Objective:To validate and compare the definition of the Disease Activity Score 28 based on C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP)) to the definition based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR).Methods:Data were analysed from two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of abatacept of 6-month and 12-month duration in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria and the proportion of patients in remission (DAS28 <2.6) based on the two DAS28 definitions were examined. Trends in radiographic progression (erosion score, joint space narrowing score and total score) and physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)) across the EULAR responder states (none, moderate and good) were analysed.Results:There was general agreement in determining the EULAR responder state using both DAS28 definitions (κ = 0.80, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.83). Overall, there was 82.4% agreement on the EULAR response criteria; when disagreements occurred, the DAS28 (CRP) yielded a better EULAR response more often then DAS28 (ESR) (12.6% vs 4.9%, respectively). There was also agreement in determining remission: κ = 0.69 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.78). Radiographic progression decreased in patients treated with abatacept across EULAR states (from none to moderate to good) based on both definitions. For patients treated with placebo, the trend was not as pronounced, with radiographic scores higher for moderate vs non-responders. For physical function, similar trends were observed across the EULAR states for both DAS28 definitions.Conclusions:The DAS28 (CRP) has been validated against radiographic progression and physical function. While the DAS28 (CRP) yielded a better EULAR response more often than the DAS28 (ESR), the validation profile was similar to the DAS28 (ESR), indicating that both measures are useful for assessing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Objectives:This double-blind trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score (based on erythrocyte sedimentation rates; DAS28 (ESR)) for the abatacept vs placebo groups at day 197.Methods:Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) were randomised 3:3:2 to abatacept (∼10 mg/kg every 4 weeks, n = 156), infliximab (3 mg/kg every 8 weeks, n = 165), or placebo (every 4 weeks, n = 110) and background MTX. Safety and efficacy were assessed throughout the study.Results:Similar patient demographics and clinical characteristics were present at baseline between groups, with mean scores of ∼1.7 for HAQ-DI and 6.8 for DAS28 (ESR). At 6 months, mean changes in DAS28 (ESR) were significantly greater for abatacept vs placebo (–2.53 vs –1.48, p<0.001) and infliximab vs placebo (–2.25 vs –1.48, p<0.001). For abatacept vs infliximab treatment at day 365, reductions in the DAS28 (ESR) were –2.88 vs –2.25. At day 365, the following response rates were observed for abatacept and infliximab, respectively: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 72.4 and 55.8%; ACR 50, 45.5 and 36.4%; ACR 70, 26.3 and 20.6%; low disease activity score (LDAS), 35.3 and 22.4%; DAS28-defined remission, 18.7 and 12.2%; good European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses, 32.0 and 18.5%; and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 57.7 and 52.7%. Mean changes in physical component summary (PCS) were 9.5 and 7.6, and mental component summary (MCS) were 6.0 and 4.0, for abatacept and infliximab, respectively. Over 1 year, adverse events (AEs) (89.1 vs 93.3%), serious AEs (SAEs) (9.6 vs 18.2%), serious infections (1.9 vs 8.5%) and discontinuations due to AEs (3.2 vs 7.3%) and SAEs (2.6 vs 3.6%) were lower with abatacept than infliximab.Conclusions:In this study, abatacept and infliximab (3 mg/kg every 8 weeks) demonstrated similar efficacy. Overall, abatacept had a relatively more acceptable safety and tolerability profile, with fewer SAEs, serious infections, acute infusional events and discontinuations due to AEs than the infliximab group. Trial registration number:NCT00095147.

NCT00124982.

Gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is still an important medical and socio-economic problem -despite recent pharmaceutical advances. To prevent NSAID-induced gastropathy, three strategies are followed in clinical routine: (i) coprescription of a gastroprotective drug, (ii) use of selective COX-2 inhibitors, and (iii) eradication of Helicobacter pylori . Proton pump inhibitors are the comedication of choice as they effectively reduce gastrointestinal adverse events of NSAIDs and are safe even in long-term use. Co-medication with vitamin C has only been little studied in the prevention of N SAID-induced gastropathy. Apart from scavenging free radicals it is able to induce haeme-oxgenase 1 in gastric cells, a protective enzyme with antioxidant and vasodilative proper ties. Final results of the celecoxib outcome study (CLASS study) attenuated the initial enthusiasm about the GI safety of selective COX-2 inhibitors, especially in patients concomitantly taking aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis. Helicobacter pylori increases the risk for ulcers particularly in NSAID-naive patients and therefore eradication is recommended prior to long-term NSAID therapy at least in patients at high risk. New classes of COXinhibitors are currently evaluated in clinical studies with very promising results: N SAIDs combined with a nitric oxide releasing moiety (NO -NSAID) and dual inhibitors of COX and 5-LOX. These drugs offer extended anti-inflammatory potency while sparing gastric mucosa.

No abstract