and end of treatment. RESULTS: All active treatment groups were significantly better than placebo, at all visits, in improving OA symptoms. There were no significant differences in arthritis efficacy between the diclofenac/ misoprostol combinations and diclofenac. However, endoscopically diagnosed GU and/or DU were significantly less frequent in patients receiving D50/M200 t.i.d. (8%), D75/M200 b.i.d. (7%), and placebo (4%) compared to diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d. (17%). Adverse events were not different between the active treatment groups, except for higher incidences of flatulence with D75/M200 and diarrhea with D50/M200. CONCLUSION: Diclofenac 50 mg/misoprostol 200 microg t.i.d. and diclofenac 75 mg/misoprostol 200 microg b.i.d. are as efficacious as diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d. in the treatment of OA, but are associated with a significantly lower incidence of gastric and/or duodenal ulcers.

Economic and gastrointestinal safety comparisons of etodolac, nabumetone, and oxaprozin from insurance claims data from patients with arthritis.

This study was conducted to compare the effect of etodolac, nabumetone, and oxaprozin use on gastrointestinal (GI) safety and associated costs based on insurance claims information from practice settings. Data were obtained from a national claims database (MarketScan) for the years 1992 to 1994. The claims data of interest were for patients with arthritis who had used etodolac, nabumetone, or oxaprozin exclusively during a 9-month follow-up period (ONLY groups), or these drugs plus (PLUS groups) the other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, sulindac, piroxicam, ketoprofen, or indomethacin. For each group, we obtained information on the use of inpatient and outpatient services for GI-related events and the associated costs. All GI admissions were classified as NSAID-induced or possibly NSAID-induced events based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9 CM) codes. All outpatient upper GI ulcers or bleeding episodes were also identified by specific ICD-9 CM code. There were no significant between-group demographic differences. The proportions of patients with NSAID-induced and possibly NSAID-induced GI admissions were 0.1% and 0.4% for the etodolac-ONLY, 0.3% and 1.0% for the nabumetone-ONLY, and 0.1% and 0.5% for the oxaprozin-ONLY groups, respectively (P > 0.05), and a similar pattern was observed among the PLUS groups. In outpatient settings, 3.9%, 4.2%, and 4.9% of the etodolac-, nabumetone-, and oxaprozin-ONLY patients, respectively (P > 0.05), and 6.0%, 5.3%, and 4.7% of the etodolac-, nabumetone-, and oxaprozin-PLUS patients, respectively, had at least one upper GI ulcer/bleeding claim (P > 0.05). The total health care costs for 9 months were approximately $3000 each for the etodolac-, nabumetone-, and oxaprozin-ONLY groups. Oxaprozin, nabumetone, and etodolac had similar GI-safety and associated-costs profiles based on information from practice settings. Also, in patients who used multiple NSAIDs, the groups did not differ in their GI-safety and cost profiles.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis by immunization with mononuclear white blood cells: results of a preliminary trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if immunization with alloantigenic blood mononuclear cells (MNC) in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can result in objective and subjective improvement in RA. METHODS: Eleven patients meeting American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA were treated in an open label trial by immunization with allogeneic MNC obtained from donors screened for infectious agents according to American Association of Blood Banks guidelines. MNC (30-250 x 10(6) cells) were given at 6 week intervals. Half the MNC (vol 2 ml) were injected intravenously and half in 4 divided doses subcutaneously (sq, 0.5 ml each). Disease activity assessments were done before entry and at immunotherapy visits thereafter. These included physician global assessment of disease activity, patient global assessment of pain, arthritis impact measurement scales (AIMS), swollen joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and/or C-reactive protein (CRP). RESULTS: Statistically significant improvement was noted in all clinical variables measured when pretreatment data were compared to those obtained at the time of injection number 3. MNC dose related improvement was found when the total number of cells given in the first 2 injections were compared to percentage improvement in patient assessment of pain (r = 0.71, p < 0.02), AIMS (r = 0.60, p = 0.05), and improvement in the means of all variables measured (r = 0.70, p < 0.03). When all variables were averaged, 6 of 11 patients experienced > 20% and 3 of 11 experienced > or = 40% improvement. The only side effects noted were transient local pain and swelling at the sq injection sites. CONCLUSION: MNC immunization may represent a suitable and safe alternative to drug treatment for selected patients with RA. Statistically significant improvement was found in all variables and several of these were cell dose related. A placebo controlled randomized trial immunizing with a standardized number of cells will address efficacy of this biological treatment approach.

