R. Pedersen

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.

Comparison of methotrexate monotherapy with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active, early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (COMET): a randomised, double-blind, parallel treatment trial

BACKGROUND Remission and radiographic non-progression are goals in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis. The aim of the combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active early rheumatoid arthritis (COMET) trial is to compare remission and radiographic non-progression in patients treated with methotrexate monotherapy or with methotrexate plus etanercept. METHODS 542 outpatients who were methotrexate-naive and had had early moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis for 3-24 months were randomly assigned to receive either methotrexate alone titrated up from 7.5 mg a week to a maximum of 20 mg a week by week 8 or methotrexate (same titration) plus etanercept 50 mg a week. Coprimary endpoints at 52 weeks were remission measured with the disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) and radiographic non-progression measured with modified total Sharp score. Treatment was allocated with a computerised randomisation and enrolment system, which masked both participants and carers. Analysis was done by modified intention to treat with last observation carried forward for missing data. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00195494). FINDINGS 274 participants were randomly assigned to receive combined treatment and 268 methotrexate alone. 132 of 265 (50%, 95% CI 44-56%) patients who took combined treatment and were available for assessment achieved clinical remission compared with 73 of 263 (28%, 23-33%) taking methotrexate alone (effect difference 22.05%, 95%CI 13.96-30.15%, p<0.0001). 487 evaluable patients had severe disease (DAS28>5.1). 196 of 246 (80%, 75-85%) and 135 of 230 (59%, 53-65%), respectively, achieved radiographic non-progression (20.98%, 12.97-29.09%, p<0.0001). Serious adverse events were similar between groups. INTERPRETATION Both clinical remission and radiographic non-progression are achievable goals in patients with early severe rheumatoid arthritis within 1 year of combined treatment with etanercept plus methotrexate. FUNDING Wyeth Research.

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.

Comparison of two etanercept regimens for treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: PRESTA randomised double blind multicentre trial

Objectives To compare the efficacy over 12 weeks of two different etanercept regimens in treating the skin manifestations of psoriasis in patients who also have psoriatic arthritis and to evaluate efficacy and safety over an additional 12 weeks of open label etanercept treatment. Design Randomised double blind multicentre outpatient study. Setting 98 outpatient facilities in Europe, Latin America, and the Asia Pacific region. Participants 752 patients with both psoriasis (evaluated by dermatologists) and psoriatic arthritis (evaluated by rheumatologists). Interventions During the blinded portion of the study, participants were randomised to receive etanercept 50 mg twice weekly (n=379) or 50 mg once weekly (n=373) for 12 weeks by subcutaneous injection. All participants then received open label etanercept 50 mg once weekly for 12 additional weeks, while remaining blinded to the regimen. Main outcome measures The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of participants achieving “clear” or “almost clear” on the physician’s global assessment of psoriasis at week 12. Secondary efficacy analyses included psoriasis area and severity index, American College of Rheumatology responses, psoriatic arthritis response criteria, and improvement in joint and tendon disease manifestations. Results At week 12, 46% (176/379) of participants receiving etanercept 50 mg twice weekly achieved a physician’s global assessment of psoriasis of “clear” or “almost clear” compared with 32% (119/373) in the group treated with 50 mg once weekly (P<0.001). In contrast, an equally high percentage of participants in both groups achieved psoriatic arthritis response criteria (77% (284/371) in the twice weekly/once weekly group versus 76% (282/371) in the once weekly/once weekly group). Participants treated with 50 mg twice weekly/once weekly had greater mean reductions from baseline in the psoriasis area and severity index at week 12 compared with those who received 50 mg once weekly/once weekly (71% v 62%, P<0.001), with less difference at week 24 (78% v 74%, P<0.110). Joint and tendon disease manifestations improved from baseline in both groups to a similar extent. No new safety signals were seen in either etanercept treatment group, and no significant difference in the safety profiles was observed. Conclusions In participants with active psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, initial treatment of the psoriasis with etanercept 50 mg twice weekly may allow for more rapid clearance of skin lesions than with 50 mg once weekly. A regimen of 50 mg once weekly seems to be appropriate for treatment of joint and tendon rheumatic symptoms. The choice of regimen should be determined by the clinical needs of the individual patient. Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00245960.

Comparison of different definitions to classify remission and sustained remission: 1 year TEMPO results

Objective: To assess methods to calculate achieving and sustaining remission in a double blind randomised trial in patients with RA who received etanercept, methotrexate, or an etanercept/methotrexate combination. Methods: Remission was defined as DAS <1.6, DAS28 <2.6, and ACR70 response. Sustaining remission was analysed in three ways: (a) analysis of sustained DAS remission, DAS28 remission, or ACR70 response continuously for 6 months; (b) analysis of sustained remission appraised through a continuity rewarded scoring system, which is the weighted sum of all intervals in the study in which patients are in DAS or DAS28 remission; or (c) longitudinal modelling of remission odds using generalised estimating equations. Results: Significantly more patients treated with the etanercept/methotrexate combination reached DAS remission (37%) than those treated with either methotrexate (14%) or etanercept (18%) alone (p<0.01). Results for DAS28 and for the ACR70 response were similar. Agreement between DAS remission and DAS28 remission was good, but agreement between either of these and the ACR70 response was less. Patients in DAS or DAS28 remission had a lower level of disease activity (fewer active joints, lower ESR) than those achieving ACR70 response; the converse was seen using pain VAS. The three methods were comparable for sustainability of remission and showed significant advantage for combination therapy, which increased the number and durability of remission periods. Conclusions: DAS and DAS28 remission results were similar for assessing achieving and sustaining remission in RA, frequently differing from patients classified as ACR70 responders. The three methods of examining duration of remission produced comparable results.

