Reference : Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with ea...
Scientific journals : Article
Human health sciences : Rheumatology
Human health sciences : General & internal medicine
Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial
Klareskog, L. [> > > >]
van der Heijde, D. [> > > >]
de Jager, J. P. [> > > >]
Gough, A. [> > > >]
Kalden, J. [> > > >]
Malaise, Michel mailto [Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Rhumatologie >]
Mola, E. M. [> > > >]
Pavelka, K. [> > > >]
Sany, J. [> > > >]
Settas, L. [> > > >]
Wajdula, J. [> > > >]
Pedersen, R. [> > > >]
Fatenejad, S. [> > > >]
Sanda, M. [> > > >]
Lancet Publishing Group
Yes (verified by ORBi)
United Kingdom
[en] Antirheumatic Agents ; Immunoglobulin G ; Receptors, Tumor Necrosis Factor ; Recombinant Fusion Proteins ; TNFR-Fc fusion protein ; Methotrexate
[en] Background Etanercept and methotrexate are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but no data exist on concurrent initiation or use of the combination compared with either drug alone. We aimed to assess combination treatment with etanercept and methotrexate versus the monotherapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods In a double-blind, randomised, clinical efficacy, safety, and radiographic study, 686 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated to treatment with etanercept 25 mg (subcutaneously twice a week), oral methotrexate (up to 20 mg every week), or the combination. Clinical response was assessed by criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The primary efficacy endpoint was the numeric index of the ACR response (ACR-N) area under the curve (AUC) over the first 24 weeks. The primary radiographic endpoint was change from baseline to week 52 in total joint damage and was assessed with the modified Sharp score. Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings Four patients did not receive any drug; thus 682 were studied. ACR-N AUC at 24 weeks was greater for the combination group compared with etanercept alone and methotrexate alone (18.3% years [95% CI 17.1-19.6] vs 14.7%-years [13.5-16.0], p<0.0001, and 12.2%-years [11.0-13.4], p<0.0001; respectively). The mean difference in ACR-N AUC between combination and methotrexate alone was 6.1 (95% CI 4.5-7.8, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was 2.5 (0.8-4.2, p=0.0034). The combination was more efficacious than methotrexate or etanercept alone in retardation of joint damage (mean total Sharp score -0.54 [95% CI -1.00 to -0.07] vs 2.80 [1.08 to 4.51], p<0.0001, and 0.52 [-0.10 to 1.15], p=0.0006; respectively). The mean difference in total Sharp score between combination and methotrexate alone was -3.34 (95% CI -4.86 to -1.81, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was -2.27 (-3.81 to -0.74, p=0.0469). The number of patients reporting infections or adverse events was similar in all groups. Interpretation The combination of etanercept and methotrexate was significantly better in reduction of disease activity, improvement of functional disability, and retardation of radiographic progression compared with methotrexate or etanercept alone. These findings bring us closer to achievement of remission and repair of structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis.
Researchers ; Professionals

File(s) associated to this reference

Fulltext file(s):

Restricted access
Malaise_2004_Lancet_675-681.pdfPublisher postprint128.05 kBRequest copy

Bookmark and Share SFX Query

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.