Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Etanercept and methotrexate are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but no data exist on concurrent initiation or use of the combination compared with either drug alone. We aimed to assess combination treatment with etanercept and methotrexate versus the monotherapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomised, clinical efficacy, safety, and radiographic study, 686 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated to treatment with etanercept 25 mg (subcutaneously twice a week), oral methotrexate (up to 20 mg every week), or the combination. Clinical response was assessed by criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The primary efficacy endpoint was the numeric index of the ACR response (ACR-N) area under the curve (AUC) over the first 24 weeks. The primary radiographic endpoint was change from baseline to week 52 in total joint damage and was assessed with the modified Sharp score. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Four patients did not receive any drug; thus 682 were studied. ACR-N AUC at 24 weeks was greater for the combination group compared with etanercept alone and methotrexate alone (18.3%-years [95% CI 17.1-19.6] vs 14.7%-years [13.5-16.0], p<0.0001, and 12.2%-years [11.0-13.4], p<0.0001; respectively). The mean difference in ACR-N AUC between combination and methotrexate alone was 6.1 (95% CI 4.5-7.8, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was 2.5 (0.8-4.2, p=0.0034). The combination was more efficacious than methotrexate or etanercept alone in retardation of joint damage (mean total Sharp score -0.54 [95% CI -1.00 to -0.07] vs 2.80 [1.08 to 4.51], p<0.0001, and 0.52 [-0.10 to 1.15], p=0.0006; respectively). The mean difference in total Sharp score between combination and methotrexate alone was -3.34 (95% CI -4.86 to -1.81, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was -27 (-3.81 to -0.74, p=0.0469). The number of patients reporting infections or adverse events was similar in all groups. INTERPRETATION: The combination of etanercept and methotrexate was significantly better in reduction of disease activity, improvement of functional disability, and retardation of radiographic progression compared with methotrexate or etanercept alone. These findings bring us closer to achievement of remission and repair of structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis.

Patient retention and hand-wrist radiograph progression of rheumatoid arthritis during a 3-year prospective study that prohibited disease modifying antirheumatic drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitate patient retention and radiographic progression rates in serial hand/wrist radiographs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were not being treated with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). METHODS: A total of 1433 RA patients with 1-7 years' disease duration entered a 3-year prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing the nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) etodolac (300 or 1000 mg daily) and ibuprofen (2400 mg daily). Standardized hand/wrist radiographs were obtained yearly and at dropout if > 6 months after entry. DMARD were not permitted. Joint erosion, joint space narrowing (JSN), and total scores of 3 readers were averaged. RESULTS: At entry, mean duration of RA was 3.5 years (range 1-7); ages were 21-78 years; patients were 71% female, 84% Caucasian, 67% rheumatoid factor (RF) positive; tender joint count was 29, swollen joint count 22, Westergren erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) 49, and C-reactive protein (CRP) 2.44. There were 824 (57.5%) patients who completed >or= 6 months and had paired radiographs; 46% completed 48 weeks; 31%, 98 weeks; and 19%, 147 weeks. Months between paired radiographs (time in study) averaged 23.1 (range 6-36). Mean progression rates for total, erosion, and JSN scores (5.08, 2.53, and 2.54 units per year, respectively) were significantly associated with time in study, baseline RF, ESR, CRP, swollen joint count, presence of erosions at entry, and with 20% and 50% composite clinical responses. Painful joint count and RA duration were weakly associated only with progression of erosions. Progression rates were not associated with age, sex, corticosteroid use, or prior DMARD use. Patients who completed the 3-year trial had less severe disease activity and radiographic progression than those who dropped out. CONCLUSION: In this 3-year prospective double-blind clinical trial that prohibited DMARD, retention rates (57.5%, 46%, 31%, and 19% at 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 years) were similar to those in the non-DMARD-treated placebo groups of recent published studies. Radiographic progression rates are reported for 824 non-DMARD-treated patients during RA of 1-10 years' duration. This information may be useful as background information in the interpretation of longterm clinical trials that evaluate joint radiographic outcomes.