PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Vibeke Strand

Publications and source records attributed to Vibeke Strand.

34 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

LJP 394 for the prevention of renal flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether LJP 394 delays or prevents renal flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and a history of renal disease. METHODS: In a 76-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 230 SLE patients were randomized to receive 16 weekly doses of 100 mg of LJP 394 or placebo, followed by alternating 8-week drug holidays and 12 weekly doses of 50 mg of LJP 394 or placebo. An assay measuring the affinity of the serum IgG fraction for the DNA epitope of LJP 394 identified a high-affinity population of patients (189 of 213 patients; 89% taking LJP 394 and 90% taking placebo). Analyses were performed on both the intent-to-treat population and the high-affinity population. RESULTS: Anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies decreased and C3 levels tended to increase during treatment with LJP 394. In the intent-to-treat population, the time to renal flare was not significantly different between treatment groups, but patients taking LJP 394 had a longer time to institution of high-dose corticosteroids and/or cyclophosphamide (HDCC) and required 41% fewer treatments with HDCC. In the high-affinity population, the LJP 394 group experienced a longer time to renal flare, 67% fewer renal flares, longer time to institution of HDCC, and 62% fewer HDCC treatments compared with the placebo group. In patients with serum creatinine levels >/=1.5 mg/dl at study entry, those taking LJP 394 had 50% fewer renal flares; no renal flares were observed in the high-affinity group taking LJP 394. Serious adverse events were observed in 25 of the 114 LJP 394-treated patients (21.9%) and 34 of the 116 placebo-treated patients (29.3%). CONCLUSION: Treatment with LJP 394 in patients with high-affinity antibodies to its DNA epitope prolonged the time to renal flare, decreased the number of renal flares, and required fewer HDCC treatments compared with placebo. The study drug appeared to be well tolerated.

Adjuvants, Immunologic↗
PubMed2003

Repair of erosions in rheumatoid arthritis does occur. Results from 2 studies by the OMERACT Subcommittee on Healing of Erosions.

The committee was charged with determining whether healing of erosions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occurs. Two exercises were performed: The first asked the committee members, as a panel of experts, to express agreement or disagreement with the presence of improvement and features of bone reaction to injury in images submitted by members as examples of healing. The second presented panel members with 28 pairs of serial images, 14 chosen to illustrate progression and 14 chosen to illustrate repair. Agreement was tested on 8 items: global judgment on which image in the pair was better, relative size of the erosion in the 2 images, judgment on which image was first, presence and extent of sclerosis, cortication, filling-in, remodeling, and reconstituting normal structure. Our results showed good agreement, among the 15 respondents, on global assessment of which image was better and which image showed the smaller erosion. Correct assignment of sequence was only slightly better than expected by chance (in 65% of the cases). Agreement was poor regarding the presence of morphologic features of bone repair. A majority of a panel of experts agreed on which 2nd images in a set of paired, serial images represented improvement and which showed progression based on global assessment of which was better and on size of erosion. Features of bone repair were not distinctive and did not enable the panel to deduce the correct sequence of the serial images. This study provides evidence that repair of bone damage in RA does occur, resulting in some degree of improvement, which was recognized by a majority of a panel of experts.

Arthritis, Rheumatoid↗
PubMed2003

MCID/Low Disease Activity State Workshop: low disease activity state in rheumatoid arthritis.

The MCID (minimal clinically important difference) module of OMERACT 5 developed a research agenda that led to the conclusion that a state of low disease activity for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) would need to be defined. To develop such a definition the various concepts and terminologies, the process for developing an operational definition, and the availability and design of longitudinal datasets for validation needed to be considered. This article describes the process of the MCID/Low Disease Activity State Workshop at OMERACT 6 to develop such a definition.

Arthritis, Rheumatoid↗
PubMed2003

MCID/Low Disease Activity State Workshop: summary, recommendations, and research agenda.

The OMERACT 6 Minimal Clinically Important Difference/Low Disease Activity Workshop was organized with the aim of meeting the many challenges that exist in determining a low disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This article presents an overview of that workshop, including results of the voting, a summary of associated discussions, recommendations, and a proposed research agenda.

