Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.


Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

Adding etanercept to MTX improves early remission

Patients with early severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a greater chance of remission in the first year of therapy if treated with combined methotrexate and tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, a trial published online on 16 July 2008 in The Lancet suggests.

The combination of methotrexate and etanercept in early rheumatoid arthritis (COMET) trial showed that remission and radiographic non–progression rates were improved within one year by the combination treatment, compared with methotrexate monotherapy.

The trial involved 542 adults diagnosed with adult-onset RA, with a disease duration of at least three months but no longer than two years. Patients had received no previous treatment with methotrexate, etanercept or other TNF inhibitors, and had not received other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or corticosteroid injections in the four weeks preceding baseline visits.

The proportion of participants who achieved Disease Activity Score 28 (a 28-joint count assessment) remission from weeks 2–52 of treatment was greater in the combined treatment group than in the monotherapy group (50 per cent compared with 28 per cent; P<0.0001).

A significant difference was also seen in DAS44 (a 44-joint count assessment) remission between the two treatment groups. One fifth more subjects in the combined-treatment group had radiographic non-progression of joint damage than in the methotrexate group (P<0.0001).

An accompanying comment on the COMET study (ibid) questions whether or not the difference between the response to the combination versus methotrexate alone is worth the additional cost, inconvenience and potential toxic effects.

Joel Kremer, of the centre for rheumatology, Albany Medical College, Albany, points out that the kinds of patient typically included in randomised trials “have a great deal more disease than might be typically seen in the clinic. With low disease activity at the time of drug initiation, so-called floor effects make the achievements in standard outcome measures more problematic”.

He proposes the collection of real-world data by national registries over 10 years to investigate whether the improved outcome resulting from combination treatment persists over longer periods and, if so, whether “the overall incidence of serious adverse events, serious infections and societal expense warrant the difference in outcomes between the two interventions”.

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal URI: 10022814

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

RPS publications

Pharmaceutical Press is the publishing division of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and is a leading provider of authoritative pharmaceutical information used throughout the world.


Search an extensive range of the world’s most trusted resources

Powered by MedicinesComplete
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.