Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment After Methotrexate: The Durability of Triple Therapy Versus Etanercept

Shana M. Peper, Robert Lew, Ted R Mikuls, Mary Brophy, Denis Rybin, Hongseng Wu, James Robert O'Dell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Although it is common for rheumatologists to initiate biologic agents after failure of methotrexate monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ample data support the initial use of combinations of conventional therapies in this clinical scenario. Our study explores the durability of triple therapy (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) versus methotrexate-etanercept in RA. Methods: RA patients with suboptimal response to methotrexate (n = 353) were randomized to either triple therapy or methotrexate-etanercept therapy in a 48-week, double-blinded, noninferiority trial. Patients without clinical improvement at 24 weeks were switched to the alternative treatment. Of the total, 289 participated in followup. We report treatment durability, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), and other measures during an open-label extension for an additional period up to 72 weeks. Results: Mean ± SD duration of open-label followup was 11 ± 6 months. The likelihood of continuing conventional therapy at 1 year was 78% for triple therapy versus 63% for methotrexate-etanercept, with most treatment changes occurring at the start of followup. More patients changed from methotrexate-etanercept to triple therapy than from triple therapy to methotrexate-etanercept (P = 0.005). DAS28 scores and other disease activity measures were not different for the 2 treatments and were stable during followup. Conclusion: In RA patients with suboptimal methotrexate response randomized to receive triple therapy or methotrexate-etanercept, the former was found to be significantly more durable. Given cost differences and similar outcomes, the variable durability demonstrated provides additional evidence supporting conventional combinations over biologic agent combinations as the first choice after methotrexate inadequate response.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1467-1472
Number of pages6
JournalArthritis Care and Research
Volume69
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2017

Fingerprint

Methotrexate
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Therapeutics
Biological Factors
Etanercept
Joints
Hydroxychloroquine
Sulfasalazine
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rheumatology

Cite this

Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment After Methotrexate : The Durability of Triple Therapy Versus Etanercept. / Peper, Shana M.; Lew, Robert; Mikuls, Ted R; Brophy, Mary; Rybin, Denis; Wu, Hongseng; O'Dell, James Robert.

In: Arthritis Care and Research, Vol. 69, No. 10, 10.2017, p. 1467-1472.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Peper, Shana M. ; Lew, Robert ; Mikuls, Ted R ; Brophy, Mary ; Rybin, Denis ; Wu, Hongseng ; O'Dell, James Robert. / Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment After Methotrexate : The Durability of Triple Therapy Versus Etanercept. In: Arthritis Care and Research. 2017 ; Vol. 69, No. 10. pp. 1467-1472.
@article{a8c18a61210c40f98d95f55cca7c709f,
title = "Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment After Methotrexate: The Durability of Triple Therapy Versus Etanercept",
abstract = "Objective: Although it is common for rheumatologists to initiate biologic agents after failure of methotrexate monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ample data support the initial use of combinations of conventional therapies in this clinical scenario. Our study explores the durability of triple therapy (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) versus methotrexate-etanercept in RA. Methods: RA patients with suboptimal response to methotrexate (n = 353) were randomized to either triple therapy or methotrexate-etanercept therapy in a 48-week, double-blinded, noninferiority trial. Patients without clinical improvement at 24 weeks were switched to the alternative treatment. Of the total, 289 participated in followup. We report treatment durability, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), and other measures during an open-label extension for an additional period up to 72 weeks. Results: Mean ± SD duration of open-label followup was 11 ± 6 months. The likelihood of continuing conventional therapy at 1 year was 78{\%} for triple therapy versus 63{\%} for methotrexate-etanercept, with most treatment changes occurring at the start of followup. More patients changed from methotrexate-etanercept to triple therapy than from triple therapy to methotrexate-etanercept (P = 0.005). DAS28 scores and other disease activity measures were not different for the 2 treatments and were stable during followup. Conclusion: In RA patients with suboptimal methotrexate response randomized to receive triple therapy or methotrexate-etanercept, the former was found to be significantly more durable. Given cost differences and similar outcomes, the variable durability demonstrated provides additional evidence supporting conventional combinations over biologic agent combinations as the first choice after methotrexate inadequate response.",
author = "Peper, {Shana M.} and Robert Lew and Mikuls, {Ted R} and Mary Brophy and Denis Rybin and Hongseng Wu and O'Dell, {James Robert}",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1002/acr.23255",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "69",
pages = "1467--1472",
journal = "Arthritis and Rheumatism",
issn = "2151-4658",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment After Methotrexate

