The early clinical course of infliximab treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the REMARK observational study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe patterns of disease activity during infliximab plus methotrexate (MTX) treatment and explore C-reactive protein (CRP) as a potential marker of early response. METHODS: REMARK was a phase IV, open-label, observational study of infliximab-naïve adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received infliximab 3 mg/kg plus MTX for 14 weeks. Treatment response was evaluated in 3 subgroups: patients with <1 year disease duration who were TNF-inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve, patients with ≥ 1 year disease duration who were TNFi-naïve, and patients who had previous TNFi failure or intolerance. In post hoc analyses, CRP kinetic profiles were analysed by EULAR response (good, moderate, non-response) in REMARK and in an independent replication with data from the ASPIRE study. RESULTS: In the efficacy-evaluable population (n=662), median 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) improved from baseline to Week 14 (5.2 vs. 3.6, p<0.0001). Regardless of disease history subgroup, most patients had good or moderate EULAR responses at Weeks 2 (64.9%), 6 (74.1%), and 14 (73.6%). DAS28 and its components did not differ across patient subgroups. Disease flare occurred in 16.2% of patients. CRP levels declined markedly at Week 2, but patients who were EULAR non-responders at Week 14 showed a CRP rebound at Weeks 6 and 14. This CRP pattern was independently replicated in data from ASPIRE. Adverse events were consistent with the known risk profile of infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab plus MTX treatment in patients with RA rapidly diminished disease activity. A unique pattern of CRP rebound was found in non-responders early in treatment.

Everolimus in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving concomitant methotrexate: a 3-month, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, proof-of-concept study.

OBJECTIVES: Everolimus, a proliferation signal inhibitor with disease-modifying properties, may be useful in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This proof-of-concept study assessed efficacy and safety of everolimus in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with refractory RA. METHODS: A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed in 121 patients with active RA receiving MTX. Patients were randomised to receive everolimus (6 mg/day) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology criteria for a 20% improvement in measures of disease activity (ACR20) at 12 weeks. RESULTS: There was a rapid onset of action and at 12 weeks the ACR20 response rate was significantly higher in the everolimus group (36.1%) than in the placebo group (16.7%; p = 0.022). Improvements from baseline in tender and swollen joint counts, patient's assessment of pain, and patient's and physician's global assessment of disease activity were significantly greater after treatment with everolimus. The most common adverse events (AEs) in the everolimus group were gastrointestinal (52.5% vs 31.7% in the placebo group), skin (29.5% vs 8.3%), and nervous system disorders (21.3% vs 10.0%); AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were reported for 16.4% and 10.0% of patients, respectively. Changes in haematological parameters, liver function tests, and lipid levels occurred more frequently with everolimus compared to placebo, but were mild and reversible. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that everolimus plus MTX provides clinical benefit with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. It may offer a new treatment option in RA patients with inadequate response to MTX.

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind trial, 999 subjects with active RA were randomized to leflunomide (n = 501; loading dose 100 mg/day for 3 days, maintenance dose 20 mg/day) or methotrexate (n = 498; 10-15 mg/week) for 52 weeks. After 1 yr the subjects could choose to stay for a second year of double-blind treatment. The primary end-points were tender and swollen joint counts and overall physician and patient assessments. Analyses were of the intent-to-treat group. RESULTS: After 1 yr, the mean changes in the leflunomide and methotrexate groups, respectively, were -8.3 and -9.7 for tender joint count; -6.8 and -9.0 for swollen joint count; -0.9 and -1.2 for physician global assessment; -0.9 and -1.2 for patient global assessment; -14.4 and -28.2 for erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Improvements seen with methotrexate were significantly greater than those with leflunomide. No further improvement occurred after the second year of treatment and the distinction between the two treatments in terms of tender joint count and patient global assessment was lost. During the first year of treatment, a small and equivalent degree of radiographically assessed disease progression was seen with both drugs. After 2 yr, disease progression was significantly less with methotrexate. The most common treatment-related adverse events in both groups were diarrhoea, nausea, alopecia, rash, headache, and elevated plasma liver enzyme levels. Over 2 yr, 21 subjects receiving methotrexate were withdrawn due to elevated plasma liver enzymes vs eight subjects taking leflunomide. Two drug-related deaths from pulmonary causes were recorded with methotrexate vs no drug-related deaths among the subjects receiving leflunomide. CONCLUSIONS: Both leflunomide and methotrexate are efficacious for prolonged treatment of RA. At the doses used, some clinical benefit of methotrexate over leflunomide was observed in the first year of treatment. This benefit must be weighed against the potential toxicity of this drug when used without folate supplementation.

