Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of etanercept and sulfasalazine, alone and in combination, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite sulfasalazine treatment.
Methods: A double-blind, randomised study in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable sulfasalazine (2-3 g/day) treatment. The primary end point was a 20% response by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria at 24 weeks.
Results: At baseline, the three treatment groups (sulfasalazine, n = 50; etanercept, n = 103; etanercept and sulfasalazine, n = 101) were comparable for demographic variables and disease activity. Lack of efficacy was the primary reason for discontinuation (sulfasalazine, n = 12; etanercept, n = 1; etanercept and sulfasalazine, n = 4; p<0.001). Significantly more patients receiving etanercept, alone or in combination (74% for each), achieved ACR 20 responses at 24 weeks than those receiving sulfasalazine (28%; p<0.01). Similarly, more patients in the etanercept groups achieved ACR 50 and ACR 70 responses than those in the sulfasalazine group (p<0.01). In the groups receiving etanercept, significant differences in the ACR core components were observed by week 2 compared with those receiving sulfasalazine alone (p<0.01). The incidences of several common adverse events (headache, nausea, asthenia) were lower with etanercept alone than with the combination (p<0.05), but infections and injection site reactions were higher with etanercept alone (p<0.05). The safety profiles of both etanercept treatment groups were comparable with previous experience of etanercept.
Conclusions: For all efficacy variables assessed, etanercept alone or in combination with sulfasalazine resulted in substantial and similar improvement in disease activity from baseline to week 24 compared with sulfasalazine alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite their sulfasalazine treatment. All three treatments were generally well tolerated.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1798315 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2005.049650 | DOI Listing |
Pediatr Rheumatol Online J
July 2024
Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Background: The World Health Organisation Essential Medicines List (WHO EML) guides National Essential Medicines Lists and Standard Treatment Guidelines for clearly identified disease priorities especially in low- and middle-income countries. This study compares the degree to which the basket of medicines recommended for rheumatic diseases in children and young people in National Essential Medicines Lists of countries in the WHO Africa region, corresponds to the 2021 WHO EML and WHO EML for children, as a proxy of availability.
Methods: An online search of the WHO medicines and health technology portal, the Health Ministry websites of the 54 African countries, PUBMED and Google Scholar, with search terms for 'National Essential Medicines List', AND/OR 'standard treatment guidelines' AND/OR 'Lista Nacional de Medicamentos Essenciais' AND/ OR 'Liste Nationale de Medicaments Essentiels' AND Africa AND/OR < Name of African country > was conducted.
Ocul Immunol Inflamm
December 2024
Uvea Services, Medical Research Foundation, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, India.
Z Rheumatol
October 2024
Abteilung für Gastroenterologie, Infektiologie und Rheumatologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland.
Pediatr Rheumatol Online J
May 2024
Department of Paediatrics - division of Paediatric Rheumatology, Willem-Alexander Children's Hospital, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Background: Etanercept has been studied in doses up to 0.8 mg/kg/week (max 50 mg/week) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients. In clinical practice higher doses are used off-label, but evidence regarding the relation with outcomes is lacking.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!