Randomized comparison of etanercept with usual therapy in an Asian population with active rheumatoid arthritis: the APPEAL trial

Abstract

Aim: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an important rheumatologic disease in Asia-Pacific countries, as in other parts of the world. However, limited information is available regarding RA therapy in this region. The Asia-Pacific Study in Patients to be Treated With Etanercept or an Alternative Listed DMARD (APPEAL) compared efficacy and safety of etanercept (ETN) + methotrexate (MTX) versus usual disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) + MTX (reflecting regional practice) in subjects with moderate to severe RA from multiple Asia-Pacific countries.

Method: In this open-label, active-comparator, parallel-design, multicenter study, subjects (n = 300) in the Asia-Pacific region were randomized to ETN + MTX (n = 197) or DMARD + MTX (n = 103). The primary efficacy endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response (ACR-N) area under the curve (AUC) over 16 weeks.

Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. At Week 16, ACR-N AUC indicated a significantly greater response with ETN + MTX compared with DMARD + MTX (mean difference -145.3; P < 0.001). Significantly greater proportions of subjects achieved ACR 20, 50 and 70 responses with ETN + MTX versus DMARD + MTX at Week 16 (P < 0.05). Low Disease Activity Score based on a 28-joint count (DAS28 < 3.2) was also achieved by significantly more subjects in the ETN + MTX group versus the DMARD + MTX group (P < 0.001). Greater improvements were shown for DAS28, pain visual analogue scale, health assessment questionnaire, and physician and patient global assessments (P < 0.05) for ETN + MTX versus DMARD + MTX. No new safety signals were found.

Conclusion: In this Asia-Pacific population of subjects with moderate to severe RA, ETN + MTX showed superior efficacy versus usual DMARD + MTX regimens, with similar safety profiles.