Arthritis, Rheumatoid↗
PubMed2003

Leflunomide for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence from clinical trials on the efficacy and toxicity of leflunomide for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register for human randomized controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials up to December 2001. We also hand-searched reference lists and conference proceedings and consulted content experts. Relative benefit (RB), and weighted mean differences or standardized mean differences with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Six RCT totaling 2044 patients with RA were included in this review. Using specific criteria, all trials were considered of high methodological quality. Leflunomide improved the ACR20 response rate roughly 2 times over placebo both at 6 months (RB = 1.93, 95% CI 1.51, 2.47) and at 12 months (RB = 1.99, 95% CI 1.42, 2.77). Other clinical outcomes of disease activity and function and radiological scores were also significantly better for leflunomide patients than those taking placebo. No significant differences for most of the outcomes were observed between leflunomide and sulfasalazine (SSZ) or methotrexate (MTX). Adverse events were more common in the leflunomide group, but withdrawal rates were fewer than for placebo. Overall, withdrawal rates and adverse events in the leflunomide group were not different from SSZ or MTX. CONCLUSION: Leflunomide improves all clinical outcomes and delays radiographic progression at 6 and 12 months of RA treatment compared to placebo. Its efficacy and adverse events at 2 years of treatment are comparable to SSZ and MTX. Longterm efficacy and toxicity remain to be established.

Arthritis, Rheumatoid↗
PubMed2003

Outcome variables for osteoarthritis clinical trials: The OMERACT-OARSI set of responder criteria.

Improvement in analysis and reporting results of osteoarthritis (OA) clinical trials has been recently obtained because of harmonization and standardization of the selection of outcome variables (OMERACT 3 and OARSI). Moreover, OARSI has recently proposed the OARSI responder criteria. This composite index permits presentation of results of symptom modifying clinical trials in OA based on individual patient responses (responder yes/no). The 2 organizations (OMERACT and OARSI) established a task force aimed at evaluating: (1) the variability of observed placebo and active treatment effects using the OARSI responder criteria; and (2) the possibility of proposing a simplified set of criteria. The conclusions of the task force were presented and discussed during the OMERACT 6 conference, where a simplified set of responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI set of criteria) was proposed.

Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic↗
PubMed2003

Adalimumab, a fully human anti tumor necrosis factor-alpha monoclonal antibody, and concomitant standard antirheumatic therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: results of STAR (Safety Trial of Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis).

OBJECTIVE: This study, known as STAR (Safety Trial of Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis), evaluated the safety and efficacy of adalimumab (Humira), a fully human monoclonal tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) antibody, when given with standard antirheumatic therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not adequately responding to such therapies. Standard antirheumatic therapy included traditional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), low dose corticosteroids, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), and/or analgesics. METHODS: In this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 636 patients with RA were randomly assigned to receive adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously (sc) every other week (n = 318) or placebo (n = 318) while continuing standard antirheumatic therapy. The frequencies of adverse events, serious adverse events, severe or life-threatening adverse events, adverse events leading to withdrawal, infection, or serious infection were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were determined by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria. RESULTS: During the study, the majority of patients received concomitant traditional DMARD (83.5%) and/or corticosteroids, NSAID, and/or analgesics (97.3%). Overall, 56.0% of patients continued treatment with one, 23.6% with 2, and 3.9% with > or = 3 traditional DMARD. At 24 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences between the adalimumab and placebo groups in their respective rates of adverse events (86.5% vs 82.7%), serious adverse events (5.3% vs 6.9%), severe or life-threatening adverse events (11.9% vs 15.4%), or those leading to withdrawal (2.8% vs 2.2%). There were also no statistically significant differences in the rates of infections (52.2% vs 49.4%) or serious infections (1.3% vs 1.9%) between the groups. The incidence and types of adverse events did not vary between adalimumab- and placebo-treated patients by the number of concomitant traditional DMARD (0, 1, or 2). Adalimumab-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients achieved statistically superior ACR20 (52.8% vs 34.9%), ACR50 (28.9% vs 11.3%), and ACR70 (14.8% vs 3.5%) response rates at Week 24 (p < or = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that addition of adalimumab 40 mg given sc every other week to concomitant standard antirheumatic therapy is well tolerated and provides significant improvements in signs and symptoms of RA. The data indicate that adalimumab is a safe and effective therapeutic option in patients with active RA who have an inadequate response to standard antirheumatic therapy, including one or more traditional DMARD, corticosteroids, NSAID, and analgesics.

