Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/9800
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCombe, B.-
dc.contributor.authorCodreanu, C.-
dc.contributor.authorFiocco, U.-
dc.contributor.authorGaubitz, M.-
dc.contributor.authorGEUSENS, Piet-
dc.contributor.authorKvien, T. K.-
dc.contributor.authorPavelka, K.-
dc.contributor.authorSambrook, P. N.-
dc.contributor.authorSmolen, J. S.-
dc.contributor.authorKhandker, R.-
dc.contributor.authorSingh, A.-
dc.contributor.authorWajdula, J.-
dc.contributor.authorFatenejad, S.-
dc.date.accessioned2009-08-19T12:18:40Z-
dc.date.issued2009-
dc.identifier.citationANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 68(7). p. 1146-1152-
dc.identifier.issn0003-4967-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1942/9800-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To determine the efficacy and safety of etanercept and etanercept plus sulfasalazine versus sulfasalazine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite sulfasalazine therapy. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (25 mg twice weekly; sulfasalazine was discontinued at baseline), etanercept plus sulfasalazine (unchanged regimen of 2-3 g/day) or sulfasalazine in a double-blind, randomised, 2-year study in adult patients with active RA despite sulfasalazine therapy. Efficacy was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology criteria, disease activity scores (DAS) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Results: Demographic variables and baseline disease characteristics were comparable among treatment groups; mean DAS 5.1, 5.2 and 5.1 for etanercept (n = 103), etanercept plus sulfasalazine (n = 101) and sulfasalazine (n = 50), respectively. Withdrawal due to lack of efficacy was highest with sulfasalazine (26 (52%) vs 6 (6%) for either etanercept group, p < 0.001). Patients receiving etanercept or etanercept plus sulfasalazine had a more rapid initial response, which was sustained at 2 years, than those receiving sulfasalazine: mean DAS 2.8, 2.5 versus 4.5, respectively (p < 0.05); ACR 20 response was achieved by 67%, 77% versus 34% of patients, respectively (p < 0.01) Overall, PRO followed a similar pattern; a clinically significant improvement in health assessment questionnaire was achieved by 76%, 78% versus 40% of patients, respectively (p < 0.01). Commonly reported adverse events occurring in the etanercept groups were injection site reactions and pharyngitis/laryngitis (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Etanercept and etanercept plus sulfasalazine are efficacious for the long-term management of patients with RA. The addition of etanercept or substitution with etanercept should be considered as treatment options for patients not adequately responding to sulfasalazine.-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherB M J PUBLISHING GROUP-
dc.titleEfficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes of combination etanercept and sulfasalazine versus etanercept alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind randomised 2-year study-
dc.typeJournal Contribution-
dc.identifier.epage1152-
dc.identifier.issue7-
dc.identifier.spage1146-
dc.identifier.volume68-
local.format.pages7-
local.bibliographicCitation.jcatA1-
dc.description.notes[Wajdula, J.] Wyeth Res, Clin Res & Dev, Collegeville, PA 19426 USA. [Combe, B.] Hop Lapeyronie, Serv Immunorhumatol, Montpellier, France. [Codreanu, C.] Cent Metodol Reumatol, Bucharest, Romania. [Fiocco, U.] Univ Padua Polyclin, Cattedra & Div Reumatol, Padua, Italy. [Gaubitz, M.] Univ Munster, Med Clin B, Munster, Germany. [Geusens, P. P.] Univ Hasselt, Biomed Res Ctr, Hasselt, Belgium. [Geusens, P. P.] Univ Maastricht, Dept Internal Med Rheumatol, Maastricht, Netherlands. [Kvien, T. K.] Diakonhjemmet Hosp Oslo, Dept Rheumatol, Oslo, Norway. [Pavelka, K.] Inst Rheumatol, Prague, Czech Republic. [Sambrook, P. N.] Univ Sydney, Kolling Inst, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. [Smolen, J. S.] Med Univ Vienna, Dept Rheumatol, Vienna, Austria. [Smolen, J. S.] Krankenhaus Lainz, Dept Med 2, Vienna, Austria.-
local.type.refereedRefereed-
local.type.specifiedArticle-
dc.bibliographicCitation.oldjcatA1-
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/ard.2007.087106-
dc.identifier.isi000266956800012-
item.validationecoom 2010-
item.contributorCombe, B.-
item.contributorCodreanu, C.-
item.contributorFiocco, U.-
item.contributorGaubitz, M.-
item.contributorGEUSENS, Piet-
item.contributorKvien, T. K.-
item.contributorPavelka, K.-
item.contributorSambrook, P. N.-
item.contributorSmolen, J. S.-
item.contributorKhandker, R.-
item.contributorSingh, A.-
item.contributorWajdula, J.-
item.contributorFatenejad, S.-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.accessRightsClosed Access-
item.fullcitationCombe, B.; Codreanu, C.; Fiocco, U.; Gaubitz, M.; GEUSENS, Piet; Kvien, T. K.; Pavelka, K.; Sambrook, P. N.; Smolen, J. S.; Khandker, R.; Singh, A.; Wajdula, J. & Fatenejad, S. (2009) Efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes of combination etanercept and sulfasalazine versus etanercept alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind randomised 2-year study. In: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 68(7). p. 1146-1152.-
crisitem.journal.issn0003-4967-
crisitem.journal.eissn1468-2060-
Appears in Collections:Research publications
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.