T2 - The Durability of Triple Therapy Versus Etanercept

AU - Peper, Shana M.

AU - Lew, Robert

AU - Mikuls, Ted R

AU - Brophy, Mary

AU - Rybin, Denis

AU - Wu, Hongseng

AU - O'Dell, James Robert

PY - 2017/10

Y1 - 2017/10

N2 - Objective: Although it is common for rheumatologists to initiate biologic agents after failure of methotrexate monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ample data support the initial use of combinations of conventional therapies in this clinical scenario. Our study explores the durability of triple therapy (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) versus methotrexate-etanercept in RA. Methods: RA patients with suboptimal response to methotrexate (n = 353) were randomized to either triple therapy or methotrexate-etanercept therapy in a 48-week, double-blinded, noninferiority trial. Patients without clinical improvement at 24 weeks were switched to the alternative treatment. Of the total, 289 participated in followup. We report treatment durability, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), and other measures during an open-label extension for an additional period up to 72 weeks. Results: Mean ± SD duration of open-label followup was 11 ± 6 months. The likelihood of continuing conventional therapy at 1 year was 78% for triple therapy versus 63% for methotrexate-etanercept, with most treatment changes occurring at the start of followup. More patients changed from methotrexate-etanercept to triple therapy than from triple therapy to methotrexate-etanercept (P = 0.005). DAS28 scores and other disease activity measures were not different for the 2 treatments and were stable during followup. Conclusion: In RA patients with suboptimal methotrexate response randomized to receive triple therapy or methotrexate-etanercept, the former was found to be significantly more durable. Given cost differences and similar outcomes, the variable durability demonstrated provides additional evidence supporting conventional combinations over biologic agent combinations as the first choice after methotrexate inadequate response.

AB - Objective: Although it is common for rheumatologists to initiate biologic agents after failure of methotrexate monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ample data support the initial use of combinations of conventional therapies in this clinical scenario. Our study explores the durability of triple therapy (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) versus methotrexate-etanercept in RA. Methods: RA patients with suboptimal response to methotrexate (n = 353) were randomized to either triple therapy or methotrexate-etanercept therapy in a 48-week, double-blinded, noninferiority trial. Patients without clinical improvement at 24 weeks were switched to the alternative treatment. Of the total, 289 participated in followup. We report treatment durability, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), and other measures during an open-label extension for an additional period up to 72 weeks. Results: Mean ± SD duration of open-label followup was 11 ± 6 months. The likelihood of continuing conventional therapy at 1 year was 78% for triple therapy versus 63% for methotrexate-etanercept, with most treatment changes occurring at the start of followup. More patients changed from methotrexate-etanercept to triple therapy than from triple therapy to methotrexate-etanercept (P = 0.005). DAS28 scores and other disease activity measures were not different for the 2 treatments and were stable during followup. Conclusion: In RA patients with suboptimal methotrexate response randomized to receive triple therapy or methotrexate-etanercept, the former was found to be significantly more durable. Given cost differences and similar outcomes, the variable durability demonstrated provides additional evidence supporting conventional combinations over biologic agent combinations as the first choice after methotrexate inadequate response.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028910852&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028910852&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/acr.23255

DO - 10.1002/acr.23255

M3 - Article

C2 - 28388820

AN - SCOPUS:85028910852

VL - 69

SP - 1467

EP - 1472

JO - Arthritis and Rheumatism

JF - Arthritis and Rheumatism

SN - 2151-4658

IS - 10

ER -