Dataset Information

Rheumatoid arthritis triple therapy compared with etanercept: difference in infectious and gastrointestinal adverse events.

ABSTRACT: The main aim of this study was to examine the differences between triple therapy (T: SSZ and HCQ added to MTX) and etanercept (E) added to MTX with regard to the infectious and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) reported in The Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparison of Active Therapies Trial.The patients were 353 RA MTX incomplete responders who were randomized to T (n = 178) or E (n = 175). Of these, 88 patients were switched to the alternative treatment from the initial treatment (E or T) at 24 weeks per protocol. Infectious and GI serious AEs (SAEs) and non-serious AEs (NAEs) were reported during 48 and 4 weeks after the intervention period. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of AEs between the two therapies.Patients on E therapy were more likely to have infectious NAEs (IRR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.11, 2.19). There was a greater number of infectious SAEs that occurred when patients received E than T therapy [12 E (6.9%) vs 4 T (2.2%), P = 0.19]. Pneumonia was the most common infectious SAE for both treatments [6 E (3.4%) and 2 T (1.1%)]. Conversely, patients who were on E were less likely to have GI NAEs than those on T therapy (IRR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40, 0.94). The most common GI SAE reported was GI haemorrhage, which occurred among three patients on E (1.7%).This study provides evidence of different likelihoods of infectious and GI AEs associated with two common, equally effective treatments for RA patients who have had incomplete responses to MTX.ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov , NCT00405275.

SUBMITTER: Quach LT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5850115 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rheumatoid arthritis triple therapy compared with etanercept: difference in infectious and gastrointestinal adverse events.

Quach Lien T LT Chang Bei-Hung BH Brophy Mary T MT Soe Thwin Soe S Hannagan Keri K O'Dell James R JR

Rheumatology (Oxford, England) 20170301 3

<h4>Objective</h4>The main aim of this study was to examine the differences between triple therapy (T: SSZ and HCQ added to MTX) and etanercept (E) added to MTX with regard to the infectious and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) reported in The Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparison of Active Therapies Trial.<h4>Methods</h4>The patients were 353 RA MTX incomplete responders who were randomized to T (n = 178) or E (n = 175). Of these, 88 patients were switched to the alternative treatment from ...[more]

PMID: 27994091

Similar Datasets

Project description:Lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol may be associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study was undertaken to determine whether the complex relationship between levels of LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and CV risk is different in RA patients as compared to non-RA controls.Using data from a US health insurance plan (2003-2012), we conducted a cohort study that included patients with RA and non-RA control subjects matched with regard to age, sex, and index date. The nonlinearity of associations between lipid levels and incidence of major adverse CV events (MACE) was tested. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to examine for an interaction between lipid levels and RA status in relation to the risk of MACE, after adjustment for CV risk factors.In total, 16,085 RA patients and 48,499 non-RA controls were studied. The mean age was 52.6 years and 78.6% were women. The relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and incidence of MACE was nonlinear and similar between RA patients and non-RA controls (P for interaction?=?0.72). No significant increase in CV risk was observed between the lowest quintile of LDL cholesterol levels (?91.0 mg/dl) and the second, third, or fourth quintiles, whereas the highest quintile (>190.0 mg/dl) conveyed a 40% increase in risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.17-1.68). The relationship between HDL cholesterol levels and incidence of MACE was also nonlinear and similar between RA patients and non-RA controls (P for interaction?=?0.39). Compared to the lowest quintile of HDL cholesterol levels, each successive quintile was associated with a reduced risk of MACE (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.48-0.72 for lowest quintile [?43.0 mg/dl] versus highest quintile [>71.0 mg/dl]).The complex relationship between LDL cholesterol levels, HDL cholesterol levels, and risk of MACE was nonlinear in RA patients and also not statistically significantly different from that in an age- and sex-matched non-RA cohort.

Project description: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.

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:BackgroundThere are limited data on the safety of colonoscopy in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). We examined the various adverse events associated with colonoscopy in acute LGIB compared with non-GIB patients.MethodsEmergency hospitalized LGIB patients (n = 161) and age- and gender-matched non-GIB controls (n = 161) were selected. Primary outcomes were any adverse events during preparation and colonoscopy procedure. Secondary outcomes were five bowel preparation-related adverse events--hypotension, systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg, volume overload, vomiting, aspiration pneumonia and loss of consciousness--and four colonoscopy-related adverse events--including hypotension, perforation, cerebrocardiovascular events and sepsis.ResultsDuring bowel preparation, 16 (9%) LGIB patients experienced an adverse event. None of the LGIB patients experienced volume overload, aspiration pneumonia or loss of consciousness; however, 12 (7%) had hypotension and 4 (2%) vomited. There were no significant differences in the five bowel preparation-related adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. During colonoscopy, 25 (15%) LGIB patients experienced an adverse event. None LGIB patient had perforation or sepsis; however, 23 (14%) had hypotension and 2 (1%) experienced a cerebrocardiovascular event. There was no significant difference in the four colonoscopy-related adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. In addition, no significant difference in any of the nine adverse events was found among subgroups: patients aged ≥65 years, those with comorbidities, and those with antithrombotic drug use.ConclusionsAdverse events in bowel preparation and colonoscopy among acute LGIB patients were low. No significant difference was found in adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. These adverse events were also low in elderly LGIB patients, as well as in those with co-morbidities and antithrombotic drug use, suggesting that colonoscopy performed during acute LGIB did not increase adverse events.

Project description:IntroductionThis post hoc analysis evaluated influenza adverse events (AEs) across rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ulcerative colitis (UC), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib clinical programs.MethodsAvailable data from phase 1, randomized phase 2/3/3b/4 clinical trials (completed by 2018), and long-term extension (LTE) studies (up to May 2019) in patients with RA, UC, and PsA were included [randomized or Overall (phase 1-3b/4 and LTE studies) tofacitinib cohorts]. Incidence rates (IRs; events per 100 patient-years) of combined influenza AEs (seasons 2004/2005 to 2018/2019) were analyzed, including by tofacitinib dose [5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID)] and age (< 65 versus ≥ 65 years). Logistic regression models evaluated risk factors for influenza AEs in the RA Overall tofacitinib cohort.ResultsIn randomized cohorts, combined influenza AE IRs were generally similar across tofacitinib, adalimumab, methotrexate, and placebo groups, across indications. Among Overall tofacitinib cohorts, combined influenza AE IRs with tofacitinib 5/10 mg BID, respectively, were higher in the UC (3.66/5.09) versus RA (2.38/2.19) and PsA (1.74/1.29) cohorts. IRs were generally similar across tofacitinib dose and age groups. Most influenza AEs were nonserious and did not require changes to tofacitinib treatment. Significant risk factors for influenza AEs in patients with RA were geographic region, baseline oral corticosteroid and methotrexate use, and tofacitinib dose.ConclusionsIn the RA, UC, and PsA clinical programs, combined influenza AE IRs were highest in UC, while in each indication they were generally similar across tofacitinib, placebo, and comparator groups. Influenza AEs were predominantly nonserious and not associated with changes to tofacitinib treatment.Trial registration numbersNCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT02147587, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT02281552, NCT02187055, NCT02831855, NCT00413699, NCT00661661, NCT00787202, NCT01465763, NCT01458951, NCT01458574, NCT01470612, NCT01877668, NCT01882439, NCT01976364.

Dataset Information

Rheumatoid arthritis triple therapy compared with etanercept: difference in infectious and gastrointestinal adverse events.

Publications

Rheumatoid arthritis triple therapy compared with etanercept: difference in infectious and gastrointestinal adverse events.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets