[Etanercept in routine German clinical practice to treat rheumatoid arthritis patients : A one-year observational study on effectiveness, safety and health economics]. / Etanercept in der klinischen Routinebehandlung von Patienten mit rheumatoider Arthritis : Eine einjährige nichtinterventionelle Studie zur Bewertung der Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of the TNF­α inhibitor etanercept (ETA) as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is well established by randomized controlled trials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefit yielded by ETA within the regular outpatient care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective non-interventional trial included patients being treated with ETA. Data concerning efficacy, safety and life quality were collected over a period of 52 weeks. Statistical evaluation was done on a solely descriptive level. RESULTS: From 329 specialized medical centres, 4945 patients were enrolled. Of all patients, 94.4% received a co-medication for RA, additionally to their treatment with ETA. At baseline, 22.1% of all patients fulfilled the criteria for functional remission according to the Funktionsfragebogen Hannover (FFbH) questionnaire (95% CI: 21.0-23.3%); at 52 weeks, functional remission rate accounted for 41.1% (last observation carried forward [LOCF], 95% CI: 39.4-42.9%). The disease activity score (DAS) DAS28 declined from 5.4 ± 1.3 (N = 4304) to 3.3 ± 1.4 (as observed; N = 2608). EuroQol EQ-5D, a measurement of health-related life quality issues, indicated an improvement on the visual analogue scale (VAS) from 53.1 ± 21.3 mm (N = 4718) at baseline to 70.0 ± 20.5 mm (as observed; N = 3036). Generally, ETA has been tolerated well. With regard to the safety profile specified by previous studies, no meaningful deviations concerning the nature, frequency or severity of adverse events were detected. CONCLUSION: Based on a large number of patients and in a treatment context that is representative of routine outpatient care in Germany, it was confirmed that patients with RA may benefit from a treatment with ETA.

Impact of treatment with biologic DMARDs on the risk of sepsis or mortality after serious infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: This observational cohort study investigated the impact of biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on the outcomes of serious infections (SIs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We investigated outcomes of SIs observed in 947 patients enrolled in the German biologics register RABBIT(Rheumatoid arthritis: observation of biologic therapy). Outcomes were (1) recovery without complication, (2) sepsis following SI (≤30 days), and (3) death after SI without known sepsis (≤90 days). We applied a multinomial generalised estimating equation model for longitudinal data to evaluate the risks of sepsis and death simultaneously. RESULTS: Sepsis within 30 days after SI was reported in 135 out of 947 patients, 85 of these had a fatal outcome. Fifty-three patients died within 90 days after SI without known sepsis. The adjusted risk of developing sepsis increased with age and was higher in patients with chronic renal disease. Compared with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs, the risk was significantly lower when patients were exposed to bDMARDs at the time of SI (OR: 0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.81). Risk factors of fatal SI were higher age, use of glucocorticoids at higher doses and heart failure. Patients treated with bDMARDs and those with better physical function had a significantly lower mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a beneficial effect of bDMARDs on the risk of sepsis after SI and the risk of a fatal outcome. Successful immunosuppression may prevent an unregulated host response to SI, that is, the escalation to sepsis. Further investigation is needed to validate these results.

Treatment benefit or survival of the fittest: what drives the time-dependent decrease in serious infection rates under TNF inhibition and what does this imply for the individual patient?

OBJECTIVE: To examine the risk of serious infection conveyed by tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα) inhibitors in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Data from patients with RA enrolled in the German biologics register RABBIT were used for analysis. Baseline patient characteristics, time-varying risk factors (treatment changes, functional capacity) and selection processes caused by dropout, death or switching to non-anti-TNF treatment were taken into account to estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR(adj)) of serious infection during treatment with TNF inhibitors compared with non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment. RESULTS: Data were available on 5044 patients, in whom 392 serious infections occurred. The crude rates of serious infections in patients treated with TNF inhibitors declined over the first 3 years of observation (from 4.8 to 2.2/100 patient-years). This decline was driven by (1) treatment termination or loss to follow-up in patients at increased risk and (2) a risk reduction through decreasing glucocorticoid doses and improvement in function. Adjusted for selection processes and time-varying risk factors, the following parameters assessed at baseline (age, chronic diseases) or at follow-up prior to the infection were significantly associated with an increased risk: age >60 years, chronic lung or renal disease, low functional capacity, history of serious infections, treatment with glucocorticoids (7.5-14 mg/day, IRR(adj) 2.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 3.2); ≥ 15 mg/day, IRR(adj) 4.7 (95% CI 2.4 to 9.4)) and treatment with TNFα inhibitors (IRR(adj) 1.8 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.7)). CONCLUSION: Reasons for the decline in infection rates observed at the group level were identified. The results enable expected infection rates to be calculated in individual patients based on their risk profiles.

