Bonnie Vlahos

Maintenance, reduction, or withdrawal of etanercept after treatment with etanercept and methotrexate in patients with moderate rheumatoid arthritis (PRESERVE): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Clinical remission and low disease activity are essential treatment targets in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Although moderately active rheumatoid arthritis is common, treatment effects in moderate disease have not been well studied. Additionally, optimum use of biologics needs further investigation, including the use of induction, maintenance, and withdrawal treatment strategies. The aim of the PRESERVE trial was to assess whether low disease activity would be sustained with reduced doses or withdrawal of etanercept in patients with moderately active disease. METHODS In a randomised controlled trial, patients aged between 18 and 70 years with moderately active rheumatoid arthritis (disease activity score in 28 joints [DAS28] >3.2 and ≤5.1) despite treatment with methotrexate were enrolled at 80 centres in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Australia between March 6, 2008, and Sept 9, 2009. To be eligible, patients had to have been receiving 15-25 mg of methotrexate every week for at least 8 weeks. In an open-label period of 36 weeks, all patients were given 50 mg etanercept plus methotrexate every week. To be eligible for a subsequent double-blind period of 52 weeks, participants had to have achieved sustained low disease activity. These patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by an interactive voice-response system to one of three treatment groups: 50 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, 25 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, or placebo plus methotrexate. Patients were stratified in blocks of three by DAS28 response (low disease activity or remission) at week 36. Patients, investigators, data analysts, and study staff were all masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with low disease activity at week 88 in the groups given 50 mg etanercept or placebo in the double-blind period. A conditional primary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving 25 mg etanercept who achieved low disease activity. Modified intention-to-treat populations were used for analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00565409. FINDINGS 604 (72.4%) of 834 enrolled patients were eligible for the double-blind period, of whom 202 were assigned to 50 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, 202 to 25 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, and 200 to placebo plus methotrexate. At week 88, 166 (82.6%) of 201 patients who had received at least one dose of 50 mg etanercept and one or more DAS28 evaluations had low disease activity, compared with 84 (42.6%) of 197 who had received placebo (mean difference 40.8%, 95% CI 32.5-49.1%; p<0.0001). Additionally, 159 (79.1%) of 201 patients given 25 mg etanercept had low disease activity at week 88 (mean difference from placebo 35.9%, 27.0-44.8%; p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION Conventional or reduced doses of etanercept with methotrexate in patients with moderately active rheumatoid arthritis more effectively maintain low disease activity than does methotrexate alone after withdrawal of etanercept. FUNDING Pfizer.

Clinical efficacy and safety of etanercept versus sulfasalazine in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized, double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE Etanercept, a fully human tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor, is an effective treatment in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Sulfasalazine is frequently used for the treatment of both axial symptoms and peripheral symptoms of AS, and it has been the recommended therapy before the use of an anti-TNF agent when peripheral arthritis is present. Until now, no clinical trial has compared the efficacy and safety of a TNF blocker with that of sulfasalazine. This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety of etanercept with that of sulfasalazine after 16 weeks of treatment in patients with axial and peripheral manifestations of AS. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind study, patients received etanercept 50 mg once weekly (n=379) or sulfasalazine titrated to a maximum of 3 gm/day (n=187) for 16 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients who achieved the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for 20% improvement (ASAS20) at 16 weeks. Last observation carried forward was predefined for imputation of missing values. RESULTS The mean age of the patients was 41 years, 74% were male, and the mean disease duration was 7.6 years. The proportion of ASAS20 responders at week 16 was greater among patients treated with etanercept compared with those treated with sulfasalazine (75.9% versus 52.9%; P<0.0001). As early as week 2 of treatment, etanercept was found to be more effective than sulfasalazine (P<0.0001) in ameliorating both the axial symptoms and peripheral manifestations. Serious adverse events rarely occurred, and the rate of serious adverse events did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION In this population of patients with AS, etanercept was significantly more effective than sulfasalazine in improving the signs and symptoms of AS in the axial skeleton and peripheral joints.

