Background: Extracts of the medicinal plant Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF) have been used in China for centuries to treat a spectrum of inflammatory diseases. Objective: To compare the benefits and side effects of TwHF extract with those of sulfasalazine for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis. Design: Randomized, controlled trial. A computer-generated code with random, permuted blocks was used to assign treatment. Setting: 2 U.S. academic centers (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, and University of Texas, Dallas, Texas) and 9 rheumatology subspecialty clinics (in Dallas and Austin, Texas; Tampa and Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Arlington, Virginia; Duncanville, Pennsylvania; Wheaton and Greenbelt, Maryland; and Lansing, Michigan). Patients: 121 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and 6 or more painful and swollen joints. Intervention: TwHF extract, 60 mg 3 times daily, or sulfasalazine, 1 g twice daily. Patients could continue stable doses of oral prednisone or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs but had to stop taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at least 28 days before randomization. Measurements: The primary outcome was the rate of achievement of 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR 20) at 24 weeks. Secondary end points were safety; radiographic scores of joint damage; and serum levels of interleukin-6, cholesterol, cortisol, and adrenocorticotropic hormone. Results: Outcome data were available for only 62 patients at 24 weeks. In a mixed-model analysis that imputed data for patients who dropped out, 65.0% (95% CI, 51.6% to 76.9%) of the TwHF group and 32.8% (CI, 21.3% to 46.0%) of the sulfasalazine group met the ACR 20 response criteria (P = 0.001). Patients receiving TwHF also had significantly higher response rates for ACR 50 and ACR 70 in mixed-model analyses. Analyses of only completers showed similar significant differences between the treatment groups. Significant improvement was demonstrated in all individual components of the ACR response, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability score. Interleukin-6 levels rapidly and significantly decreased in the TwHF group. Although not statistically significant, radiographic progression was lower in the TwHF group. The frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups. Limitations: Only 62% and 41% of patients continued receiving TwHF extract and sulfasalazine, respectively, during the 24 weeks of the study. Long-term outcome data were not collected on participants who discontinued treatment. Conclusion: In patients who continued treatment for 24 weeks and could also use stable oral prednisone and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, attainment of the ACR 20 response criteria was significantly greater with TwHF extract than with sulfasalazine. Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of popular Chinese herbs used in a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combination of Ganoderma lucidum and San Miao San (SMS), with purported diverse health benefits including antioxidant properties in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We randomly assigned 32 patients with active RA, despite disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, to TCM and 33 to placebo in addition to their current medications for 24 weeks. The TCM group received G lucidum (4 gm) and SMS (2.4 gm) daily. The primary outcome was the number of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% response and secondary outcomes included changes in the ACR components, plasma levels, and ex vivo-induced cytokines and chemokines and oxidative stress markers. RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent completed the 24-week study. Fifteen percent in the TCM group compared with 9.1% in the placebo group achieved ACR20 (P > 0.05). Pain score and patient's global score improved significantly only in the TCM group. The percentage, absolute counts, and CD4+/CD8+/natural killer/B lymphocytes ratio were unchanged between groups. CD3, CD4, and CD8 lymphocyte counts and markers of inflammation including plasma interleukin-18 (IL-18), interferon-gamma (IFNgamma)-inducible protein 10, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1, monokine induced by IFNgamma, and RANTES were unchanged. However, in an ex vivo experiment, the percentage change of IL-18 was significantly lower in the TCM group. Thirteen patients reported 22 episodes (14 in placebo group and 8 in TCM group) of mild adverse effects. CONCLUSION: G lucidum and San Miao San may have analgesic effects for patients with active RA, and were generally safe and well tolerated. However, no significant antioxidant, antiinflammatory, or immunomodulating effects could be demonstrated.
