Clinical improvement as reflected in measures of function and health-related quality of life following treatment with leflunomide compared with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: sensitivity and relative efficiency to detect a treatment effect in a twelve-month, placebo-controlled trial. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group.

OBJECTIVE: To examine correlations between clinical improvement as defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responder analysis and clinical improvement as determined by 4 function and/or health-related quality of life measures, and to estimate the sensitivity and relative efficiency of these measures compared with changes in the tender joint count in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A 52-week, multicenter, double-blind controlled trial was conducted to compare treatment with leflunomide (n = 182), methotrexate (n = 180), or placebo (n = 118) in patients with active RA. ACR response rates and improvement in scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Problem Elicitation Technique (PET), and Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form 36 (SF-36) were compared in 438 of the patients. RESULTS: In comparing leflunomide with placebo, the patient global assessment, HAQ disability index, and SF-36 bodily pain scale were most responsive to treatment group differences. The modified HAQ (M-HAQ), PET Top 5, SF-36 physical component score, physician global assessment, pain intensity scale, and SF-36 physical functioning scale were more responsive to treatment group differences than was the tender joint count. In comparing methotrexate with placebo, the patient and physician global assessments were most responsive. These 2 measures, as well as the pain intensity scale and the C-reactive protein level, were more responsive to treatment group differences than was the tender joint count, while the SF-36 mental health component score was least responsive. A close correlation between changes in the M-HAQ and HAQ scores indicated that the M-HAQ was similarly responsive to change over time. Improvements in the PET, SF-36 physical component score, bodily pain, and physical functioning scales correlated with the ACR responder status. CONCLUSION: Both disease-specific and generic measures of function and health-related quality of life detect improvements in RA patients. Using both types of measures for evaluating therapies will identify discernible changes that are important to patients, and will facilitate comparisons across different disease states.

Function and health-related quality of life: results from a randomized controlled trial of leflunomide versus methotrexate or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of leflunomide or methotrexate compared with placebo in improving function and health-related quality of life in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to examine correlations between response status (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology [ACR] response criteria) and improvement in these measures. METHODS: This 52-week, multicenter, doubleblind, controlled trial compared responses to the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ), Problem Elicitation Technique (PET), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36), and questions regarding work productivity among 3 treatment groups (leflunomide, methotrexate, and placebo). Improvement in the PET top 5 and SF-36 scales and component scores were compared with ACR response rates. RESULTS: Clinically meaningful and statistically significant (P<0.0001) improvement in measures of function and heath-related quality of life (MHAQ scores, all scales and disability index of the HAQ, weighted top 5 score of the PET, 5 of 8 scales and physical component score of the SF-36, and work productivity) was seen during treatment with leflunomide in comparison with placebo. Methotrexate administration resulted in significant improvements (P<0.05) in comparison with placebo in the MHAQ scores, HAQ disability index, weighted top 5 score of the PET, physical component score of the SF-36, and bodily pain scale. Compared with methotrexate, leflunomide administration resulted in significantly (P<0.01) more improvement in the MHAQ scores, 5 of 8 scales and disability index of the HAQ, weighted top 5 score of the PET, and 2 of 8 scales and physical component score of the SF-36. Improvements in the PET score, SF-36 physical component score, and work productivity correlated with the ACR responder rates of > or =20% and > or =50% improvement. CONCLUSION: Significant improvements in function and health-related quality of life occurred in patients with RA during treatment with leflunomide or methotrexate. These findings were clinically meaningful and correlated with the ACR response status.

Selective removal of plasma low density lipoprotein with the HELP system: biweekly versus weekly therapy.