Sustained Remission with Etanercept Tapering in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND We assessed the effects of reduction and withdrawal of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had a remission while receiving etanercept-plus-methotrexate therapy. METHODS Patients with early active disease who had not previously received methotrexate or biologic therapy received 50 mg of etanercept plus methotrexate weekly for 52 weeks (open-label phase). We then randomly assigned patients who had qualifying responses at weeks 39 and 52 to receive 25 mg of etanercept plus methotrexate (combination-therapy group), methotrexate alone, or placebo for 39 weeks (double-blind phase). Patients who had qualifying responses at week 39 of the double-blind phase had all treatment withdrawn at that time and were followed to week 65 (treatment-withdrawal phase). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with sustained remission in the double-blind phase. RESULTS Of 306 patients enrolled, 193 underwent randomization in the double-blind phase; 131 qualified for the treatment-withdrawal phase. More patients in the combination-therapy group than in the methotrexate-alone group or the placebo group met the criterion for the primary end point (40 of 63 [63%] vs. 26 of 65 [40%] and 15 of 65 [23%], respectively; P=0.009 for combination therapy vs. methotrexate alone; P<0.001 for combination therapy vs. placebo). At 65 weeks, 28 patients (44%) who had received combination therapy, 19 (29%) who had received methotrexate alone, and 15 (23%) who had received placebo were in remission (P=0.10 for combination therapy vs. methotrexate alone; P=0.02 for combination therapy vs. placebo; P=0.55 for methotrexate alone vs. placebo). No significant between-group differences were observed in radiographic progression of disease. Serious adverse events were reported in 3 patients (5%) in the combination-therapy group, 2 (3%) in the methotrexate-alone group, and 2 (3%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS In patients with early rheumatoid arthritis who had a remission while receiving full-dose etanercept-plus-methotrexate therapy, continuing combination therapy at a reduced dose resulted in better disease control than switching to methotrexate alone or placebo, but no significant difference was observed in radiographic progression. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00913458.).

Symptomatic Efficacy of Etanercept and Its Effects on Objective Signs of Inflammation in Early Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Trial

To assess the efficacy of etanercept in the treatment of early active nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID)–refractory nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).

Efficacy and safety of open-label etanercept on extended oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, enthesitis-related arthritis and psoriatic arthritis: part 1 (week 12) of the CLIPPER study

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of etanercept (ETN) in paediatric subjects with extended oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (eoJIA), enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods CLIPPER is an ongoing, Phase 3b, open-label, multicentre study; the 12-week (Part 1) data are reported here. Subjects with eoJIA (2–17 years), ERA (12–17 years), or PsA (12–17 years) received ETN 0.8 mg/kg once weekly (maximum 50 mg). Primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects achieving JIA American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 30 criteria at week 12; secondary outcomes included JIA ACR 50/70/90 and inactive disease. Results 122/127 (96.1%) subjects completed the study (mean age 11.7 years). JIA ACR 30 (95% CI) was achieved by 88.6% (81.6% to 93.6%) of subjects overall; 89.7% (78.8% to 96.1%) with eoJIA, 83.3% (67.2% to 93.6%) with ERA and 93.1% (77.2% to 99.2%) with PsA. For eoJIA, ERA, or PsA categories, the ORs of ETN vs the historical placebo data were 26.2, 15.1 and 40.7, respectively. Overall JIA ACR 50, 70, 90 and inactive disease were achieved by 81.1, 61.5, 29.8 and 12.1%, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), infections, and serious AEs, were reported in 45 (35.4%), 58 (45.7%), and 4 (3.1%), subjects, respectively. Serious AEs were one case each of abdominal pain, bronchopneumonia, gastroenteritis and pyelocystitis. One subject reported herpes zoster and another varicella. No differences in safety were observed across the JIA categories. Conclusions ETN treatment for 12 weeks was effective and well tolerated in paediatric subjects with eoJIA, ERA and PsA, with no unexpected safety findings.

Analysis of uveitis rates across all etanercept ankylosing spondylitis clinical trials

Objective: To assess uveitis (including iritis and iridocyclitis) incidence from clinical trials of etanercept in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods: Clinical trials of etanercept in AS (four placebo-controlled; one active-controlled; three open-label) were examined for reports of uveitis. Between-group differences with confidence intervals (CIs) in the uveitis rates were calculated for the double-blind, active-controlled and long-term studies. Results: In placebo-controlled trials, the uveitis rate per 100 subject years (95% CI) for etanercept (8.6 (4.5 to 14.2)) was lower than that for placebo (19.3 (11.0 to 29.8), p = 0.03). In the active comparator trial, rates for etanercept and sulfasalazine were similar (10.7 (5.5 to 17.6) and 14.7 (6.4 to 26.5), respectively; p = 0.49). The long-term rate for etanercept, estimated from both placebo-controlled and open-label extension studies was 12.0 (10.0 to 14.1). Conclusions: In subjects with AS, rates of uveitis events with etanercept were lower than with placebo in placebo-controlled trials and similar to sulfasalazine in an active comparator trial.