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.).

Two-year clinical and radiographic results with combination etanercept–methotrexate therapy versus monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: A two-year, double-blind, randomized study†

OBJECTIVE To evaluate how continuation of and alterations to initial year 1 combination etanercept-methotrexate (MTX) therapy and MTX monotherapy regimens affect long-term remission and radiographic progression in early, active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS Subjects were randomized at baseline for the entire 2-year period; those who completed 1 year of treatment with combination or MTX monotherapy entered year 2. The original combination group either continued combination therapy (the EM/EM group; n = 111) or received etanercept monotherapy (the EM/E group; n = 111) in year 2; the original MTX monotherapy group either received combination therapy (the M/EM group; n = 90) or continued monotherapy (the M/M group; n = 99) in year 2. Efficacy end points included remission (a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28] <2.6) and radiographic nonprogression (change in the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score < or = 0.5) at year 2. A last observation carried forward analysis from the modified intention-to-treat population (n = 398) and a post hoc nonresponder imputation (NRI) analysis (n = 528) were performed for remission. RESULTS At year 2, DAS28 remission was achieved by 62/108, 54/108, 51/88, and 33/94 subjects in the EM/EM, EM/E, M/EM, and M/M groups, respectively (P < 0.01 for the EM/EM and M/EM groups versus the M/M group). This effect was corroborated by a more conservative post hoc 2-year NRI analysis, with remission observed in 59/131, 50/134, 48/133, and 29/130 of the same respective groups (P < 0.05 for each of the EM/EM, EM/E, and M/EM groups versus the M/M group). The proportions of subjects achieving radiographic nonprogression (n = 360) were 89/99, 74/99, 59/79, and 56/83 in the EM/EM (P < 0.01 versus each of the other groups), EM/E, M/EM, and M/M groups, respectively. No new safety signals or between-group differences in serious adverse events were seen. CONCLUSION Early sustained combination etanercept-MTX therapy was consistently superior to MTX monotherapy. Combination therapy resulted in important clinical and radiographic benefits over 2 study years, without significant additional safety risk.

Patient-reported outcomes in a trial of combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis: the TEMPO trial

Objective: To compare patient reported measures of function, health related quality of life (QoL), and satisfaction with medication among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with methotrexate (MTX), etanercept, or both for up to 1 year. Methods: In a 52 week, double blind, clinical trial, patients with active RA were randomised to receive etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, methotrexate up to 20 mg weekly, or combination therapy. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index, EuroQoL health status visual analogue scale (EQ-5D VAS), patient global assessment, and patient general health VAS were administered at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 32, 40, 48, and 52. Satisfaction with the medication was compared at 52 weeks. Results: Of 682 enrolled patients, 522 completed 52 weeks of treatment. Mean improvement from baseline in HAQ score was 0.65, 0.70, and 1.0 for MTX, etanercept, and the combination, respectively. The mean percentage and absolute improvement in the HAQ was significantly higher (p<0.01) for combination therapy than for either of the monotherapies. Combination therapy produced significantly more rapid achievement of HAQ ⩽0.5 sustained for 6 months than either of the monotherapies (p<0.01). Compared with patients receiving monotherapy, those receiving combination therapy achieved a significantly better (p<0.05) health state as measured by the EQ-5D VAS (mean (SD) 63.7 (3.2), 66.8 (3.2), 72.7 (3.1) for MTX, etanercept, and the combination, respectively). Results were similar for other assessments (p<0.01). Patients in combination and etanercept groups were significantly more likely (p<0.0001, p = 0.0009, respectively) to report satisfaction with the medication. Conclusions: Combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate improved function, QoL, and satisfaction with the medication significantly more than monotherapy.

Patient-reported outcomes improve with etanercept plus methotrexate in active early rheumatoid arthritis and the improvement is strongly associated with remission: the COMET trial

Objectives: To compare the effects of etanercept (ETN) 50 mg once weekly plus methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX alone on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the relationship between remission and PRO improvement. Methods: In this double-blind, randomised clinical trial (COMET), PROs included: the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), EuroQoL health status, fatigue and pain visual analogue scales, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Medical Outcomes Short-Form-36. Mean changes from baseline were analysed by analysis of covariance using the last observation carried forward method. Results from week 52 are presented. Results: Most PROs demonstrated significantly greater improvements with ETN+MTX than MTX alone, including physical functioning, pain, fatigue and overall health status. A significantly greater improvement in HAQ score was observed in the ETN+MTX than the MTX group (−1.02 vs −0.72; p<0.001) and a greater proportion reached the minimal clinically important difference of 0.22 (88% vs 78%; p<0.006). The relationship between PRO score and clinical status indicated that improvement was greatest among patients achieving remission. Conclusions: Early treatment with ETN+MTX leads to significantly greater improvements in multiple dimensions of PROs than MTX alone. The close relationship between disease activity and PRO improvement suggests that early treatment, with remission as a goal, should maximise the chance of restoring normal functioning and HRQoL.

Improvements in patient-reported outcomes in moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients receiving continuous or paused etanercept treatment over 54 weeks: the CRYSTEL study.

Objective  To assess patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis receiving continuous or paused etanercept treatment.