Etanercept compared to intraarticular corticosteroid injection in rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind, randomized pilot study

Intra-articular therapy with methotrexate or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

Background

Persistent monoarthritis in otherwise well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis presents a therapeutic challenge. Intra-articular (IA) steroids are a mainstay of treatment, though some have queried whether IA disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) and biologics can be used in those who fail steroid injections.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using four medical databases to identify randomized, controlled trials assessing IA therapies in RA patients. Included studies underwent Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 assessment for quality.

Results

Twelve studies were included, 6 of which examined intra-articular (IA) TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and 6 studies evaluating IA methotrexate. Of those evaluating IA TNFi, one study reported statistical improvement in TNFi therapy when compared with placebo. The remaining 5 studies compared IA TNFi therapy with steroid injections. IA TNFi had statistically improved symptom scores and clinical assessments comparable with IA steroid treatments.

In the 6 studies evaluating IA methotrexate, the addition of methotrexate to steroid intra-articular therapy was not found to be beneficial, and singular methotrexate injection was not superior to the control arms (saline or triamcinolone). Risk-of-bias (ROB) assessment with the Revised Cochrane ROB tool indicated that 2 of 6 TNFi studies were at some risk or high risk for bias, compared with 5 out of 6 methotrexate studies.

Conclusion

For persistent monoarthritis in rheumatoid arthritis, IA methotrexate was not found to have clinical utility. Intra-articular TNFi therapy appears to have equal efficacy to IA steroids, though the optimal dose and frequency of injections is yet unknown.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04651-5.

Intra-articular injection of etanercept versus glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis patients

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of intra-articular injection of etanercept and compare it with corticosteroid injection in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

Fifty patients with RA who suffered from activity in one joint were randomized into two groups, received an intra-articular injection of either etanercept or corticosteroid guided by musculoskeletal ultrasound. All patients were assessed for disease activity by disease activity score (DAS28), functional assessment using the Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ), and laboratory investigations (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein). Joints affected were evaluated for pain by visual analog scale (VAS), tenderness, and swelling scores and by ultrasound for estimation of synovial hypertrophy, synovial effusion, and power Doppler. Follow-up of the patients was done at weeks 1, 4, and 12 after injection by clinical assessment and ultrasound.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement of joint pain assessed by VAS, tenderness, and swelling scores in the etanercept group at week 1 and week 4 follow-up periods but there were insignificant changes at week 12. There was a significant decrease in synovial effusion at week 1 and week 4 and in power Doppler at week 1 but no significant change was noticed in synovial hypertrophy during the follow-up periods. In comparison of the two groups, etanercept has shown better results on joint scores at week 1; however, glucocorticoid had more sustained effects. No major or life-threatening side effects were noticed following intra-articular injection of etanercept.

CONCLUSION

Intra-articular injection of etanercept is a safe and promising option; with comparable results to intra-articular injection of corticosteroid; however, its rapid absorption from the synovium may necessitate frequent injections. Key Points • Persistent inflammatory mono-arthritis is a common clinical problem that is often difficult to treat; it is a debilitating and destructive condition. • Intra-articular injection of TNF inhibitors is an encouraging treatment modality in managing refractory mono-arthritis in rheumatoid arthritis.

Ultrasound-guided intra-articular triamcinolone acetonide injection for treating refractory small joints arthritis of rheumatoid arthritis patients

To investigate the efficiency and clinical safety of intra-articular triamcinolone acetonide (TA) injection under the guide of ultrasonography combined with standard treatment for treating refractory small joints arthritis in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.TA was injected upon confirmation of the needle inserting into the articular cavity. The dose was 40 mg for the wrist, 20 mg for the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint and 20 mg for the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint, respectively. Visual analogue scale (VAS) for joint pain, swelling, tenderness, synovial hyperplasia and power Doppler signal scores were evaluated at pretreatment, and post-treatment 24 hours, 1 week, 4 weeks as well as 12 weeks.The VAS for pain and tenderness scores showed gradual improvement at 24 hours, 1 week, 4 weeks and 12 weeks after treatment compared with the baseline levels (P' < .005). The swelling showed no changes at 24 hours after treatment compared with the baseline, and showed gradual improvement at 1 week, 4 weeks and 12 weeks after treatment (P' < .005). Significant decrease was noticed in the synovial hyperplasia score at 4 weeks and 12 weeks compared with the baseline level. Power Doppler signal score showed significant decrease at post-treatment 24 hours, which showed further decrease at 1 week and 4 weeks.Ultrasound-guided intra-articular TA injection is effective for treating RA patients with refractory small joints arthritis without changing the original treatment plan.

Comparison of the effectiveness on intra-articular and subcutaneous TNF inhibitor in rheumatoid arthritis patients

The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of single intra-articular (IA) injection of tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) inhibitor in knee joints comparing with subcutaneous injection in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Forty-eight RA patients with 73 knee arthritis were divided into three groups, group A: received a single injection of TNF inhibitor into knee joints; group B: received regular subcutaneous injection; and group C: received both of the regimen as groups A and B. Ultrasound, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein (CRP), patients' global visual analogue scale (VAS), and 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) were collected pre- and post-therapy 4 weeks. The results of the study are as follows: (1) CRP, VAS, and DAS28 of all groups improved significantly post-therapy (p < 0.05); (2) After therapy, synovial hypertrophy (SH) decreased significantly from 4.40 ± 1.86 mm to 2.74 ± 1.88 mm (p < 0.05) and power Doppler (PD) signal decreased significantly from 2.63 ± 0.75 to 1.50 ± 0.93 (p < 0.01) in group A. Synovial effusion (SE), SH, and PD showed no significant improvement in group B. SE decreased significantly from 9.84 ± 4.70 mm to 5.89 ± 4.47 mm (p < 0.05), SH decreased significantly from 4.52 ± 1.97 mm to 2.49 ± 1.73 mm (p < 0.01), and PD decreased significantly from 2.46 ± 0.66 to 1.38 ± 1.04 (p < 0.01) in group C; and (3) The improvement rate of SH and PD in both groups A and C was obviously higher than that of group B (p < 0.05). Single IA injection of TNFα inhibitor was an effective treatment in improvement of SH and PD of knee joints than subcutaneous injection in RA patients.

Safety and efficacy of intra-articular anti-tumor necrosis factor α agents compared to corticosteroids in a treat-to-target strategy in patients with inflammatory arthritis and monoarthritis flare

The aim of this study was to assess safety and efficacy of ultrasonography (US)-guided intra-articular injections using tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers compared to corticosteroids in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients, experiencing refractory monoarthritis despite the current systemic therapy. Eighty-two patients were randomized to receive three intra-articular injections monthly of either corticosteroid or TNF blockers. Primary endpoints were the safety and an improvement greater than 20% for visual analogic scales of involved joint pain in patients injected with anti-TNFα. Further clinical, US, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluations were considered secondary endpoints. Intra-articular TNF blockers are a safe strategy, determining a significant reduction of patient and physician reported clinical outcomes and US/MRI scores, in RA and PsA patients, when compared to intra-articular injections of corticosteroids. US guidance excluded the possibility to inject the drug in the wrong site, maximizing local effects, reducing systemic effects, and increasing the safety of the procedure. Patients with inflammatory monoarthritis could be successfully treated with US-guided intra-articular TNF blockers that are a safe and well tolerated procedure, to achieve a longstanding clinical and radiological good clinical response and/or disease remission.

Sustained intra-articular delivery of IL-1RA from a thermally-responsive elastin-like polypeptide as a therapy for post-traumatic arthritis

Post-traumatic arthritis (PTA) is a rapidly progressive form of arthritis that develops due to joint injury, including articular fracture. Current treatments are limited to surgical restoration and stabilization of the joint; however, evidence suggests that PTA progression is mediated by the upregulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-1 (IL-1) or tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). Although these cytokines provide potential therapeutic targets for PTA, intra-articular injections of anti-cytokine therapies have proven difficult due to rapid clearance from the joint space. In this study, we examined the ability of a cross-linked elastin-like polypeptide (xELP) drug depot to provide sustained intra-articular delivery of IL-1 and TNF-α inhibitors as a beneficial therapy. Mice sustained a closed intra-articular tibial plateau fracture; treatment groups received a single intra-articular injection of drug encapsulated in xELP. Arthritic changes were assessed 4 and 8 weeks after fracture. Inhibition of IL-1 significantly reduced the severity of cartilage degeneration and synovitis. Inhibition of TNF-α alone or with IL-1 led to deleterious effects in bone morphology, articular cartilage degeneration, and synovitis. These findings suggest that IL-1 plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of PTA following articular fracture, and sustained intra-articular cytokine inhibition may provide a therapeutic approach for reducing or preventing joint degeneration following trauma.

Optimal dose of etanercept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Etanercept (ETN) is one of a number of biological therapies targeting the proinflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor-alpha that have demonstrated efficacy in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). As experience has grown, a number of different treatment strategies have been investigated to ascertain the optimal conditions for use of ETN in RA and maximize the clinical gains from therapy. These have included the use of higher- and lower-dose treatment regimens, ETN as a monotherapy or in combination with other nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, the use of ETN in very early clinical disease, and intraarticular ETN administration for resistant synovitis. Recent trials have focused on phased dose reduction or withdrawal of ETN in patients achieving low disease activity states or clinical remission. This review summarizes existing data regarding the optimal timing of ETN initiation and dosing regimens and also evaluates more recent evidence regarding dose-reduction strategies that offer the possibility of biologic-free remission in RA.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update

In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA.

Etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Etanercept is a soluble tumour necrosis factor alpha-receptor disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review was to update the previous Cochrane systematic review published in 2003 assessing the benefits and harms of etanercept for the treatment of RA. In addition, we also evaluated the benefits and harms of etanercept plus DMARD compared with DMARD monotherapy in those people with RA who are partial responders to methotrexate (MTX) or any other traditional DMARD.

SEARCH METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched from 1966 to February 2003 with no language restriction. The search was updated to January 2012. Attempts were made to identify other studies by contact with experts, searching reference lists and searching trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All controlled trials (minimum 24 weeks' duration) comparing four possible combinations: 1) etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg twice weekly) plus a traditional DMARD (either MTX or sulphasalazine) versus a DMARD, 2) etanercept plus DMARD versus etanercept alone, 3) etanercept alone versus a DMARD or 4) etanercept versus placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were included in the original version of the review. An additional six trials, giving a total of 2842 participants, were added to the 2012 update of the review. The trials were generally of moderate to low risk of bias, the majority funded by pharmaceutical companies. Follow-up ranged from six months to 36 months.BenefitAt six to 36 months the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rate was statistically significantly improved with etanercept plus DMARD treatment when compared with a DMARD in those people who had an inadequate response to any traditional DMARD (risk ratio (RR) 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 2.9, absolute treatment benefit (ATB) 38%; 95% CI 13% to 59%) and in those people who were partial responders to MTX (RR 11.7; 95% CI 1.7 to 82.5, ATB 36%). Similar results were observed when pooling data from all participants (responders or not) (ACR 50 response rates at 24 months: RR 1.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.8, ATB 29%; 36 months: RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.3 to 1.9, ATB 24%). Statistically significant improvement in physical function and a higher proportion of disease remission were observed in combination-treated participants compared with DMARDs alone ((mean difference (MD) -0.36; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.28 in a 0-3 scale) and (RR 1.92; 95% CI 1.60 to 2.31), respectively) in those people who had an inadequate response to any traditional DMARD. All changes in radiographic scores were statistically significantly less with combination treatment (etanercept plus DMARD) compared with MTX alone for all participants (responders or not) (Total Sharp Score (TSS) (scale = 0 to 448): MD -2.2, 95% CI -3.0 to -1.4; Erosion Score (ES) (scale = 0 to 280): MD -1.6; 95% CI -2.4 to -0.9; Joint Space Narrowing Score (JSNS) (scale = 0 to 168): MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2), and with combination treatment compared with etanercept alone (TSS: MD -1.1; 95% CI -1.8 to -0.5; ES: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2; JSNS: MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2). The estimate of irreversible physical disability over 10 years given the radiographic findings was 0.45 out of 3.0.When etanercept monotherapy was compared with DMARD monotherapy, there was generally no evidence of a difference in ACR50 response rates when etanercept 10 mg or 25 mg was used; at six months etanercept 25 mg was significantly more likely to achieve ACR50 than DMARD monotherapy but this difference was not found at 12, 24 or 36 months. TSS and ES radiographic scores were statistically significantly improved with etanercept 25 mg monotherapy compared with DMARD (TSS: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.4 to 0.1; ES: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.0 to -0.3) but there was no evidence of a statistically significant difference between etanercept 10 mg monotherapy and MTX.HarmsThere was no evidence of statistically significant differences in infections or serious infections between etanercept plus DMARD and DMARD alone at any point in time. Infection rates were higher in people receiving etanercept monotherapy compared with DMARD; however, there were no differences regarding serious infections. For those participants who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, the rate of total withdrawals was lower for the etanercept plus DMARD group compared with DMARD alone (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.77, ATB 18%). No other statistically significant differences were observed in any of the assessed comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Etanercept 25 mg administered subcutaneously twice weekly together with MTX was more efficacious than either etanercept or MTX monotherapy for ACR50 and it slowed joint radiographic progression after up to three years of treatment for all participants (responders or not). There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of infections between groups.

Prevention of arthritis by locally synthesized recombinant antibody neutralizing complement component C5

Treatment of patients suffering from chronic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis with recombinant antibodies is time consuming and fairly expensive and can be associated with side effects due to generalized depletion of the target molecule. We have addressed these issues by developing an alternative approach consisting of the intraarticular injection of a DNA vector encoding for the anti-C5 neutralizing recombinant miniantibody MB12/22. This method allows local production of the antibody in sufficient amount to be effective in preventing joint inflammation in a rat model of antigen-induced arthritis. Injection of the DNA vector in a right knee of normal rats resulted in the production of the minibody detected in the synovial washes by western blot with a strong signal peaking at 3 days after administration. DNA encoding for the minibody was shown for 14 days in the synovial tissue and was undetectable in the controlateral knee and in other organs. The preventive effect of this approach was evaluated in rats receiving a single injection of the vector 3 days before the induction of antigen-induced arthritis and analyzed 3 days later. The treated rats exhibited a lower increase in swelling, associated with a lower number of PMN in the articular washes and reduced deposition of C9 in synovial tissue compared to control rats. These results suggest that treating the inflamed joints with a vector that induces a local production of a neutralizing anti-C5 antibody may represent a useful strategy to inhibit in situ complement activation and to treat patients with monoarthritis. Moreover, this approach may be adopted as a novel therapeutic strategy to prevent monoarthritis as an alternative to local treatment with antibodies commonly used in this form of arthritis, with the advantages of the lower cost and the longer persistence of antibody production.