Meaningful improvement criteria sets in a rheumatoid arthritis clinical trial. MIRA Trial Group. Minocycline in Rheumatoid Arthritis

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis about the Efficacy and Safety of Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of various conventional synthetic DMARDs, including Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF) for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by network meta-analysis.

Methods

We retrieved the related literature from online databases and supplemented it by using a manual retrieval method. Data was extracted from the literature and analyzed with STATA software.

Results

A total of 21 trials (5,039 participants) were identified. Assessment of ACR20 response found that TwHF combined with methotrexate (MTX) had the greatest probability for being the best treatment option among the treatments involved, while TwHF used singly was second only to TwHF combined with MTX. Assessment of ACR50 response found that TwHF combined with MTX ranked second in all treatment options after cyclosporine A (CsA) combined with leflunomide (LEF) and TwHF alone, followed by TwHF combined with MTX. Assessment of ACR70 response found that CsA combined with LEF ranked first, TwHF combined with LEF ranked second, TwHF combined with MTX ranked third, and TwHF used singly ranked fourth. In the safety analysis, TwHF had the least probability of adverse event occurrence, followed by TwHF combined with MTX, which ranked first and second, respectively.

Conclusion

Compared with the current csDMARDs for treating RA, the efficacy of TwHF was clear, and TwHF combined with MTX performed well under various endpoints. In the future, large, rigorous, and high-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of TwHF therapy on RA.

Can FDA-Approved Immunomodulatory Drugs be Repurposed/Repositioned to Alleviate Chronic Pain?

Pain is among the most widespread chronic health condition confronting society today and our inability to manage chronic pain contributes to the opioid abuse epidemic in America. The immune system is known to contribute to acute and chronic pain, but only limited therapeutic treatments such as non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs have resulted from this knowledge. The last decade has shed light on neuro-immune interactions mediating the development, maintenance, and resolution of chronic pain. Here, we do not aim to perform a comprehensive review of all immune mechanisms involved in chronic pain, but to briefly review the contribution of the main cytokines and immune cells (macrophages, microglia, mast cells and T cells) to chronic pain. Given the urgent need to address the Pain crisis, we provocatively propose to repurpose/reposition FDA-approved immunomodulatory drugs for their potential to alleviate chronic pain. Repositioning or repurposing offers an attractive way to accelerate the arrival of new analgesics.

The link between chronic pain and Alzheimer's disease

Chronic pain often occurs in the elderly, particularly in the patients with neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). Although studies indicate that chronic pain correlates with cognitive decline, it is unclear whether chronic pain accelerates AD pathogenesis. In this review, we provide evidence that supports a link between chronic pain and AD and discuss potential mechanisms underlying this connection based on currently available literature from human and animal studies. Specifically, we describe two intertwined processes, locus coeruleus noradrenergic system dysfunction and neuroinflammation resulting from microglial pro-inflammatory activation in brain areas mediating the affective component of pain and cognition that have been found to influence both chronic pain and AD. These represent a pathological overlap that likely leads chronic pain to accelerate AD pathogenesis. Further, we discuss potential therapeutic interventions targeting noradrenergic dysfunction and microglial activation that may improve patient outcomes for those with chronic pain and AD.

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Elk Velvet Antler in Rheumatoid Arthritis

This article examines the effects of elk velvet antler on joint pain and swelling, patient/physician global assessment of disease activity, functional ability, quality of life, blood levels of C-reactive protein, and adverse events in persons with stage 2 to 3 rheumatoid arthritis experiencing residual symptoms after standard treatment. Patients ( N=168) were enrolled in a 6-month randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Instruments included the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale, the Health Assessment Questionnaire, tender and swollen joint counts, and 100 mm-length visual analogue scales, along with blood tests. There were no significant differences between groups on any measures. The pattern of change of the measures across time points was essentially the same for both groups. Although some patients reported clinical improvements in their symptoms, there were no statistically significant differences between groups. Overall, elk velvet antler does not effectively manage residual symptoms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

On Schleppfuss' path: the placebo response in human evolution

The therapeutic power of placebo is well recognized. In fact, central nervous system (CNS)-body interactions can influence health, fertility, and even life span itself. We suggest that the placebo response might have been of importance in the evolution of the human species, once brain development reached a certain level. Some individuals may have positively responded to the placebo given by a primordial healer or by themselves, and markedly increased their health and well-being. Those individuals may have had an evolutionary advantage due to increased fertility, better physical performance and increased life span. We consider this enhanced "CNS-body interactions/placebo sensitivity" a biological trait that has been selected for through time. Being this a genetic trait, it is susceptible to bear polymorphisms and suffer spontaneous mutations, which would explain the well recognized interindividual variation in the response to placebo.

Comparison of rheumatoid arthritis clinical trial outcome measures: A simulation study

OBJECTIVE

Isolated studies have suggested that continuous measures of response may be better than predefined, dichotomous definitions (e.g., the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria [ACR20]) for discriminating between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments. Our goal was to determine the statistical power of predefined dichotomous outcome measures (termed "a priori"), compared with that of continuous measures derived from trial data in which there was no predefined response threshold (termed "data driven"), and to evaluate the sensitivity to change of these measures in the context of different treatments and early versus later-stage disease. In order to generalize beyond results from a single trial, we performed simulation studies.

METHODS

We obtained summary data from trials comparing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and from comparative coxib-placebo trials to test the power of 2 a priori outcomes, the ACR20 and improvement of the Disease Activity Score (DDAS), as well as 2 data-driven outcomes. We studied patients with early RA and those with later-stage RA (duration of <4 years and 4-9 years, respectively). We performed simulation studies, using the interrelationship of ACR core set measures in the trials to generate multiple trial data sets consistent with the original data.

RESULTS

The data-driven outcomes had greater power than did the a priori measures. The DMARD comparison was more powerful in early disease than in later-stage disease (the sample sizes needed to achieve 80% power for the most powerful test were 64 for early disease versus 100 for later disease), but the coxib-versus-placebo comparison was less powerful in early disease than in later disease (the sample sizes needed to achieve 80% power were 200 and 100, respectively). When the effects of treatment on core set items were small and/or inconsistent, power was reduced, particularly for a less broadly based outcome (e.g., DDAS) compared with the ACR20.

CONCLUSION

The simulation studies demonstrate that data-driven outcome definitions can provide better sensitivity to change than does the ACR20 or DDAS. Using such methods would improve power, but at the expense of trial standardization. The studies also show how patient population and treatment characteristics affect the power of specific outcome measures in RA clinical trials, and provide quantification of those effects.

Treatment of experimental equine osteoarthritis by in vivo delivery of the equine interleukin-1 receptor antagonist gene

Osteoarthritis in horses and in humans is a significant social and economic problem and continued research and improvements in therapy are needed. Because horses have naturally occurring osteoarthritis, which is similar to that of humans, the horse was chosen as a species with which to investigate gene transfer as a potential therapeutic modality for the clinical treatment of osteoarthritis. Using an established model of equine osteoarthritis that mimics clinical osteoarthritis, the therapeutic effects resulting from intra-articular overexpression of the equine interleukin-1 receptor antagonist gene through adenoviral-mediated gene transfer were investigated. In vivo delivery of the equine IL-IRa gene led to elevated intra-articular expression of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist for approximately 28 days, resulting in significant improvement in clinical parameters of pain and disease activity, preservation of articular cartilage, and beneficial effects on the histologic parameters of synovial membrane and articular cartilage. Based on these findings, gene transfer of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist is an attractive treatment modality for the equine patient and also offers future promise for human patients with osteoarthritis.

Intelligent use of NSAIDs--where do we stand?

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are drugs commonly prescribed for a variety of medical conditions. They are potent pharmacological agents efficacious for inflammatory conditions, but have significant gastrointestinal (GI), renal and haematological toxicity that must not be taken lightly. The newer, more cyclooxygenase-(COX)-2-selective NSAIDs, have no effects on platelet function and little GI toxicity, but do have renal physiological effects. The superiority of one NSAID over another has not been clinically demonstrated in musculoskeletal conditions, nor has the efficacy of NSAIDs in non-inflammatory rheumatic conditions been shown to be better than that of simple analgesics. NSAIDs are indicated for primary therapy of inflammatory rheumatic diseases and the more selective COX-2 agents should be employed as first choice when economically feasible. NSAIDs should not be used indiscriminately for non-inflammatory osteoarthritis or musculoskeletal injuries, particularly in the elderly patient, in whom alternative, less toxic therapy should be sought.

Long-term efficacy of radon spa therapy in rheumatoid arthritis--a randomized, sham-controlled study and follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the efficacy of a series of baths containing natural radon and carbon dioxide (1.3 kBq/l, 1.6 g carbon dioxide/l on average) versus artificial carbon dioxide baths alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

SUBJECTS

Sixty patients participating in an in-patient rehabilitation programme including a series of 15 baths were randomly assigned to two groups.

DESIGN

Pain intensity (100 mm visual analogue scale) and functional restrictions [Keitel functional test, Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS questionnaire)] were measured at baseline, after completion of treatment and 3 and 6 months thereafter. To investigate whether the overall value of the outcomes was the same in both groups, the overall mean was analysed by Student's t-test for independent samples.

