Dataset Information

A randomized comparative effectiveness study of oral triple therapy versus etanercept plus methotrexate in early aggressive rheumatoid arthritis: the treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial.

ABSTRACT: To assess whether it is better to intensively treat all patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using combinations of drugs or to reserve this approach for patients who do not have an appropriate response (as determined by a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] of ? 3.2 at week 24) to methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, and to assess whether combination therapy with MTX plus etanercept is superior to the combination of MTX plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine.The Treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis (TEAR) study is a 2-year, randomized, double-blind trial. A 2 × 2 factorial design was used to randomly assign subjects to 1 of 4 treatment arms: immediate treatment with MTX plus etanercept, immediate oral triple therapy (MTX plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine), or step-up from MTX monotherapy to one of the combination therapies (MTX plus etanercept or MTX plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) at week 24 if the DAS28-ESR was ? 3.2. All treatment arms included matching placebos. The primary outcome was an observed-group analysis of DAS28-ESR values from week 48 to week 102.At week 24 (beginning of the step-up period), subjects in the 2 immediate-treatment groups demonstrated a greater reduction in the DAS28-ESR compared with those in the 2 step-up groups (3.6 versus 4.2; P < 0.0001); no differences between the combination-therapy regimens were observed. Between week 48 and week 102, subjects randomized to the step-up arms had a DAS28-ESR clinical response that was not different from that of subjects who initially received combination therapy, regardless of the treatment arm. There was no significant difference in the DAS28-ESR between subjects randomized to oral triple therapy and those randomized to receive MTX plus etanercept. By week 102, there was a statistically significant difference in the change in radiographic measurements from baseline between the group receiving MTX plus etanercept and the group receiving oral triple therapy (0.64 versus 1.69; P = 0.047).There were no differences in the mean DAS28-ESR during weeks 48-102 between subjects randomized to receive MTX plus etanercept and those randomized to triple therapy, regardless of whether they received immediate combination treatment or step-up from MTX monotherapy. At 102 weeks, immediate combination treatment with either strategy was more effective than MTX monotherapy prior to the initiation of step-up therapy. Initial use of MTX monotherapy with the addition of sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine (or etanercept, if necessary, after 6 months) is a reasonable therapeutic strategy for patients with early RA. Treatment with the combination of MTX plus etanercept resulted in a statistically significant radiographic benefit compared with oral triple therapy.

SUBMITTER: Moreland LW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4036119 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized comparative effectiveness study of oral triple therapy versus etanercept plus methotrexate in early aggressive rheumatoid arthritis: the treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial.

Moreland Larry W LW O'Dell James R JR Paulus Harold E HE Curtis Jeffrey R JR Bathon Joan M JM St Clair E William EW Bridges S Louis SL Zhang Jie J McVie Theresa T Howard George G van der Heijde Désirée D Cofield Stacey S SS

Arthritis and rheumatism 20120901 9

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess whether it is better to intensively treat all patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using combinations of drugs or to reserve this approach for patients who do not have an appropriate response (as determined by a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] of ≥ 3.2 at week 24) to methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, and to assess whether combination therapy with MTX plus etanercept is superior to the combination of MTX p ...[more]

PMID: 22508468

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivePatients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom remission is achieved following combination therapy with methotrexate plus etanercept face an ongoing medication burden. This study was undertaken to investigate whether sustained remission achieved on combination therapy can be maintained with either methotrexate or etanercept monotherapy, as assessed following discontinuation of one or the other medication from the combination.MethodsOf the 371 adult patients with RA who received combination therapy with methotrexate plus etanercept, remission (defined as a Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI] score of ≤3.3) was sustained in 253 patients through a 24-week open-label period. These 253 patients then entered a 48-week, double-blind period and were randomized to receive either 1) methotrexate monotherapy (n = 101), 2) etanercept monotherapy (n = 101), or 3) methotrexate plus etanercept combination therapy (n = 51). Patients who subsequently experienced disease-worsening received rescue therapy with the combination regimen at the same dosages as used in the initial run-in period. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in whom SDAI-defined remission was maintained without disease-worsening at week 48 in the etanercept monotherapy group as compared to the methotrexate monotherapy group. Secondary end points included time to disease-worsening, and the proportion of patients in whom SDAI-defined remission was recaptured after initiation of rescue therapy.ResultsBaseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the RA patients were similar across the treatment groups. At week 48, SDAI-defined remission was maintained in significantly more patients in the etanercept monotherapy group than in the methotrexate monotherapy group (49.5% versus 28.7%; P = 0.004). Moreover, as a secondary end point, sustained SDAI-defined remission was achieved in significantly more patients who received combination therapy than in those who received methotrexate monotherapy (52.9% versus 28.7%; P = 0.006). Time to disease-worsening was shorter in those who received methotrexate monotherapy than in those who received etanercept monotherapy or those who received combination therapy (each P < 0.001 versus methotrexate monotherapy). Among the patients who received rescue therapy, SDAI-defined remission was recaptured in 70-80% in each treatment group. No new safety signals were reported.ConclusionThe efficacy of etanercept monotherapy was superior to that of methotrexate monotherapy and similar to that of combination therapy in maintaining remission in patients with RA. SDAI-defined remission was recaptured in most of the patients who were given rescue therapy. These data could inform decision-making when withdrawal of therapy is being considered to reduce treatment burden in patients with well-controlled RA.

Project description:IntroductionThe therapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was advanced by biological agents, yet costly. This study aims to identify the effective threshold dose of etanercept (ENT) and cost-effectiveness in methotrexate (MTX)-resistant RA in real world.MethodsEligible patients had an inadequate response (DAS28-ESR > 3.2) to initial MTX monotherapy, and subsequently received etanercept. The effective cut-off value of cumulative dose was identified to maintain remission response (DAS28-ESR < 2.6) at month 24 by using restricted cubic splines. Remission rate, low disease activity (LDA) rate, glucocorticoid exposure, safety, and cost-effectiveness were compared between the saturated and non-saturated dose groups divided by the cut-off dose.ResultsSeventy-eight (14.2%) of 549 enrolled patients were eligible, and 72 patients completed follow-up. The 2-year cumulative cut-off dose that maintained remission response at 24 months was 1975 mg. And the recommended threshold dosing strategy of etanercept was twice weekly (BIW) for the first 6 months, every week (QW) for the next 6 months, and every 2 weeks (Q2W) and every month (QM) for the second year. Greater net changes in DAS28-ESR score were observed in the ENT saturated dose group than in the non-saturated dose group (average change 0.569, 95%CI 0.236-0.901, p = 0.001). The proportion of patients achieving remission (27.8% vs 72.2%, p < 0.001) and LDA (58.3% vs 83.3%, p = 0.020) in the non-saturated group was both significantly lower than that in the saturated group at 24 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the saturated group referred to the non-saturated group was 5791.2 $/QALY.ConclusionsIn refractory RA patients, the effective cumulative cut-off dose of etanercept for sustained remission at 24 months was calculated as 1975 mg, and receiving saturated dose was more effective and cost-effective than with non-saturated dose. Key Points • The effective cumulative cut-off dose of etanercept for sustained remission at 24 months in RA patients is calculated as 1975 mg. • Receiving saturated dose of etanercept is more effective and cost-effective than with non-saturated dose in refractory RA patients.

Dataset Information

A randomized comparative effectiveness study of oral triple therapy versus etanercept plus methotrexate in early aggressive rheumatoid arthritis: the treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial.

Publications

A randomized comparative effectiveness study of oral triple therapy versus etanercept plus methotrexate in early aggressive rheumatoid arthritis: the treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets