Combination of cyclosporine and leflunomide versus single therapy in severe rheumatoid arthritis. Combination therapy with sulfasalazine and methotrexate is more effective than either drug alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a suboptimal response to sulfasalazine: results from the double-blind placebo-controlled MASCOT study. A new six-drug antiblastic regimen (R 14) at low doses (micropolychemotherapy) compared to CMF in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: phase III study. Preliminary evaluation in rheumatoid arthritis activity in patients treated with TNF-alpha blocker plus methotrexate versus methotrexate or leflunomide alone. Controlled trial of cyclophosphamide in rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment with leflunomide slows radiographic progression of rheumatoid arthritis: results from three randomized controlled trials of leflunomide in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group. Sequenced compared with simultaneous anthracycline and cyclophosphamide in high-risk stage I and II breast cancer: final analysis from INT-0137 (S9313). A two year randomised controlled trial of intramuscular depot steroids in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis who have shown an incomplete response to disease modifying antirheumatic drugs. Radiographic, clinical, and functional outcomes of treatment with adalimumab (a human anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis receiving concomitant methotrexate therapy: a randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trial.
This study assessed the efficacy and safety of combination (COMB) of cyclosporine (CSA) and leflunomide (LEF) versus each drug alone, in the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
                One hundred six patients with active RA refractory to at least one disease modifying antirheumatic drug (methotrexate obligatorily) were entered into a 12-month open, prospective trial and were randomly allocated to receive either CSA 2.5 to 5 mg/kg/day, or LEF 20 mg/day, or the combination of both at the same initiating dose.
                The American College of Rheumatology 50% (ACR50) response rates for the 3 groups were COMB 80%, CSA 40%, and LEF 42% (p = 0.001). Combination therapy was also significantly better than CSA and LEF at the more stringent 70% response rate (69% vs 34% vs 30%, respectively; p = 0.001). Comparable Disease Activity Score 28 reduction rates were noted at trial termination for all 3 treatment arms: COMB -2.74 vs CSA -2.53 vs LEF -2.28 (p nonsignificant). Discontinuation rates were more common in LEF vs CSA arm (p = 0.046). No unexpected or serious adverse drug effects were identified in the combination group during the 12-month period.
                The combination of CSA and LEF in patients with refractory RA provided statistically significant benefit in ACR50 and ACR70. Adverse events were not substantially increased. Optimal use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis is vital if progression of disease is to be reduced. Methotrexate (MTX) and sulfasalazine (SASP) are widely used inexpensive DMARDs, recently often combined despite no firm evidence of benefit from previous studies. Aim: To establish whether a combination of SASP and MTX is superior to either drug alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a suboptimal response to 6 months of SASP.
                A randomised controlled study of step-up DMARD treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis. In phase I, 687 patients received SASP for 6 months. Those with a disease activity score (DAS) > or =2.4 were offered additional treatment in phase II (SASP alone, MTX alone or a combination of the two). The primary outcome measure was change in DAS.
                At 6 months, 191 (28%) patients had a DAS <2.4, 123 (18%) were eligible but did not wish to enter phase II, 130 (19%) stopped SASP because of reversible adverse events and 165 (24%) entered phase II. DAS at 18 months was significantly lower in those who received combination treatment compared with those who received either SASP or MTX: monotherapy arms did not differ. Improvement in European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology 20, 50 and 70 scores favoured combination therapy.
                In this "true-to-life" study, an inexpensive combination of DMARDs proved more effective than monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a suboptimal response to SASP. There was no increase in toxicity. These results provide an evidence base for the use of this combination as a component of tight control strategies. Two groups of 23 patients each, having advanced breast cancer, entered this prospective and randomized study. One group was treated with the conventional schedule of CMF (cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m2/po from the first to the 14th day, methotrexate 40 mg/m2/iv the first and the 8th day, 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2/iv the first and the 8th day), and the other was treated with a new six-drug regimen, administered at low doses (R 14: cyclophosphamide 2 mg/kg/iv, vincristine 0.01 mg/kg/iv, vinblastine 0.1 mg/kg/iv, the first day and 5-fluorouracil 5 mg/kg/iv, methotrexate 0.7 mg/kg/iv, adriamycin 0.5 mg/kg/iv the 2nd day every 21 days). The remission rate was 35% (8/23) and 39% (9/23) for CMF and R 14 respectively. The median duration of objective remission was 6 months for CMF and 5 months for R 14 regimen. The median survival time of responding patients was 18 months for CMF and 14 months for R 14. This study shows that the new six-drug regimen at low doses is effective (regarding subjective, objective response and survival rate), and its toxicity is no higher than that of CMF (the incidence of leukopenia was significantly lower during the first course). Therefore, R 14 should be considered an alternative regimen to CMF in the treatment of advanced and, possibly, early breast cancer. The advantages for using R 14 are: 1) it is less toxic (a single dose is a very small amount of medicine compared to what is usually administered), 2) an iv administration always follows a therapeutic program (while in a CMF schedule cyclophosphamide is self-administered by the patient). Methotrexate (MTX) is a first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Leflunomide (LEF) and the biologic agents entered the arsenal of DMARDs in 1998. Therapeutic properties of new drugs are still under survey. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of MTX, LEF and a biologic agent (TNF-alpha blocker) combined with MTX in reducing disease activity in RA. Seventy-eight patients with active RA underwent a 24-week treatment with MTX 15 mg/week (30 pts), LEF 20 mg/day (30 pts) or a TNF-alpha blocker (etanercept 25 mg 2x weekly or infliximab 3 mg/kg in the week 0, 2, 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter) plus MTX 15 mg/week (18 pts). Only patients with RA resistant to MTX were included in groups receiving LEF or a biologic agent. During follow-up, patients' characteristics, disease characteristics, and clinical and laboratory data were registered. RA activity was evaluated using the ESR, tender and swollen joint counts, the duration of morning stiffness, disease activity score-28 (DAS 28), visual analogue scale (VAS) and health assessment questionnaire (HAQ). Treatment efficacy was demonstrated with ACR 20, 50 and 70 criteria. All groups revealed statistically significant improvement in all disease activity parameters measured. The percentage improvements were similar in groups treated with MTX and LEF and--except for VAS--significantly greater in the group treated with a biologic agent. Disease activity assessed by DAS 28 decreased significantly in all groups: the results were comparable in groups treated with MTX and LEF and significantly more prominent in the group treated with a TNF-alpha blocker. The ACR 20, 50 and 70 improvements amounted, respectively: 100, 50 and 7% in MTX group 87, 60 and 13% in LEF group and 100, 83 and 50% in a biologic agent group. The study revealed equal effectiveness of MTX and LEF in reducing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy of a TNF-alpha blocker combined with MTX was higher than that of each conventional DMARDs, especially with regard to ACR 70 criteria (considerable improvement after treatment). LEF was equally effective as MTX in patients unable to continue MTX treatment due to the drug's ineffectiveness. Twenty-four patients with severe progressive rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to cyclophosphamide or placebo in a double-blind crossover trial. Eleven patients who completed 9 months on cyclophosphamide (average dose: 1.8 mg/kg/day) demonstrated significant decrease in painful joints, swollen joints, and morning stiffness and increase in grip strength when compared to 11 patients on placebo. After crossover, significant improvement was observed in patients switched to cyclophosphamide, and deterioration within 2 months was observed in most patients changed from drug to placebo. Serum immunoglobulins and rheumatoid factor titers decreased with cyclophosphamide but antibody response to Vi antigen was unaffected. Primary delayed immune response to 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene was markedly depressed. Adverse effects were troublesome--hemorrhagic cystitis affected 4 patients and amenorrhea occurred in 3. Despite striking beneficial effect, cyclophosphamide should be prescribed cautiously and only in severe resistant cases of rheumatoid arthritis. To determine whether treatment with leflunomide (LEF), methotrexate (MTX), or sulfasalazine (SSZ) for 6-12 months retards progression of radiographic damage and to identify clinical variables that correlate with radiographic progression.
                Radiographs of the hands and feet were performed at baseline and at the end of study or early exit in 3 randomized controlled trials. Protocol US301 was a 12-month controlled trial of LEF or MTX treatment compared with placebo in 482 patients randomized in a 3:3:2 ratio. Protocol MN301 compared 6 months of LEF or SSZ treatment with placebo in 358 patients, randomized in a 3:3:2 ratio, with continued blinded treatment in the active control arms for 12 months. Protocol MN302 compared 12 months of LEF treatment with MTX in 999 patients. Radiographs were blinded for sequence and treatment and were scored for erosions and joint space narrowing. All analyses were by intent-to-treat. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for missing data.
                LEF, MTX, and SSZ treatment resulted in statistically significantly less radiographic progression compared with placebo at 6 and 12 months: for protocol US301, LEF versus placebo P = 0.0007 and MTX versus placebo P = 0.0196; for protocol MN301, LEF versus placebo P = 0.0004 and SSZ versus placebo P = 0.0484. The effect of LEF treatment was similar to that of MTX and SSZ.
                These are the first 6- and 12-month randomized placebo- and active drug-controlled trials to demonstrate retardation of radiographic progression by a new disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), LEF, as well as 2 commonly used DMARDs, MTX and SSZ. We conducted a phase III randomized study of two adjuvant treatment schedules of doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C) in early-stage breast cancer to determine if administration of sequential single agents (A --> C) results in superior disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) versus the same total dose given in combination (AC).
                High-risk node-negative or low-risk node-positive breast cancer patients received AC given: (arm I) concurrently (AC) doxorubicin 54 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 1.2 g/m2 intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks for six cycles; or (arm II) in sequence (A C) doxorubicin 40.5 mg/m2 IV days 1 and 2 every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by cyclophosphamide 2.4 gm/m2 IV every 2 weeks for three cycles. Total dose and duration were identical, but the intensity of each drug was increased on A C. Both arms included granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support and prophylactic antibiotics. All but premenopausal women with receptor negative tumors received tamoxifen after chemotherapy.
                Between 1994 and 1997, 3,176 patients were randomly assigned. Arms were well balanced; 48% of eligible patients were node-negative and 48% were estrogen receptor-positive. No significant differences in OS or DFS were observed; 5-year estimates of OS (95% CI) were 88% (87% to 90%) on AC and 89% (87% to 91%) on A --> C. Grade 4 hematologic toxicity was greater on A --> C, but nonhematological grade 4 was similar.
                The overall result does not support superiority of dose-intense sequenced single agents. The greater toxicity of higher doses of single agents does not support their sequential use. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), intramuscular (IM) pulsed depomedrone expedites an immediate response to disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Although IM depomedrone is also widely used to treat disease flares in patients treated with DMARDs, its effect on radiological progression has not been assessed.
                To evaluate the benefits of 120 mg IM depomedrone versus placebo in patients with established RA whose disease was inadequately controlled by existing DMARDs.
                In a 2 year prospective randomised controlled trial patients were assessed using the ILAR/WHO core dataset, disease activity score (DAS28), x ray examination of hands and feet scored by Larsen's method, and bone densitometry.
                291 patients with RA were screened, 166 were eligible, and 91 consented and were randomised. Disease activity improved more rapidly in the steroid treated patients than with placebo, but after 6 months no difference remained. A small but significant reduction in erosive damage in the steroid group compared with placebo was also found. More adverse reactions occurred in the steroid treated group than in the placebo patients (55 v 42), especially those reactions traditionally related to steroids (16 v 2), including vertebral fracture, diabetes, and myocardial infarction. Hip bone density fell significantly in steroid treated but not placebo patients.
                IM depomedrone improved disease activity in the short term and produced a small reduction in bone erosion at the cost of a significant increase in adverse events. Despite the initial benefit of IM depomedrone, when patients respond suboptimally to a DMARD they should not be given long term additional steroids but should be treated with alternative or additional DMARDs. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is an important proinflammatory cytokine that mediates inflammatory synovitis and articular matrix degradation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We investigated the ability of adalimumab, a human anti-TNF monoclonal antibody, to inhibit the progression of structural joint damage, reduce the signs and symptoms, and improve physical function in patients with active RA receiving concomitant treatment with methotrexate (MTX).
                In this multicenter, 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 619 patients with active RA who had an inadequate response to MTX were randomized to receive adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week (n = 207), adalimumab 20 mg subcutaneously every week (n = 212), or placebo (n = 200) plus concomitant MTX. The primary efficacy end points were radiographic progression at week 52 (total Sharp score by a modified method [TSS]), clinical response at week 24 (improvements of at least 20% in the American College of Rheumatology core criteria [ACR20]), and physical function at week 52 (disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]).
                At week 52, there was statistically significantly less radiographic progression, as measured by the change in TSS, in the patients receiving adalimumab either 40 mg every other week (mean +/- SD change 0.1 +/- 4.8) or 20 mg weekly (0.8 +/- 4.9) as compared with that in the placebo group (2.7 +/- 6.8) (P < or = 0.001 for each comparison). In addition, there were statistically significant changes in the components of the TSS. At week 24, ACR20 responses were achieved by 63% and 61% of patients in the adalimumab 40 mg every other week and 20 mg weekly groups, respectively, versus 30% of patients in the placebo group (P < or = 0.001 for each comparison). At week 52, ACR20 responses were achieved by 59% and 55% of patients taking adalimumab 40 mg every other week and 20 mg weekly, respectively, versus 24% of patients taking placebo (P < or = 0.001 for each comparison). At week 52, physical function as measured by the HAQ demonstrated statistically significant improvement with adalimumab 40 mg every other week and 20 mg weekly compared with placebo (mean change in HAQ score -0.59 and -0.61, respectively, versus -0.25; P < or = 0.001 for each comparison). A total of 467 patients (75.4%) completed 52 weeks of treatment. Adalimumab was generally well tolerated. Discontinuations occurred in 22.0% of adalimumab-treated patients and in 30.0% of placebo-treated patients. The rate of adverse events (both serious and nonserious) was comparable in the adalimumab and placebo groups, although the proportion of patients reporting serious infections was higher in patients receiving adalimumab (3.8%) than in those receiving placebo (0.5%) (P < or = 0.02), and was highest in the patients receiving 40 mg every other week.
                In this 52-week trial, adalimumab was more effective than placebo at inhibiting the progression of structural joint damage, reducing the signs and symptoms, and improving physical function in patients with active RA who had demonstrated an incomplete response to MTX.
Cyclophosphamide appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with RA, similar to some disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as antimalarials or sulfasalazine, but lower than methotrexate. Toxicity however is severe, limiting its use given the low benefit-risk ratio compared to other antirheumatic agents.