Clinical and MRI responses to etanercept in early non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: 48-week results from the EMBARK study

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of etanercept (ETN) after 48 weeks in patients with early active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). Methods Patients meeting Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA, but not modified New York radiographic criteria, received double-blind ETN 50 mg/week or placebo (PBO) for 12 weeks, then open-label ETN (ETN/ETN or PBO/ETN). Clinical, health, productivity, MRI and safety outcomes were assessed and the 48-week data are presented here. Results 208/225 patients (92%) entered the open-label phase at week 12 (ETN, n=102; PBO, n=106). The percentage of patients achieving ASAS40 increased from 33% to 52% between weeks 12 and 48 for ETN/ETN and from 15% to 53% for PBO/ETN (within-group p value <0.001 for both). For ETN/ETN and PBO/ETN, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions utility score improved by 0.14 and 0.08, respectively, between baseline and week 12 and by 0.23 and 0.22 between baseline and week 48. Between weeks 12 and 48, MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada sacroiliac joint (SIJ) scores decreased by −1.1 for ETN/ETN and by −3.0 for PBO/ETN, p<0.001 for both. Decreases in MRI SIJ inflammation and C-reactive protein correlated with several clinical outcomes at weeks 12 and 48. Conclusions Patients with early active nr-axSpA demonstrated improvement from week 12 in clinical, health, productivity and MRI outcomes that was sustained to 48 weeks. Trial registration number NCT01258738.

Improved health outcomes with Etanercept versus usual DMARD therapy in an Asian population with established rheumatoid arthritis

BackgroundPatient reported outcomes (PROs) are especially useful in assessing treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) since they measure dimensions of health-related quality of life that cannot be captured using strictly objective physiological measures. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of combination etanercept and methotrexate (ETN + MTX) versus combination synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and methotrexate (DMARD + MTX) on PRO measures among RA patients from the Asia-Pacific region, a population not widely studied to date. Patients with established moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to methotrexate were studied.MethodsPatients were randomized to either ETN + MTX (N = 197) or DMARD + MTX (N = 103) in an open-label, active-comparator, multicenter study, with PRO measures designed as prospective secondary endpoints. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (FACIT-Fatigue), Medical Outcomes Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: General Health (WPAI:GH) were used.ResultsSignificantly greater improvements were noted for the ETN + MTX group at week16 for HAQ mean scores and for proportion of patients achieving HAQ score ≤ 0.5, compared to patients in the DMARD + MTX group. SF-36 Summary Scores for physical and mental components and for 6 of 8 health domains showed significantly greater improvements at week16 for the ETN + MTX group; only scores for physical functioning and role-emotional domains did not differ significantly between the two treatment arms. Greater improvements at week16 were noted for the ETN + MTX group for FACIT-Fatigue, HADS, and WPAI:GH mean scores.ConclusionCombination therapy using ETN + MTX demonstrated superior improvements using a comprehensive set of PRO measures, compared to combination therapy with usual standard of care DMARDs plus MTX in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis from the Asia-Pacific region.Trial registrationclintrials.gov # NCT00422227

Randomized comparison of etanercept with usual therapy in an Asian population with active rheumatoid arthritis: the APPEAL trial.

Aim:  Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an important rheumatologic disease in Asia‐Pacific countries, as in other parts of the world. However, limited information is available regarding RA therapy in this region. The Asia‐Pacific Study in Patients to be Treated With Etanercept or an Alternative Listed DMARD (APPEAL) compared efficacy and safety of etanercept (ETN) + methotrexate (MTX) versus usual disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) + MTX (reflecting regional practice) in subjects with moderate to severe RA from multiple Asia‐Pacific countries.

Clinical Efficacy of Etanercept Versus Sulfasalazine in Ankylosing Spondylitis Subjects with Peripheral Joint Involvement

Objective. Etanercept, a fully human tumor necrosis factor soluble receptor, is effective in treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Current guidelines suggest sulfasalazine (SSZ) treatment as initial therapy for the management of patients with AS with peripheral arthritis versus therapy with biologics. We compared the efficacy of etanercept with SSZ in patients with AS with peripheral joint involvement. Methods. The efficacy of etanercept 50 mg once weekly was compared with that of SSZ up to 3 g daily in subjects with ≥ 1 swollen peripheral joint at baseline, using data from a 16-week randomized double-blind study in subjects with AS. Efficacy was assessed by the Assessment in AS criteria and the Bath AS Disease Activity, Functional, and Metrology indices. The last observation carried forward method was used for imputation of missing values. Results. Of 566 subjects included in original study, 181 (etanercept 121; SSZ 60) had ≥ 1 swollen peripheral joint and 364 (etanercept 250; SSZ 124) had none at baseline. AS patients treated with etanercept showed significantly greater improvement than those treated with SSZ in all joint assessments regardless of swollen joint involvement. Conclusion. In this analysis, etanercept was significantly more effective than SSZ for management of patients with AS and peripheral joint involvement.