Adalimumab↗
PubMed2002

Cost effectiveness of adding leflunomide to a 5-year strategy of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate, from a public payer's perspective, the 5-year cost effectiveness of adding leflunomide (LEF) to a sequence of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) representative of a typical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management approach adopted by Canadian rheumatologists. METHODS: A DMARD sequence including LEF was compared with one excluding it, using a 5-year simulation model where patients with RA cycle through different treatment regimens. Data were obtained through a systematic literature search (drug withdrawal rates, number and type of adverse events, American College of Rheumatology 20% responder status) and separately conducted surveys (choice of DMARD sequence, management of adverse events). Costs for adverse event management were calculated using the Ontario Schedule of Benefits, and monitoring costs were calculated according to official Canadian product monograph recommendations. Wholesale prices of all drugs were adjusted by the allowable markup and prescription fees. Utilities (as measured by the standard gamble [SG] and rating scale [RS] techniques) were obtained from 482 patients who participated in a 1-year randomized controlled trial that compared LEF, methotrexate, and placebo. Costs and utilities were discounted by 3%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: Adding LEF to a conventional strategy of DMARDs increased the 5-year management costs by $1,231 compared with the strategy without LEF, which results in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $13,096 per additional year of response to treatment, and cost-utility ratios of $54,229 (RS) and $71,988 (SG) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSION: Adding LEF as a new option to a conventional sequence of DMARDs extends the time patients may benefit from DMARD therapy at a reasonable cost effectiveness and cost utility. LEF data are limited to clinical trials; data from observational studies would be needed to corroborate these findings.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMed2002

Concomitant leflunomide therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable doses of methotrexate. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs may confer greater benefits when combined with the antimetabolite methotrexate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of leflunomide versus placebo when added to ongoing, stable-dose methotrexate therapy in patients with persistently active rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN: 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: 20 centers in the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: Patients with persistent rheumatoid arthritis, as defined by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, despite receiving methotrexate for at least 6 months. INTERVENTION: Leflunomide or matching placebo added to existing methotrexate therapy. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy variable was the rate of achievement of 20% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR20) at the end of the study. The Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index was assessed at each visit, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form was completed as an end point analysis. RESULTS: In the leflunomide and placebo groups, 46.2% and 19.5% of patients, respectively, met ACR20 criteria at 24 weeks (P < 0.001). Clinical improvement was demonstrated by statistically significant mean changes in individual components of the ACR20 response criteria. Discontinuation rates were similar in both treatment groups (23.1% in the leflunomide group and 24.8% in the placebo group), as were the overall incidences of adverse events (89.2% vs. 89.5%, respectively). Adverse events were predominantly mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with leflunomide and methotrexate provides statistically significant clinical benefit in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who are receiving methotrexate therapy. Leflunomide plus methotrexate is generally well tolerated and can be used safely with appropriate liver enzyme and hematologic monitoring.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Effects of prasterone on corticosteroid requirements of women with systemic lupus erythematosus: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether treatment with prasterone (dehydroepiandrosterone [DHEA]) would allow the dosage of prednisone (or an equivalent corticosteroid) to be reduced to < or = 7.5 mg/day for 2 months or longer while maintaining stable or reduced disease activity in steroid-dependent women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized trial, 191 female SLE patients receiving prednisone (10-30 mg/day) were treated daily with either placebo, 100 mg of oral prasterone (an adrenal androgen), or 200 mg of oral prasterone for 7-9-months. At monthly intervals, corticosteroid dosages were reduced by algorithm in patients whose SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score was stable or improved. Patients for whom a sustained reduction in the dosage of prednisone (< or = 7.5 mg/day) was achieved for at least the last 2 months of the 7-9-month treatment period were classified as responders. RESULTS: Response rates were 41% in the placebo group, 44% in the 100-mg prasterone group, and 55% in the 200-mg group (P = 0.110, 200 mg versus placebo). Among the 137 subjects (45 in the placebo group, 47 in the 100-mg group, and 45 in the 200-mg group) who had active disease at baseline (defined as SLEDAI score >2), 29%, 38%, and 51%, respectively, were responders (P = 0.031 for 200 mg prasterone versus placebo). Acne was the most common adverse event but was generally mild. Clinical and laboratory changes primarily reflected androgenic effects of prasterone. CONCLUSION: Among women with lupus disease activity, reducing the dosage of prednisone to < or = 7.5 mg/day for a sustained period of time while maintaining stabilization or a reduction of disease activity was possible in a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with oral prasterone, 200 mg once daily, compared with patients treated with placebo.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2002