Conversion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis from the conventional to a microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine: a double blind comparison to screen for differences in safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may be converted, on a milligram-to-milligram basis, from conventional cyclosporin A (CyA, Sandimmun) to the microemulsion formulation (Neoral) with maintenance of longterm safety, and to compare cyclosporin A (CyA) pharmacokinetics between formulations. METHODS: In this double blind, multicenter, parallel group study, 51 patients receiving stable conventional CyA maintenance treatment were randomized to continue conventional CyA (n = 27) or to convert to CyA microemulsion (n = 24) and were monitored for 52 weeks. Trough blood CyA levels were measured before and at intervals after conversion. CyA steady-state area under the curve was assessed one week before and 2 and 6 weeks after randomization in 15 patients in each treatment arm. CyA trough levels and pharmacokinetic results remained unknown to investigators throughout the study. CyA doses were titrated as necessary on the basis of clinical evaluation and disease activity assessments. RESULTS: Initial mean daily doses were 3.5 mg/kg/day (conventional CyA) and 3.3 mg/kg/day (CyA microemulsion) and did not change significantly during the study. The mean bioavailability of CyA from the microemulsion formulation was 23% higher than from conventional CyA. Replicate assessments indicated a more reproducible pharmacokinetic profile with CyA microemulsion. The overall incidence and nature of adverse events and changes in vital signs and laboratory variables were similar in both groups. No clinically relevant differences in efficacy were found between treatments. No loss of efficacy and no tolerability problems occurred after conversion from conventional to microemulsion CyA. CONCLUSION: Existing CyA dosing guidelines, formulated for conventional CyA, are suitable for longterm CyA microemulsion therapy of patients with RA. These results indicate the pharmacokinetic advantages of the microemulsion formulation.

CPH-82 (Reumacon) versus auranofin (Ridaura): a 36-week study of their respective onset of action rates in RA.

The onset of action rate of CPH-82 (Reumacon), was compared with that of auranofin (AUR; Ridaura) in a 36-week randomised, double-blind, multicentre study of 60 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). As compared with respective baseline values, the CPH-82 group manifested significant improvement in grip strength, Ritchie's articular index (RAI), pain ratings, and HAQ (health assessment questionnaire) scores after 8, 12, 24, and 36 weeks of treatment, with the exception of the 24-week HAQ score. The AUR group manifested corresponding improvement in RAI after 8, 12, 24, and 36 weeks. Significant differences in changes from baseline values in favour of the CPH-82 group were found for grip strength at 12 and 24 weeks, RAI score at 8 weeks, VAS score at 8 and 12 weeks, and HAQ score at 8 weeks. The findings suggest CPH-82 to manifest a more rapid onset of action than AUR. The two drugs were similar in tolerance and safety.

Efficacy and safety of meloxicam in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of meloxicam, a new acidic enolic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, at doses of 7.5 and 15 mg once daily in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Meloxicam 15 and 7.5 mg daily was administered for 21 days in this double blind, randomized, placebo controlled study. 159 patients received meloxicam 7.5 mg, 162 received meloxicam 15 mg, and 147 received placebo. RESULTS: Meloxicam 15 mg once daily was significantly superior (p < 0.05) to placebo in 3 of the 4 primary endpoints (disease activity assessed by the investigator, disease activity assessed by the patient, and reduction of the number of tender/painful joints). No difference was observed regarding number of swollen joints. The difference between meloxicam 7.5 mg once daily and placebo reached statistical significance in 2 of the 4 primary endpoints, disease activity assessed by the patient and number of tender/painful joints. A statistically significant difference between meloxicam 1.5 mg and 7.5 mg was not observed for any primary endpoint. The rating of global tolerance by investigators and patients at the end of the study was similar in the 3 treatment groups, indicating that meloxicam and placebo were generally similarly well tolerated. However, there was a slightly higher incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances reported by patients receiving meloxicam 15 mg. GI adverse events were reported by 11, 11, and 16% of patients in the placebo, meloxicam 7.5 mg, and meloxicam 15 mg groups, respectively. None were serious. CONCLUSION: Meloxicam in daily doses of 7.5 and 15 mg is effective in treating the signs and symptoms of RA.

Duration of morning stiffness in rheumatic patients after medication with enteric-coated and plain naproxen tablets.

Twenty-nine adult rheumatic patients who were taking 500 mg naproxen at bedtime and had a certain degree of morning stiffness despite this medication took part in a randomized double-blind cross-over study in which the duration of morning stiffness after evening doses of 500 mg enteric-coated naproxen tablets was compared with that after identical doses of plain naproxen tablets. The duration of morning stiffness was significantly shorter after taking enteric-coated tablets (p less than 0.01), and the mean plasma naproxen morning concentration was 34% higher (p = 0.01). Since the results were unambiguous in such a small group of patients, they are judged to be of considerable clinical value.