HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: ard.2006.068585v1 67/8/1104    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by van Riel, P L C M PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by van Riel, P L C M

Patient-reported health outcomes in a trial of etanercept monotherapy versus combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis: the ADORE trial

¹ Department of Rheumatology Radboud University, Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
² Wyeth Research, Collegeville, Philadelphia, USA

Correspondence to:
A Singh, PhD, Global Health Outcomes Assessment, Wyeth Research, Collegeville, PA 19426, USA; singha2{at}wyeth.com

Objectives: This study assessed the relative efficacy of etanercept (ETN) or etanercept and methotrexate (ETN+MTX) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an unsatisfactory response to MTX, using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of function, pain, general health, disease activity and morning stiffness.

Methods: The PROs were secondary assessments in a 16-week, prospective, randomised, parallel-group study conducted at 60 European centres. Patients with RA were randomly assigned either to monotherapy with ETN or combination therapy with ETN+MTX. PRO instruments administered included the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire, the pain visual analogue scale, the EuroQoL assessment of current health state (EQ-5D), the EQ-5D visual analogue scale, a patient global assessment of disease activity and an assessment of morning stiffness. Treatment groups were compared by percentage of patients within clinically meaningful categories. The primary endpoint for all PROs was comparison of mean improvement from baseline to week 16 between ETN and ETN+MTX groups.

Results: Three hundred and fifteen patients were randomised to ETN or ETN+MTX. Both treatment arms had similar Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index DI, EQ-5D, patient global assessment of disease activity, pain or morning stiffness scores and improvement from baseline to week 16.

Conclusions: For patients with active RA and intolerance or unsatisfactory response to MTX, substituting ETN for MTX and adding ETN to MTX are both effective ways of reducing disability, pain, disease activity, morning stiffness, and improving general health.