Comparison of two different dosages of celecoxib with diclofenac for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis: results of a 12-week randomised, double-blind, controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of celecoxib compared with diclofenac in subjects with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: The basis of the present work was a 12-week randomised, double-blind, controlled study in active AS subjects with three treatment arms: celecoxib 200 mg once a day, celecoxib 200 mg twice a day, and diclofenac SR 75 mg twice a day. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in global pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS) at week 12. Secondary endpoints covered changes in disease activity, functional and mobility capacities, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 458 subjects were randomly assigned to either celecoxib 200 mg once a day (n = 153), celecoxib 200 mg twice a day (n = 150), or diclofenac (n = 155). Least square (LS) mean changes from baseline at week 12 on a pain VAS were clinically relevant in all treatment groups (celecoxib 200 mg once a day: -29.1 mm; celecoxib 200 mg twice a day:-31.7 mm; diclofenac:-32.7 mm) and non-inferior when compared to diclofenac. Ankylosing Spondylitis Assessment Study group 20% (ASAS 20) response and mean improvement in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores at week 12 were numerically better on celecoxib 200 mg twice a day (59.7% and-1.32 points) and on diclofenac (60.2% and-1.48 points) than on celecoxib 200 mg once a day (46.0% and-0.99 points). The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was significantly higher on diclofenac (28.4%) than on celecoxib 200 mg once a day (15.0%) or 200 mg twice a day (16.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of celecoxib 200 mg once a day and 200 mg twice a day was comparable to that of diclofenac 75 mg twice a day with respect to pain reduction. Celecoxib 200 mg twice a day and diclofenac reduced some parameters associated with inflammation more effectively than celecoxib 200 mg once a day. Treatment was well tolerated, with celecoxib (either dose) exhibiting less frequent gastrointestinal adverse events than diclofenac.

Reactivities to the Sm autoantigenic complex and the synthetic SmD1-aa83-119 peptide in systemic lupus erythematosus and other autoimmune diseases.

The Sm antigenic complex is, besides dsDNA, the most important and specific autoimmune target in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The population of anti-Sm Ab elicited is very heterogeneous in terms of epitope specificity resulting in a strong assay dependent detectability. Based on the description of a new autoantigenic target, the SmD1-aa83-119 peptide, we analysed 50 healthy persons and 205 patients with different autoimmune and other disorders with regard to their anti-Sm reactivities using different assays. The prevalence of anti-SmD1 peptide Ab and anti-Sm Ab in SLE was 36.0 (40/111) and 9.9% (11/111), respectively. The respective values obtained for non-SLE patients were 2.8 (4/144) and 5.3% (5/94). In SLE, anti-SmD1 peptide Ab are positively correlated to disease activity, nephritis and anti-dsDNA Ab. The association between reactivities of SLE samples in the traditional anti-Sm and the anti-SmD1 peptide ELISA was found to be 63.6%, contrasting markedly with the situation in non-SLE patients (no double-positive sera). SLE samples with an anti-Sm response restricted to the SmD1 peptide are completely negative in immunoblot, supporting the conformational nature of this epitope. Positive immunoblot reactions with the SmD1 polypeptide are not inhabitable by the synthetic SmD1-aa83-119 peptide. Comparing anti-Sm reactivities detected by ELISAs with those in immunoblot, different patterns were observed, reflecting the heterogeneous autoimmune response to this antigen. In conclusion, the anti-SmD1-aa83-119 peptide ELISA substantially completes the panel of methods for autoantibody testing. As none of the assays presently available covers the whole spectrum of epitope specificities of anti-Sm Abs elicited in SLE, it does not replace traditional anti-Sm ELISAs.