Infliximab plus methotrexate is superior to methotrexate alone in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in methotrexate-naive patients: the RESPOND study

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with infliximab plus methotrexate with methotrexate alone in methotrexate-naive patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods: In this open-label study, patients 18 years and older with active PsA who were naive to methotrexate and not receiving disease-modifying therapy (N=115) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either infliximab (5 mg/kg) at weeks 0, 2, 6 and 14 plus methotrexate (15 mg/week); or methotrexate (15 mg/week) alone. The primary assessment was American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 16. Secondary outcome measures included psoriasis area and severity index (PASI), disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) and dactylitis and enthesitis assessments. Results: At week 16, 86.3% of patients receiving infliximab plus methotrexate and 66.7% of those receiving methotrexate alone achieved an ACR20 response (p<0.02). Of patients whose baseline PASI was 2.5 or greater, 97.1% receiving infliximab plus methotrexate compared with 54.3% receiving methotrexate alone experienced a 75% or greater improvement in PASI (p<0.0001). Improvements in C-reactive protein levels, DAS28 response and remission rates, dactylitis, fatigue and morning stiffness duration were also significantly greater in the group receiving infliximab. In the infliximab plus methotrexate group, 46% (26/57) had treatment-related adverse events (AE) and two patients had serious AE, compared with 24% with AE (13/54) and no serious AE in the methotrexate-alone group. Conclusions: Treatment with infliximab plus methotrexate in methotrexate-naive patients with active PsA demonstrated significantly greater ACR20 response rates and PASI75 improvement compared with methotrexate alone and was generally well tolerated. This trial is registered in the US National Institutes of Health clinicaltrials.gov database, identifier NCT00367237

THU0116 European multicentre pilot survey to assess vitamin d and clinical status in rheumatoid arthritis patients

n/

Phenotypes Determined by Cluster Analysis and Their Survival in the Prospective European Scleroderma Trials and Research Cohort of Patients With Systemic Sclerosis

Objective: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a heterogeneous connective tissue disease that is typically subdivided into limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc) and diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) depending on the extent of skin involvement. This subclassification may not capture the entire variability of clinical phenotypes. The European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) database includes data on a prospective cohort of SSc patients from 122 European referral centers. This study was undertaken to perform a cluster analysis of EUSTAR data to distinguish and characterize homogeneous phenotypes without any a priori assumptions, and to examine survival among the clusters obtained. / Methods: A total of 11,318 patients were registered in the EUSTAR database, and 6,927 were included in the study. Twenty‐four clinical and serologic variables were used for clustering. / Results: Clustering analyses provided a first delineation of 2 clusters showing moderate stability. In an exploratory attempt, we further characterized 6 homogeneous groups that differed with regard to their clinical features, autoantibody profile, and mortality. Some groups resembled usual dcSSc or lcSSc prototypes, but others exhibited unique features, such as a majority of lcSSc patients with a high rate of visceral damage and antitopoisomerase antibodies. Prognosis varied among groups and the presence of organ damage markedly impacted survival regardless of cutaneous involvement. / Conclusion: Our findings suggest that restricting subsets of SSc patients to only those based on cutaneous involvement may not capture the complete heterogeneity of the disease. Organ damage and antibody profile should be taken into consideration when individuating homogeneous groups of patients with a distinct prognosis

Three month treatment of reactive arthritis with azithromycin: a EULAR double blind, placebo controlled study

Objective: To determine the efficacy of weekly treatment with oral azithromycin for 13 weeks on the severity and resolution of reactive arthritis (ReA). Methods: 186 patients from 12 countries were enrolled in a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Inclusion criteria were inflammatory arthritis of ⩽6 swollen joints, and disease duration of ⩽2 months. All patients received a single azithromycin dose (1 g) as conventional treatment for possible Chlamydia infection, and were then randomly allocated to receive weekly azithromycin or placebo. Clinical assessments were made at 4 week intervals for 24 weeks. Results: 152 patients were analysable (34 failed entry criteria), with a mean (SD) age of 33.8 (9.4) and duration of symptoms 30.7 (17.5) days. Mean C reactive protein (CRP) was 48 mg/l, and ∼50% of those typed were HLA-B27+, suggesting that the inclusion criteria successfully recruited patients with acute ReA. Treatment and placebo groups were well matched for baseline characteristics. There were no statistical differences for changes in any end point (swollen and tender joint count, joint pain, back pain, heel pain, physician and patient global assessments, and CRP) between the active treatment and placebo groups, analysed on an intention to treat basis or according to protocol completion. The time to resolution of arthritis and other symptoms or signs by life table analyses was also not significantly different. Adverse events were generally mild, but were more commonly reported in the azithromycin group. Conclusions: This large trial has demonstrated that prolonged treatment with azithromycin is ineffective in ReA

Eprodisate for AA Amyloidosis Trial Group. Eprodisate for the treatment of renal disease in AA amyloidosis.

BACKGROUND: Amyloid A (AA) amyloidosis is a complication of chronic inflammatory conditions that develops when proteolytic fragments of serum amyloid A protein (SAA) are deposited in tissues as amyloid fibrils. Amyloid deposition in the kidney causes progressive deterioration in renal function. Eprodisate is a member of a new class of compounds designed to interfere with interactions between amyloidogenic proteins and glycosaminoglycans and thereby inhibit polymerization of amyloid fibrils and deposition of the fibrils in tissues. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eprodisate in patients with AA amyloidosis and kidney involvement. We randomly assigned 183 patients from 27 centers to receive eprodisate or placebo for 24 months. The primary composite end point was an assessment of renal function or death. Disease was classified as worsened if any one of the following occurred: doubling of the serum creatinine level, reduction in creatinine clearance by 50% or more, progression to end-stage renal disease, or death. RESULTS: At 24 months, disease was worsened in 24 of 89 patients who received eprodisate (27%) and 38 of 94 patients given placebo (40%, P=0.06); the hazard ratio for worsening disease with eprodisate treatment was 0.58 (95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 0.93; P=0.02). The mean rates of decline in creatinine clearance were 10.9 and 15.6 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area per year in the eprodisate and the placebo groups, respectively (P=0.02). The drug had no significant effect on progression to end-stage renal disease (hazard ratio, 0.54; P=0.20) or risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.95; P=0.94). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Eprodisate slows the decline of renal function in AA amyloidosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00035334.