Economic comparison of leflunomide and methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an evaluation based on a 1-year randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare disease-related medical care and productivity costs, and utilities, in 482 patients with rheumatoid arthritis randomised to receive leflunomide, methotrexate or placebo during a 12-month period. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective pharmacoeconomic analysis of a 1-year randomised double-blind trial set in North America. PERSPECTIVE: Societal and the Ontario Ministry of Health. METHODS: Information on healthcare resources, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of working time and time spent on chores, related to the disease or the medication, were collected at 4-week intervals and at study discontinuation. Rating scale and standard gamble (SG) utilities (0 = worse; 100 = best) were collected at baseline and at 6 and 12 months or study exit. Medical care costs in Canadian dollars (Can dollars) were calculated using Ontario reimbursement schedules. US patients' expenses were converted to Can dollars using 1995 purchasing power parity. Lost wages were calculated by age and gender according to 1995 Canadian wage data. All costs were adjusted to 1999 Can dollars and arithmetic mean costs were compared using the nonparametric bootstrap. Analysis of covariance was performed to compare utilities between groups. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) rating scale values and SG utilities, respectively, for leflunomide, methotrexate and placebo were 67.7 (18.0), 64.8 (18.1) and 57.5 (9.2), and 80.2 (22.1), 83.2 (18.0) and 77.0 (20.5). Both leflunomide and methotrexate had higher rating scale values (p < 0.05) compared with placebo; SG utilities were significantly different between methotrexate and placebo (p < 0.05). Annualised total rheumatoid arthritisb- or drug-related costs for leflunomide, methotrexate and placebo, respectively, were Can dollars 1761, Can dollars 1280 and Can dollars 1324, and medical care costs were Can dollars 753, Can dollars 620 and Can dollars 167 (all costs exclude drug acquisition and monitoring costs). Annual drug acquisition/ routine monitoring costs were estimated, respectively, at Can dollars 3853/Can dollars 483 for leflunomide and Can dollars 258/Can dollars 599 for methotrexate. Differences between overall costs (excluding drug acquisition and monitoring costs) and medical care costs were not statistically significant. The costs of treating patients with leflunomide were significantly higher than for methotrexate when drug acquisition and monitoring costs were included (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences in utilities could be found between leflunomide or methotrexate. When drug monitoring and acquisition costs are excluded, leflunomide has an otherwise similar economic profile compared with methotrexate, the current gold standard. The acquisition cost of leflunomide is a driving factor in increasing the costs of therapy. These higher costs need to be assessed relative to the therapeutic value of leflunomide.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Effects of the cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitor valdecoxib versus nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents and placebo on cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients with arthritis.

There have been concerns that the risk of cardiovascular thrombotic events may be higher with cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-specific inhibitors than nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We evaluated cardiovascular event data for valdecoxib, a new COX-2-specific inhibitor in approximately 8000 patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis treated with this agent in randomized clinical trials. The incidence of cardiovascular thrombotic events (cardiac, cerebrovascular and peripheral vascular, or arterial thrombotic) was determined by analyzing pooled valdecoxib (10-80 mg daily), nonselective NSAID (diclofenac 75 mg bid, ibuprofen 800 mg tid, or naproxen 500 mg bid) and placebo data from 10 randomized osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis trials that were 6-52 weeks in duration. The incidence rates of events were determined in all patients (n = 7934) and in users of low-dose (< or =325 mg daily) aspirin (n = 1051) and nonusers of aspirin (n = 6883). Crude and exposure-adjusted incidences of thrombotic events were similar for valdecoxib, NSAIDs, and placebo. The risk of serious thrombotic events was also similar for each valdecoxib dose. Thrombotic risk was consistently higher for users of aspirin users than nonusers of aspirin (placebo, 1.4% vs. 0%; valdecoxib, 1.7% vs. 0.2%; NSAIDs, 1.9% vs. 0.5%). The rates of events in users of aspirin were similar for all 3 treatment groups and across valdecoxib doses. Short- and intermediate-term treatment with therapeutic (10 or 20 mg daily) and supratherapeutic (40 or 80 mg daily) valdecoxib doses was not associated with an increased incidence of thrombotic events relative to nonselective NSAIDs or placebo in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis patients in controlled clinical trials.

Adolescent↗