OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of cyclosporin A (CsA) monotherapy with CsA plus methotrexate (MTX) combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 120 patients with active RA, rheumatoid factorpositive and/or erosive, were randomly allocated to receive CsA with MTX (n=60) or CsA with placebo (n=60). Treatment with CsA was started in all patients at 2.5 mg/kg/day and increased to a maximum of 5 mg/kg/day in 16 weeks. MTX was started at 7.5 mg/week and increased to a maximal dose of 15 mg/week at week 16. Primary outcomes were clinical remission (Pinals criteria) and radiological damage (Larsen score), at week 48. RESULTS: Treatment was discontinued prematurely in 27 patients in the monotherapy group (21 because of inefficacy, and six because of toxicity) and in 26 patients in the combination therapy group (14 and 12, respectively). At week 48, clinical remission was achieved in four patients in the monotherapy group and in six patients in the combination therapy group (p=0.5). The median Larsen score increased to 10 (25th, 75th centiles: 3.5; 13.3) points in the monotherapy group and to 4 (1.0; 10.5) points in the combination therapy group (p=0.004). 28/60 (47%) of patients in the monotherapy group v 34/60 (57%) of patients in the combination therapy group had reached an American college of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response (p=0.36) at week 48; 15/60 (25%) v 29/60 (48%) of patients had reached an ACR50 response (p=0.013); and 7 (12%) v 12 (20%) of patients had reached an ACR70 response (p=0.11). Their was a tendency towards more toxicity in the combination therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with early RA, neither CsA plus MTX combination therapy nor CsA monotherapy is very effective in inducing clinical remission. Combination therapy is probably better at improving clinical disease activity, and definitely better at slowing radiological progression. Combination therapy should still be compared with methotrexate monotherapy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of cyclosporin A (CsA) monotherapy with CsA plus methotrexate (MTX) combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 120 patients with active RA, rheumatoid factor positive and/or erosive, were randomly allocated to receive CsA with MTX (n=60) or CsA with placebo (n=60). Treatment with CsA was started in all patients at 2.5 mg/kg/day and increased to a maximum of 5 mg/kg/day in 16 weeks. MTX was started at 7.5 mg/week and increased to a maximal dose of 15 mg/week at week 16. Primary outcomes were clinical remission (Pinals criteria) and radiological damage (Larsen score), at week 48. RESULTS: Treatment was discontinued prematurely in 27 patients in the monotherapy group (21 because of inefficacy, and six because of toxicity) and in 26 patients in the combination therapy group (14 and 12, respectively). At week 48, clinical remission was achieved in four patients in the monotherapy group and in six patients in the combination therapy group (p=0.5). The median Larsen score increased to 10 (25th, 75th centiles: 3.5; 13.3) points in the monotherapy group and to 4 (1.0; 10.5) points in the combination therapy group (p=0.004). 28/60 (47%) of patients in the monotherapy group v 34/60 (57%) of patients in the combination therapy group had reached an American college of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response (p=0.36) at week 48; 15/60 (25%) v 29/60 (48%) of patients had reached an ACR50 response (p=0.013); and 7 (12%) v 12 (20%) of patients had reached an ACR70 response (p=0.11). Their was a tendency towards more toxicity in the combination therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with early RA, neither CsA plus MTX combination therapy nor CsA monotherapy is very effective in inducing clinical remission. Combination therapy is probably better at improving clinical disease activity, and definitely better at slowing radiological progression. Combination therapy should still be compared with methotrexate monotherapy.
Authors: M Boers; P Tugwell; D T Felson; P L van Riel; J R Kirwan; J P Edmonds; J S Smolen; N Khaltaev; K D Muirden Journal: J Rheumatol Suppl Date: 1994-09
Authors: G S Alarcón; A López-Méndez; J Walter; A M Boerbooms; A S Russell; D E Furst; R Rau; A A Drosos; A A Bartolucci Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 1992-12 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: D M van der Heijde; M A van Leeuwen; P L van Riel; A M Koster; M A van 't Hof; M H van Rijswijk; L B van de Putte Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 1992-01
Authors: R B Landewe; H S Goei The; A W van Rijthoven; J R Rietveld; F C Breedveld; B A Dijkmans Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 1994-09 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: P Tugwell; T Pincus; D Yocum; M Stein; O Gluck; G Kraag; R McKendry; J Tesser; P Baker; G Wells Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-07-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D T Felson; J J Anderson; M Boers; C Bombardier; D Furst; C Goldsmith; L M Katz; R Lightfoot; H Paulus; V Strand Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 1995-06
Authors: B Combe; R Landewe; C Lukas; H D Bolosiu; F Breedveld; M Dougados; P Emery; G Ferraccioli; J M W Hazes; L Klareskog; K Machold; E Martin-Mola; H Nielsen; A Silman; J Smolen; H Yazici Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2006-01-05 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Yvonne P M Goekoop-Ruiterman; Jeska K de Vries-Bouwstra; Cornelia F Allaart; Pit J S M Kerstens; Bernard A M Grillet; Mike H de Jager; K Huub Han; Irene Speyer; Peter A H M van der Lubbe; Patrick E H Seys; Ferdinand C Breedveld; Ben A C Dijkmans Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2007-04-03 Impact factor: 19.103