RESULTS

The two groups showed a similar baseline situation. After completion of treatment, relevant clinical improvements were observed in both groups, with no notable group differences. However, the follow-up revealed sustained effects in the radon arm, and a return to baseline levels in the sham arm. After 6 months, marked between-group differences were found for both end-points (pain intensity: -16.9%, 95% confidence interval -27.6 to -6.2%; AIMS score: 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.98). The between-group differences were statistically significant for both overall means (pain intensity, P: = 0.04; AIMS, P: = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Marked short-term improvements in both groups at the end of treatment may have masked potential specific therapeutic effects of radon baths. However, after 6 months of follow-up the effects were lasting only in patients of the radon arm. This suggests that this component of the rehabilitative intervention can induce beneficial long-term effects.

Do medical devices have enhanced placebo effects?

Although the placebo in a clinical trial is often considered simply a baseline against which to evaluate the efficacy of a clinical intervention, there is evidence that the magnitude of placebo effect may be a critical factor in determining the results of a trial. This article examines the question of whether devices have enhanced placebo effects and, if so, what the implications may be. While the evidence of an enhanced placebo effect remains rudimentary, it is provocative and therefore worthy of further study. Suggestions are made, therefore, for how such an effect can be investigated without violating the principles of informed consent.

Comparison of two schedules for administering oral low-dose methotrexate (weekly versus every-other-week) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission: a twenty-four week, single blind, randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of 2 low-dose oral methotrexate (MTX) schedules in maintaining remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Patients with RA were included if they were receiving treatment with weekly MTX for at least 9 months and the RA was in remission (defined by American College of Rheumatology [ACR] criteria) for at least 6 months. Patients were stratified by treatment and randomly assigned to weekly or every-other-weekly (EOW; reducing their monthly dose by half) treatment with MTX. Patients were evaluated by a rheumatologist (blinded to the treatment schedule) at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. The evaluations included joint counts, Ritchie Articular Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, physician's and patient's global health assessments, visual analog scale for pain, and incidence of adverse effects. Laboratory evaluations were done at baseline and at week 24.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were included (26 taking weekly MTX, 25 taking EOW MTX). Baseline comparisons showed no differences between the groups. The mean duration of RA was <3 years in both groups, and they had been started on weekly MTX treatment early after diagnosis. After 24 weeks, >90% of the patients in both groups continued in remission. Evaluations of disease activity at 6 and 12 weeks showed no between-group differences. EOW MTX patients who experienced relapse were switched back to weekly MTX, and after a few weeks, their RA was again controlled. The incidence of adverse effects was slightly higher in the weekly MTX group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. The observed laboratory values were very similar for both groups, except for the serum aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels, which decreased in the EOW MTX group and were statistically significant at week 24 (P = 0.04 and P = 0.006, respectively).

CONCLUSION

EOW MTX represents a valid therapeutic alternative for a specific subgroup of RA patients, as outlined by the ACR remission criteria. Patients with a short disease duration who were treated early after disease onset with weekly MTX and who achieve sustained remission have a higher probability of success with the EOW MTX schedule.

Should improvement in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials be defined as fifty percent or seventy percent improvement in core set measures, rather than twenty percent?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether improvement of more than 20% in core set parameters should be required before patients are characterized as improved in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials.

METHODS

Data from 6 RA trials were reanalyzed to evaluate the discriminant validity (ability to differentiate active treatment from control) of 4 proposed definitions of improvement: the current American College of Rheumatology (ACR) definition (a 20% threshold for core set parameters [ACR 201), a 50% threshold (ACR 50), a 70% threshold (ACR 70), and an ordinal definition in which a patient could be classified in any of 3 categories (unimproved, ACR 20, or ACR 50). To evaluate the discriminant validity of these 4 definitions of improvement, we characterized each patient in each trial as improved or not, based on each definition, and computed a chi-square value differentiating the active treatment group from the control group, with the corresponding P value.

RESULTS

With an increase in the threshold for improvement, the percentage of placebo-treated patients who were classified as experiencing response dropped dramatically in all trials, as did the percentage of patients receiving active therapy (second-line drug, combination therapy, tumor necrosis factor p75-Fc fusion protein) who were classified as experiencing response. Generally, the drop in active treatment response rates was greater than the drop in placebo response rates, leaving the difference between the 2 groups less at the higher thresholds. Therefore, chi-square values fell as the threshold for response was raised. The ordinal definition of improvement yielded chi-square values similar to those obtained using ACR 20 alone.

CONCLUSION

Adopting a definition of efficacy in RA trials that requires 50% or 70% improvement in core set parameters would likely compromise statistical power and make it more difficult to distinguish between 2 treatments with different efficacy. ACR 20 should continue to be the primary measure of efficacy in RA trials, with higher thresholds for improvement being determined and reported as secondary efficacy measures.