PURPOSE: Biweekly (once every 2 weeks) heparin-induced extracorporeal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) precipitation (HELP) therapy was evaluated for safety and efficacy in selectively reducing LDL cholesterol levels compared with weekly HELP therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Biweekly treatments were given to high-risk, diet/drug resistant hypercholesterolemic patients (n = 23) after 6 months of weekly HELP therapy. Lipids, lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoproteins A-I and B, and fibrinogen were measured on plasma samples before and after treatment. RESULTS: Mean plasma volume treated was 2.8 l and mean treatment duration 1.7 h. Therapy complications were minimal. In 98% of 268 biweekly HELP treatments, LDL cholesterol levels were reduced by > 30%. For patients completing 6 months of biweekly therapy following 6 months' weekly therapy (n = 23), mean LDL cholesterol levels were reduced 138.5 mg/dl (111.2 mg/dl weekly) with a time-averaged decrease from mean pre-apheresis levels of 33% for biweekly therapy (39% weekly). Mean total cholesterol (161.2 mg/dl biweekly versus 132.9 weekly) and apolipoprotein B (104.6 mg/dl versus 92.6) levels were also reduced with each treatment. Mean HDL cholesterol was reduced only 6.1 mg/dl (6.3 mg/dl weekly). CONCLUSIONS: Biweekly HELP treatments can safely reduce LDL cholesterol levels as consistently as weekly HELP treatments. However, the higher pre-treatment LDL cholesterol levels with biweekly treatments may produce less therapeutic benefit than with weekly therapy.

Weekly treatment of diet/drug-resistant hypercholesterolemia with the heparin-induced extracorporeal low-density lipoprotein precipitation (HELP) system by selective plasma low-density lipoprotein removal.

Heparin-induced extracorporeal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) precipitation (HELP) weekly therapy was evaluated for safety and efficacy in selectively reducing LDL cholesterol levels. Weekly treatments (25) were given to high-risk hypercholesterolemic patients (n = 33) with screening LDL cholesterol levels > 160 mg/dl despite prior diet and drug therapy. Lipids, lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoproteins A-l and B, and fibrinogen were measured on plasma samples before and after treatment. Mean plasma volume treated was 2.66 liters and mean treatment duration 1.7 hours. Therapy complications were infrequent and were primarily vascular access problems or hypotension. Treatment goals were > 30% LDL cholesterol reduction with each treatment. In 98% of 686 HELP treatments, LDL cholesterol levels were reduced > or = 30%. Mean LDL cholesterol levels were reduced 111.0 mg/dl (54%) with a time-averaged decrease of 39% over a 25-week course. Mean HDL cholesterol was reduced only 6.2 mg/dl (15%). Total cholesterol (134.4 mg/dl; 47% decrease) and apolipoprotein B (88.7 mg/dl; 53% decrease) levels were also reduced. Fibrinogen decreased 158.2 mg/dl (58%) without bleeding complications. HELP therapy can safely and selectively remove plasma LDL cholesterol, producing consistent reductions in LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol and apolipoprotein B levels.

Interim report on clinic intake and safety data collected from 17 NIDA-funded naltrexone studies.

In 17 studies of naltrexone, a totoal of 1,536 patients had been logged in as potential study subjects as of February 29, 1976. Of these, 883 had been started on study medication, including 107 on placebo as controls. A relatively high rate of attrition was seen in all studies over the first two months of study medication; this attrition rate tended to flatten out at about the fourth month. Of the 883 subjects beginning study medication, 47 (5.3%) were subsequently terminated for medical reasons. The data available on 45 of these subjects indicate equivalent percentages, both with respect to the total number of dropouts in the two study medication groups (naltrexone: 39 of 676, or 5.0%; placebo: 6 of 107, or 5.6%) and to the number of dropouts which the clinic reported as "possibly drug-related" (naltrexone: 6 out of 676, or 0.9%; placebo: 1 of 107, or 0.9%). However, one of the "possibly drug-related" dropouts developed idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura after the administration of naltrexone for approximately 13 months during four separate treatment admissions. Statistical review of the data and subsequent analyses of the five double-blind, placebo-controlled studies administered by the National Academy of Sciences revealed no significant medication-group differences with respect to the physical/psychiatric or laboratory data. A review of the symptom data and analyses indicates that the frequency of occurrences of certain of the gastrointestinal tract symptoms recorded was somewhat higher in those subjects treated with naltrexone. Specific symptoms involved included "Loss of Appetite", "Abdominal Pain or Cramps", "Nausea or Vomiting", and "Constipation". However, the relative severity of these symptoms for all subjects experiencing any symptomatology was not statistically differentiable with respect to study medication group.