Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 535

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of etanercept and methotrexate, alone and combined, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Two‐year clinical and radiographic results from the TEMPO study, a double‐blind, randomized trial

van der Heijde, Désirée, Klareskog, Lars, Rodriguez‐Valverde, Vicente, Codreanu, Catalin, Bolosiu, Horatiu, Melo‐Gomes, Jose, Tornero‐Molina, Jesus, Wajdula, Joseph, Pedersen, Ronald, Fatenejad, Saeed, TEMPO Study Investigators·2006·Arthritis & Rheumatism

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, including radiographic changes, and safety of etanercept and methotrexate (MTX), used in combination and alone, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom previous treatment with a disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug other than MTX had failed. Methods: Patients with RA were treated with etanercept (25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly), oral MTX (up to 20 mg weekly), or combination therapy with etanercept plus MTX through a second year, in a double‐blinded manner. Clinical response was assessed using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and the Disease Activity Score (DAS), in a modified intent‐to‐treat analysis with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) and in a population of completers. Radiographs of the hands, wrists, and forefeet were scored for erosions and joint space narrowing at annual intervals. Results: A total of 503 of 686 patients continued into year 2 of the study. During the 2 years, significantly fewer patients receiving combination therapy withdrew from the study (29% of the combination therapy group, 39% of the etanercept group, and 48% of the MTX group). Both the LOCF and the completer analyses yielded similar results. The ACR 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses and the remission rates (based on a DAS of <1.6) were significantly higher with combination therapy than with either monotherapy ( P < 0.01). Similarly, improvement in disability (based on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) was greater with combination therapy ( P < 0.01). The combination therapy group showed significantly less radiographic progression than did either group receiving monotherapy ( P < 0.05); moreover, radiographic progression was significantly lower in the etanercept group compared with the MTX group ( P < 0.05). For the second consecutive year, overall disease progression in the combination therapy group was negative, with the 95% confidence interval less than zero. Adverse events were similar in the 3 treatment groups. Conclusion: Etanercept in combination with MTX reduced disease activity, slowed radiographic progression, and improved function more effectively than did either monotherapy over a 2‐year period. No increase in toxicity was associated with combination treatment with etanercept plus MTX.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/art.21655

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
van der Heijde, D., Klareskog, L., Rodriguez‐Valverde, V., Codreanu, C., Bolosiu, H., Melo‐Gomes, J., Tornero‐Molina, J., Wajdula, J., Pedersen, R., Fatenejad, S., & TEMPO Study Investigators
Venue
Arthritis & Rheumatism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-03-29
Volume
54
Issue
4
Pages
1063-1074
ISSN
  • 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-0131
OpenAlex
W2118704147
Cited by
535
References
0
FWCI
30.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.