Differential response of serum amyloid A to different therapies in early rheumatoid arthritis and its potential value as a disease activity biomarker

Background: The aim was to compare the effect of etanercept (ETN) and conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy on serum amyloid A (SAA) levels and to determine whether SAA reflects rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity better than C-reactive protein (CRP). Methods: We measured SAA and CRP at baseline, 24, 48, and 102 week follow-up visits in 594 patients participating in the Treatment of early RA (TEAR) study. We used Spearman correlation coefficients (rho) to evaluate the relationship between SAA and CRP and mixed effects models to determine whether ETN and methotrexate (MTX) treatment compared to triple DMARD therapy differentially lowered SAA. Akaike information criteria (AIC) were used to determine model fits. Results: SAA levels were only moderately correlated with CRP levels (rho = 0.58, p < 0.0001). There were significant differences in SAA by both visit (p = 0.0197) and treatment arm (p = 0.0130). RA patients treated with ETN plus MTX had a larger reduction in SAA than patients treated with traditional DMARD therapy. Similar results were found for serum CRP by visit (p = 0.0254) and by treatment (p < 0.0001), with a more pronounced difference than for SAA. Across all patients and time points, models of the disease activity score of 28 joints (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) using SAA levels were better than models using CRP; the ΔAIC between the SAA and CRP models was 305. Conclusions: SAA may be a better biomarker of RA disease activity than CRP, especially during treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists. This warrants additional studies in other cohorts of patients on treatment for RA. Trial registration: (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00259610 , Date of registration: 28 November 2005

Socioeconomic factors and self-reported health outcomes in African Americans with rheumatoid arthritis from the Southeastern United States: The contribution of childhood socioeconomic status

Background: There is abundant evidence that low socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with worse health outcomes among people with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA); however, the influence of socioeconomic disadvantage in early life has yet to be studied within that population. Methods: Data originated from the cross-sectional arm of the Consortium Evaluation of African-Americans with Rheumatoid Arthritis (CLEAR II), which recruited African-Americans with RA from six sites in the Southeastern United States. We used linear regression models to evaluate associations of parental homeownership status and educational level at participant time of birth with participant-reported fatigue (Visual Analog scale, cm), pain (Visual Analog scale, cm), disability (Health Assessment Questionnaire) and helplessness (Rheumatology Attitudes Index), independently of participant homeownership status and educational level. Models included random effects to account for intra-site correlations, and were adjusted for variables identified using backward selection, from: age, disease-duration, sex, medication use, body-mass index, smoking history. Results: Our sample included 516 CLEAR II participants with full data on demographics and covariates. 89 % of participants were women, the mean age was 54.7 years and mean disease duration was 10.8 years. In age adjusted models, parental non-homeownership was associated with greater fatigue (β = 0.75, 95 % CI = 0.36-1.14), disability (β = 0.12, 95 % CI = 0.04-0.19) and helplessness (β = 0.12, 95 % CI = 0.03-0.21), independently of participant homeownership and education; parental education had a further small influence on self-reported fatigue (β = 0.20, 95 % CI = 0.15-0.24). Conclusions: Parental homeownership, and to a small extent parental education, had modest but meaningful relationships with self-reported health among CLEAR II participants

Do anti-TNF agents have equal efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis?

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists have dramatically improved the outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Three agents currently available in the USA – infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab – have been designed to modify the biologic effects of TNF. Infliximab and adalimumab are monoclonal antibodies, and etanercept is a soluble protein. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of each differs significantly from those of the others. All three agents are effective and safe, and can improve the quality of life in patients with RA. Although no direct comparisons are available, clinical trials provide evidence that can be used to evaluate the comparative efficacy of these agents. Infliximab, in combination with methotrexate, has been shown to relieve the signs and symptoms of RA, decrease total joint score progression, prevent joint erosions and joint-space narrowing, and improve physical function for up to 2 years. Etanercept has been shown to relieve the signs and symptoms of RA, decrease total joint score progression, and slow the rate of joint destruction, and might improve physical function. Etanercept is approved with and without methotrexate for patients who have demonstrated an incomplete response to therapy with methotrexate and other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), as well as for first-line therapy in early RA, psoriatic arthritis, and juvenile RA. Adalimumab relieves the signs and symptoms of RA with and without methotrexate and other DMARDs, decreases total joint score progression, prevents joint erosions and joint-space narrowing in combination with methotrexate, and might improve physical function. When selecting a TNF antagonist, rheumatologists should weigh evidence and experience with specific agents before a decision is made for use in therapy

Tumor necrosis factor alpha drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and metaanalysis of efficacy and safety