Misoprostol and ranitidine in the prevention of NSAID-induced ulcers: a prospective, double-blind, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare ranitidine to misoprostol with respect to the prevention of gastric and duodenal ulcers in patients on chronic NSAID therapy. METHODS: A multi-center, 8-wk, randomized, double-blind study. Eligible patients were on chronic NSAID therapy and were experiencing NSAID-related upper gastrointestinal (UGI) pain without UGI endoscopic evidence of gastric or duodenal ulcers. Patients enrolled in the study were randomized to either misoprostol 200 micrograms q.i.d. or ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d.. Follow-up UGI endoscopy was performed after 4 and 8 wk of treatment. Therapeutic failure was considered the development of a gastric or duodenal ulcer > or = 0.3 cm in diameter with perceptible depth. RESULTS: Gastric ulcers were found in only 1/180 (0.56%) patient on misoprostol and in 11/194 (5.67%) patients on ranitidine, a difference that was statistically significant (p < 0.01). Duodenal ulcer rates were similar for the ranitidine (2/185 or 1.08%) and misoprostol (2/181 or 1.10%) groups. CONCLUSION: Misoprostol is significantly more effective than ranitidine in the prevention of NSAID-induced gastric ulcers. Ranitidine was as effective as misoprostol for the prevention of NSAID-induced duodenal ulcers. Misoprostol should be used for prophylaxis against both gastric and duodenal ulceration in patients on chronic NSAID therapy.

Mononuclear cell (MNC) subtypes in osteoarthritis synovial fluid. Comparison with MNC subtypes in rheumatoid arthritis synovial fluid.

OBJECTIVE: To examine mononuclear cell (MNC) subtypes in osteoarthritis (OA) synovial fluid (SF) and compare these results with MNC subtypes in SF from patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: MNC were obtained from SF by gradient centrifugation with Ficoll-Hypaque. MNC subtypes were identified using color immunofluorescence with monoclonal antibody pairs and flow cytometry. RESULTS: Significantly lower percentages of CD3+ (p < 0.01) and CD4+ cells (p < 0.01) were found in patients with OA. No differences were noted between CD8+ cells and the CD4/CD8 ratio. Significantly higher percentages of CD14+ (p < 0.001) and CD16+/CD56+ (p < 0.001) were found in patients with OA. CONCLUSION: Significant differences in MNC subtypes in OA and RA were noted that may reflect differences in pathophysiologic mechanisms operational in each disease.

Muscle involvement in polyarteritis nodosa: report of a patient presenting clinically as polymyositis and review of the literature.

Muscle symptoms, especially myalgias, appear to be common in patients with polyarteritis nodosa (PAN). We describe a patient who presented with a generalized myopathy and elevated creatine kinase (CK) suggestive of polymyositis. However, subsequent exploratory surgery for an acute abdomen revealed colonic perforation on the basis of PAN. A review of the literature suggests that generalized myopathy and elevated CK are uncommon features of PAN. A muscle biopsy can be a helpful procedure to secure the diagnosis in patients with PAN especially those with myopathies. Strategies for optimizing the choice of biopsy site are discussed.

Can tests for IgA, IgG, or IgM antibodies to cardiolipin or phosphatidylserine substitute for lupus anticoagulant assays in screening for antiphospholipid antibodies?

Antiphospholipid antibodies (APL) are detected by both ELISA and tests for lupus anticoagulants (LA). We evaluated ELISA tests for IgG, IgM, and IgA isotopes of antibodies binding cardiolipin (CL) and phosphatidylserine (PS) in samples from LA patients presenting with recurrent miscarriages. All values were expressed in multiples of the normal median (MOM). In 32% (11/34) of cases, not only were all ELISA values at or below 2.5 MOM, but the distribution of these ELISA MOM values within the normal range was similar to distribution of values from LA negative controls with the same history. Neither the use of PS as the antigen nor the addition of IgA assays improved the correlation of ELISA results with the presence of LA. ELISAs are inadequate as the sole screening test for these separate, but often associated, families of APL.

Abnormal T-cell function in patients with psoriatic arthritis: evidence for decreased interleukin 2 production.

Psoriatic arthritis (PSA) is an inflammatory arthritis associated with psoriasis. Although not considered an autoimmune process, there is evidence for humoral and cellular immune abnormalities similar to autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus (SLE). We investigated mitogen-induced proliferation and interleukin 2 (IL-2) production by peripheral blood mononuclear cells in patients with PSA. Both IL-2 production and proliferation were significantly decreased in PSA patients when compared to controls. Increased arachidonic acid metabolism has been reported in skin and peripheral mononuclear cells of patients with psoriasis and PSA. We therefore also investigated the effect of indomethacin and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) on IL-2 production. Addition of indomethacin to cultures did not significantly change IL-2 production in patients with PSA, but did so in controls. PGE2 produced a significant reduction in IL-2 production in PSA and in controls.

B cell surface marker analysis of synovial fluid cells in a patient with monoarthritis and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

We describe a women with clinically quiescent chronic lymphocytic leukemia who developed monoarthritis consistent with her known diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Because of the concurrent chronic leukemia, we were concerned with the possibility of leukemic arthritis. Immunofluorescence of synovial fluid cells demonstrated an increase in B cells that failed to demonstrate monoclonality as determined by light chain class expression. However, biopsy of synovial tissue revealed leukemic infiltration. Local radiation therapy resolved the monoarthritis.