John J. Cush

BACKGROUND: Glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are used to treat osteoarthritis. The multicenter, double-blind, placebo- and celecoxib-controlled Glucosamine/chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT) evaluated their efficacy and safety as a treatment for knee pain from osteoarthritis. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1583 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis to receive 1500 mg of glucosamine daily, 1200 mg of chondroitin sulfate daily, both glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate, 200 mg of celecoxib daily, or placebo for 24 weeks. Up to 4000 mg of acetaminophen daily was allowed as rescue analgesia. Assignment was stratified according to the severity of knee pain (mild [N=1229] vs. moderate to severe [N=354]). The primary outcome measure was a 20 percent decrease in knee pain from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 59 years, and 64 percent were women. Overall, glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate were not significantly better than placebo in reducing knee pain by 20 percent. As compared with the rate of response to placebo (60.1 percent), the rate of response to glucosamine was 3.9 percentage points higher (P=0.30), the rate of response to chondroitin sulfate was 5.3 percentage points higher (P=0.17), and the rate of response to combined treatment was 6.5 percentage points higher (P=0.09). The rate of response in the celecoxib control group was 10.0 percentage points higher than that in the placebo control group (P=0.008). For patients with moderate-to-severe pain at baseline, the rate of response was significantly higher with combined therapy than with placebo (79.2 percent vs. 54.3 percent, P=0.002). Adverse events were mild, infrequent, and evenly distributed among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate alone or in combination did not reduce pain effectively in the overall group of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Exploratory analyses suggest that the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate may be effective in the subgroup of patients with moderate-to-severe knee pain. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00032890.).

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) is a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is being investigated as a targeted immunomodulator and disease-modifying therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 6-month study, 611 patients were randomly assigned, in a 4:4:1:1 ratio, to 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, placebo for 3 months followed by 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, or placebo for 3 months followed by 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily. The primary end points, assessed at month 3, were the percentage of patients with at least a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology scale (ACR 20), the change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores (which range from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater disability), and the percentage of patients with a Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4[ESR]) of less than 2.6 (with scores ranging from 0 to 9.4 and higher scores indicating more disease activity). RESULTS: At month 3, a higher percentage of patients in the tofacitinib groups than in the placebo groups met the criteria for an ACR 20 response (59.8% in the 5-mg tofacitinib group and 65.7% in the 10-mg tofacitinib group vs. 26.7% in the combined placebo groups, P<0.001 for both comparisons). The reductions from baseline in HAQ-DI scores were greater in the 5-mg and 10-mg tofacitinib groups than in the placebo groups (-0.50 and -0.57 points, respectively, vs. -0.19 points; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a DAS28-4(ESR) of less than 2.6 was not significantly higher with tofacitinib than with placebo (5.6% and 8.7% in the 5-mg and 10-mg tofacitinib groups, respectively, and 4.4% with placebo; P=0.62 and P=0.10 for the two comparisons). Serious infections developed in six patients who were receiving tofacitinib. Common adverse events were headache and upper respiratory tract infection. Tofacitinib treatment was associated with elevations in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and reductions in neutrophil counts. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active rheumatoid arthritis, tofacitinib monotherapy was associated with reductions in signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and improvement in physical function. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Solo ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00814307.).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of etanercept in a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of adults with moderate to severe active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: Patients (n = 277) were treated with either etanercept 25 mg (n = 138) or placebo (n = 139) subcutaneously twice weekly for 24 weeks. The primary outcome measures were the percentages of patients achieving the Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis 20% response (ASAS20) at weeks 12 and 24. Other outcome measures included the percentage of patients achieving higher ASAS responses, and the safety of etanercept in patients with AS. All outcome measures were assessed at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks. RESULTS: Treatment with etanercept resulted in dramatic improvement. The ASAS20 was achieved by 59% of patients in the etanercept group and by 28% of patients in the placebo group (P < 0.0001) at week 12, and by 57% and 22% of patients, respectively, at week 24 (P < 0.0001). All individual ASAS components, acute-phase reactant levels, and spinal mobility measures were also significantly improved. The safety profile of etanercept was similar to that reported in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. The only adverse events that occurred significantly more often in the etanercept group were injection-site reactions, accidental injuries, and upper respiratory tract infections. CONCLUSION: Etanercept is a highly effective and well tolerated treatment in patients with active AS.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based guideline on contraception, assisted reproductive technologies (ART), fertility preservation with gonadotoxic therapy, use of menopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT), pregnancy assessment and management, and medication use in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease (RMD). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of evidence relating to contraception, ART, fertility preservation, HRT, pregnancy and lactation, and medication use in RMD populations, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to rate the quality of evidence and a group consensus process to determine final recommendations and grade their strength (conditional or strong). Good practice statements were agreed upon when indirect evidence was sufficiently compelling that a formal vote was unnecessary. RESULTS: This American College of Rheumatology guideline provides 12 ungraded good practice statements and 131 graded recommendations for reproductive health care in RMD patients. These recommendations are intended to guide care for all patients with RMD, except where indicated as being specific for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, those positive for antiphospholipid antibody, and/or those positive for anti-Ro/SSA and/or anti-La/SSB antibodies. Recommendations and good practice statements support several guiding principles: use of safe and effective contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancy, pre-pregnancy counseling to encourage conception during periods of disease quiescence and while receiving pregnancy-compatible medications, and ongoing physician-patient discussion with obstetrics/gynecology collaboration for all reproductive health issues, given the overall low level of available evidence that relates specifically to RMD. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations developed and reviewed by panels of experts and RMD patients. Many recommendations are conditional, reflecting a lack of data or low-level data. We intend that this guideline be used to inform a shared decision-making process between patients and their physicians on issues related to reproductive health that incorporates patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities.