Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (19)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lerndal, T.
Right arrow Articles by Svensson, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lerndal, T.
Right arrow Articles by Svensson, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Rheumatology 2000; 39: 316-320
© 2000 British Society for Rheumatology

A clinical study of CPH 82 vs methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis

T. Lerndal and B. Svensson1

Department of Rheumatology, Karolinska Hospital, SE-171 76 Stockholm and
1 Spenshult's Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Halmstad, Sweden

Objectives. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of CPH 82 in comparison with methotrexate (MTX) in adult patients with early, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to compare the tolerance and safety profiles of the two drugs.

Methods. The study was a 24-week, double-blind, randomized study in 10 centres of 100 patients with active RA, with a disease duration of less than 2 yr at the start of treatment, which consisted of either CPH 82 300 mg/day or MTX 10 mg/week. The six primary effect variables were: number of swollen joints, Ritchie's articular index, patient's pain score, patient's global score, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and C-reactive protein (CRP). Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), physician's global score and the efficacy according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria were also analysed.

Results. There was a significant improvement for both drugs in all variables. Significant differences between the drugs in favour of MTX were found only in patient's pain score, CRP and ESR. By the EULAR criteria, 76% and 86% were judged to be responders in the CPH 82 and MTX groups, respectively. By the ACR criteria, the corresponding figures were 58% and 64%. The most common side-effects were gastrointestinal, which were similar in both groups. The numbers of treatment failures due to adverse events were two with CPH 82 and 14 with MTX.

Conclusions. The clinical effect of CPH 82 in this study was comparable to that of MTX at a dose of 10 mg/week. Both drugs reduced acute-phase reactants, MTX more effectively than CPH 82. The safety profile of CPH 82 was more favourable than that of MTX without folic acid supplementation.

KEY WORDS: CPH 82, Semi-synthetic lignan glycosides, Methotrexate, Therapy, Rheumatoid arthritis.

Correspondence to: T. Lerndal.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.