BACKGROUND: SKI306X, which consists of biologically active ingredients from <i>Clematis mandsburica</i>, <i>Trichosanthes kirilowii</i>, and <i>Prunella vulgaris</i>, was developed and tested in preclinical trials in Korea. Those studies found that SKI306X was associated with an anti-inflammatory and analgesic effect, and that it can delay the destruction of cartilage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the pain relief and tolerability of SKI306X and celecoxib in patients with RA. METHODS: This study was a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, Phase III, noninferiority clinical trial. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 80 years, had a history of RA with a disease duration of ≥3 months, and were functional American College of Rheumatology (ACR) class I, II, or III before entry. After a washout period of 2 weeks, patients were randomized to SKI306X 200 mg TID or celecoxib 200 mg BID for 6 weeks. The primary end point was a change in patient assessment of pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS). The secondary end points were a 20% improvement in response rate as defined by the ACR (ACR20) and the frequency of rescue medication use. Results after 3 and 6 weeks of treatment were compared with baseline and between treatment groups, and all patients were assessed for adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, and vital signs. AEs were identified based on spontaneous reports by patients during interviews conducted by the investigators and the study coordinator. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two Korean patients from 7 medical centers were assessed and 183 were enrolled and randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Ninety-one patients (10 male, 81 female; mean [SD] age, 52.13 [12.64] years; mean [SD] duration of RA, 9.08 [10.23] years; no. [%] of ACR class I, II, and III, 13 [14.29], 44 [48.35] and 34 [37.36] patients, respectively) received SKI306X 200 mg TID and 92 patients (10 male, 82 female; mean [SD] age, 51.78 [10.94] years; mean [SD] duration of RA, 8.78 [7.78] years; no. [%] of ACR class I, II, and III, 14 [15.22], 44 [47.83], and 34 [36.96] patients, respectively) received celecoxib 200 mg BID. An analysis of the change in reported pain intensity as determined by VAS (mm) score between baseline and week 3 (mean [SD], 13.64 [16.62] vs 14.45 [15.89]), and between baseline and week 6 (18.4 [20.8] vs 17.9 [19.1], respectively) suggested that SKI306X was not inferior to celecoxib. The number of patients who achieved ACR20 response rate was not significantly different between the SKI306X group and the celecoxib group at week 3 (16/87 [18.4%] vs 24/87 [27.6%], respectively) and at week 6 (29/87 [33.3%] vs 29/87 [33.3%]). The frequency of rescue medication use was not significantly different between the SKI306X group and celecoxib group at week 3 (54/87 [62.1%] vs 47/87 [54.0%], respectively) or week 6 (57/87 [65.5%] vs 49/87 [56.3%]). Drug-related AEs were reported by 27 (29.7%) patients in the SKI306X group and 22 (23.9%) patients in the celecoxib group. The most frequent drug-related AEs were epigastric pain (9/91 [9.9%]) in the SKI306X group and glutamyltranferase elevation (4/92 [4.3%]) in the celecoxib group. No significant between-group differences were observed in the prevalence of drug-related clinical- or laboratory-determined AEs. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that SKI306X was generally well tolerated and not inferior to celecoxib in regard to pain relief in these Korean patients with RA. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of a standardized willow bark extract in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We studied 127 outpatients with hip or knee OA and a WOMAC pain score of at least 30 mm and 26 outpatients with active RA in 2 randomized, controlled, double-blind trials with followup for 6 weeks. OA trial: Patients were randomized to receive willow bark extract, corresponding to 240 mg of salicin/day, diclofenac 100 mg/day, or placebo (n = 43, 43, and 41, respectively). Main outcome measure was the pain subscore of the WOMAC OA Index. RA trial: Patients were randomized to receive willow bark extract, corresponding to 240 mg salicin/day (n = 13) or placebo (n = 13). Main outcome measure was the patient's assessment of pain rated on a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: OA trial: WOMAC pain scores decreased by 8 mm (17%) in the willow bark group and by 23 mm (47%) in the diclofenac group, compared with 5 mm (10%) in the placebo group. The difference between willow bark extract and placebo was not statistically significant (-2.8 mm; 95% CI -12.1 to 6.4 mm; p = 0.55, ANCOVA), but the difference between diclofenac and placebo was highly significant (-18.0 mm; 95% CI -27.2 to -8.8 mm; p = 0.0002, ANCOVA). RA trial: The mean reduction of pain on the VAS was -8 mm (15%) in the willow bark group compared with -2 mm (4%) in the placebo group. The difference was not statistically significant (estimated difference -0.8 mm; 95% CI -20.9 to 19.3 mm; p = 0.93, ANCOVA). CONCLUSION: The OA study suggested that the willow bark extract showed no relevant efficacy in patients with OA. Similarly, the RA trial did not indicate efficacy of this extract in patients with RA.