Es reproducción del documento publicado en http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-9-52Background: To analyse available evidence on the efficacy and safety of anti-TNF alpha drugs (infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab) for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: We searched systematically for randomised controlled clinical trials on treatment of RA with anti-TNF alpha drugs, followed by a systematic review with metaanalysis. Trials were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) efficacy response criteria were used. Safety parameters provided by the trials were also assessed. Positive and undesired effects were estimated using combined relative risks (RR), number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH). Heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochrane's Q and I-2 statistics. Results: Thirteen trials (7087 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The combined RR to achieve a therapeutic response to treatment with recommended doses of any anti-TNF alpha drug was 1.81 (95% CI 1.43 - 2.29) with a NNT of 5 (5 - 6) for ACR20. NNT for ACR50 [5 (5 - 6)] and ACR70 [7 (7 - 9)] were similar. Overall therapeutic effects were also similar regardless of the specific anti-TNF alpha drug used and when higher than recommended doses were administered. However, lower than recommended doses elicited low ACR70 responses (NNT 15). Comparison of anti-TNF alpha drugs plus methotrexate (MTX) with MTX alone in patients with insufficient prior responses to MTX showed NNT values of 3 for ACR20, 4 for ACR50 and 8 for ACR70. Comparison of anti-TNF alpha drugs with placebo showed a similar pattern. Comparisons of anti-TNF alpha drugs plus MTX with MTX alone in patients with no previous resistance to MTX showed somewhat lower effects. Etanercept and adalimumab administered as monotherapy showed effects similar to those of MTX. Side effects were more common among patients receiving anti-TNF alpha drugs than controls (overall combined NNH 27). Patients receiving infliximab were more likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH 24) and to suffer severe side effects (NNH 31), infections (NNH 10) and infusion reactions (NNH 9). Patients receiving adalimumab were also more likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH 47) and to suffer injection site reactions (NNH 22). Patients receiving etanercept were less likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH for control versus etanercept 26) but more likely to experience injection site reactions (NNH 5). Conclusion: Anti-TNF alpha drugs are effective in RA patients, with apparently similar results irrespective of the drug administered. Doses other than those recommended are also beneficial. The main factor influencing therapeutic efficacy is the prior response to DMARD treatment. The effect of treatment with etanercept or adalimumab does not differ from that obtained with MTX. The published safety profile for etanercept is superior but the fact that no patients are treated with higher than recommended doses requires explanation

Toward optimal implementation of cancer prevention and control programs in public health: A study protocol on mis-implementation

Abstract Background Much of the cancer burden in the USA is preventable, through application of existing knowledge. State-level funders and public health practitioners are in ideal positions to affect programs and policies related to cancer control. Mis-implementation refers to ending effective programs and policies prematurely or continuing ineffective ones. Greater attention to mis-implementation should lead to use of effective interventions and more efficient expenditure of resources, which in the long term, will lead to more positive cancer outcomes. Methods This is a three-phase study that takes a comprehensive approach, leading to the elucidation of tactics for addressing mis-implementation. Phase 1: We assess the extent to which mis-implementation is occurring among state cancer control programs in public health. This initial phase will involve a survey of 800 practitioners representing all states. The programs represented will span the full continuum of cancer control, from primary prevention to survivorship. Phase 2: Using data from phase 1 to identify organizations in which mis-implementation is particularly high or low, the team will conduct eight comparative case studies to get a richer understanding of mis-implementation and to understand contextual differences. These case studies will highlight lessons learned about mis-implementation and identify hypothesized drivers. Phase 3: Agent-based modeling will be used to identify dynamic interactions between individual capacity, organizational capacity, use of evidence, funding, and external factors driving mis-implementation. The team will then translate and disseminate findings from phases 1 to 3 to practitioners and practice-related stakeholders to support the reduction of mis-implementation. Discussion This study is innovative and significant because it will (1) be the first to refine and further develop reliable and valid measures of mis-implementation of public health programs; (2) bring together a strong, transdisciplinary team with significant expertise in practice-based research; (3) use agent-based modeling to address cancer control implementation; and (4) use a participatory, evidence-based, stakeholder-driven approach that will identify key leverage points for addressing mis-implementation among state public health programs. This research is expected to provide replicable computational simulation models that can identify leverage points and public health system dynamics to reduce mis-implementation in cancer control and may be of interest to other health areas

Early start and stop of biologics: has the time come?

Despite considerable advances in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, results are still not satisfactory for all patients. The treatment goal in rheumatoid arthritis is remission, and there currently are numerous conventional and biological medications available to reach this aim. There are also different treatment strategies but with only limited comparative evidence about their efficacies. More patients now achieve remission while on treatment, but it remains elusive in the majority of patients. Treatment-free remission, the ultimate goal of therapy, is only achieved in very few patients; even when this happens, it is most likely due to the natural course of the disease rather than to any specific therapies. Modern treatment is based on the initiation of aggressive therapy as soon as the diagnosis is established, and on modifying or intensifying therapy guided by frequent assessment of disease activity. In this commentary we will discuss the current treatment paradigm as well as the possibility of an induction-maintenance regimen with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in early rheumatoid arthriti