No abstract

BackgroundAdalimumab is a fully human anti-TNFalpha monoclonal antibody. Published studies indicate that its use in patients with RA can be effective and safe. ObjectivesThe aim of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in the treatment of RA. Search strategyElectronic databases were searched up to August, 2004: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EBM Reviews (CDSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE and CENTRAL) and Health STAR. Conference proceedings were hand searched and pharmaceutical companies were contacted to obtain additional unpublished data from published trials. Adalimumab was searched as a text word as it is not currently indexed. The search was not limited by language, year of publication or type of publication. Selection criteriaAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing adalimumab alone or in combination with DMARDs to placebo or other DMARDs. Data collection and analysisTwo reviewers independently collected the data in a standardized form and assessed the methodological quality of the trial using validated criteria. Outcome measures included ACR and EULAR responses, DAS 28 and components of ACR response and radiographic data. Safety data were also included. Continuous data were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI), absolute benefit (AB) and relative difference (RD). Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% CI, absolute risk difference (ARD) or risk difference (RDiff ) with 95%CI and number needed to treat (NNT) or to harm (NNH). When significant heterogeneity was not found, data were pooled. Main resultsSix studies with 2381 patients were included in this review. Two comparisons were done: A. adalimumab subcutaneously (sc) + methotrexate (or DMARDs) versus placebo sc + methotrexate (or DMARDs). B. adalimumab sc in monotherapy versus placebo sc. In the comparison A, with adalimumab 40 mg every other week (e.o.w.), the RR to achieve an ACR 20 response at 24 weeks ranged 1 Adalimumab for treating rheumatoid arthritis (Review)

Dose escalation is common in patients treated with infliximab, and less frequent with etanercept. In a proportion of patients, the dose escalation seems effective. The design and evidence level of the available studies limit the strength of the conclusions.

This study aims to explore the effectiveness of low dose of etanercept (ETN) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who achieve a good control of their disease in daily clinical practice. This is a case series of AS patients treated with ETN. According to the judgment of the treating rheumatologist and patient's preferences, a dose reduction was done in those patients who achieved a good control of their disease defined by Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI) <4 and C-reactive protein normal values. Fifty-one AS patients treated with ETN were identified and 16 of them (32%) were on dose reduction regimen. Several regimens of dose reduction were used. These patterns were fixed and they did not change along the time. Mean time receiving ETN before adjusting the dose was 17 ± 12 months. Mean follow-up after dose change was 21 ± 21 months. At this point, all the patients in whom dose reduction was done remained in the low-dose regimen. Median BASDAI (range) at starting the low-dose regimen and 6 months later were 1.6 (0.9-2.4) and 1.4 (0.3-3.2), respectively. Median CRP values (range) at starting the low dose regimen and 6 months later were 1 mg/l (0.1-2.8), and 1.3 mg/l (0.3-4.1), respectively. Other disease-related variables also remained unchanged. Patients with follow up at 12 and 24 months and longer remained in clinical remission with BASDAI values <2 and normal CRP values. Our data suggest that AS patients in clinical remission can use low doses of ETN without increasing disease activity. So, it can be a promising strategy but additional studies are needed to prove it.

Background. The objective of this simulation model was to assess the cost-effectiveness of different biological treatment strategies based on levels of disease activity in Spain, in patients with moderate to severe active RA and an insufficient response to at least one anti-TNF agent. Methods. Clinically meaningful effectiveness criteria were defined using DAS28 scores: remission and Low Disease Activity State (LDAS) thresholds. Monte-Carlo simulations were conducted to assess cost-effectiveness over 2 years of four biological sequential strategies composed of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, infliximab), abatacept or rituximab, in patients with moderate to severe active RA and an insufficient response to etanercept as first biological agent. Results. The sequential strategy including etanercept, abatacept and adalimumab appeared more efficacious over 2 years (102 days in LDAS) compared to the same sequence including rituximab as second biological option (82 days in LDAS). Cost-effectiveness ratios showed lower costs per day in LDAS with abatacept (427 €) compared to rituximab as second biological option (508 €). All comparisons were confirmed when using remission criteria. Conclusion. Model results suggest that in patients with an insufficient response to anti-TNF agents, the biological sequences including abatacept appear more efficacious and cost-effective than similar sequences including rituximab or cycled anti-TNF agents.