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.fulltextNo Fulltext-
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.-
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.accessRightsClosed Access-
item.validationecoom 2010-
crisitem.journal.issn0003-4967-
crisitem.journal.eissn1468-2060-
Appears in Collections:Research publications
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

44
checked on Sep 2, 2020

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

48
checked on May 16, 2024

Page view(s)

64
checked on Jul 9, 2023

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


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