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of topical Tripterygium wilfordii (TW), a Chinese herbal therapy, in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A 6 week randomized double blind placebo controlled study of 61 patients with RA meeting American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria was conducted in China. The primary outcome was a modified ACR-20 response rate, analyzed by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The modified ACR-20 response rate differed significantly (topical TW 58% vs placebo 20%; p = 0.002). There was an 8.1-fold (95% CI 1.9-35.4) increase in the modified ACR-20 response for the TW compared to the placebo group, adjusted for age and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. CONCLUSION: Topical TW appears efficacious for the treatment of RA, but larger studies are needed.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety and clinical efficacy of a plant extract from the pentacyclic chemotype of Uncaria tomentosa (UT) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Forty patients undergoing sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine treatment were enrolled in a randomized 52 week, 2 phase study. During the first phase (24 weeks, double blind, placebo controlled), patients were treated with UT extract or placebo. In the second phase (28 weeks) all patients received the plant extract. RESULTS: Twenty-four weeks of treatment with the UT extract resulted in a reduction of the number of painful joints compared to placebo (by 53.2% vs 24.1%; p = 0.044). Patients receiving the UT extract only during the second phase experienced a reduction in the number of painful (p = 0.003) and swollen joints (p = 0.007) and the Ritchie Index (p = 0.004) compared to the values after 24 weeks of placebo. Only minor side effects were observed. CONCLUSION: This small preliminary study demonstrates relative safety and modest benefit to the tender joint count of a highly purified extract from the pentacyclic chemotype of UT in patients with active RA taking sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and efficacy of an extract of Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TWHF) in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An ethanol/ethyl acetate extract from the roots of TWHF was prepared and used in a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with longstanding RA in whom conventional therapy had failed. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or low-dose (180 mg/day) or high-dose (360 mg/day) extract for 20 weeks, followed by an open-label extension period. Clinical responses were defined as 20% improvement in disease activity according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria. Side effects were actively queried and recorded at each visit. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were enrolled in the trial; 21 patients completed the 20-week study. One patient from each group withdrew because of side effects. Twelve, 10, and 10 patients in the placebo, low-dose, and high-dose groups, respectively, completed at least 4 weeks of treatment. Of these patients, 8 and 4 in the high-dose and low-dose groups, but none in the placebo group, met criteria for clinical response. Four, 4, and 7 patients in the placebo, low-dose, and high-dose groups, respectively, were enrolled in the open-label extension; of these, 2, 4, and 5 patients, respectively, met criteria for clinical response. The most common side effect was diarrhea, which caused 1 patient in the high-dose group to withdraw from the trial. No patients withdrew because of adverse events during the open-label extension. CONCLUSION: The ethanol/ethyl acetate extract of TWHF shows therapeutic benefit in patients with treatment-refractory RA. At therapeutic dosages, the TWHF extract was well tolerated by most patients in this study.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate RA-1, a standardized plant extract formulation, traditionally considered a safe, effective antiarthritic in the Asian-Indian Ayurvedic medicinal system. METHODS: One hundred eighty-two patients with active-on-chronic rheumatoid arthritis (RA) participated in a 16 week randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel efficacy clinical drug trial in Pune, India. Tenderness, pain, swelling, and several other efficacy measures were assessed by (1) ACR core set 20% and 50% improvement; (2) ACR 20% improvement response. An intent-to-treat analysis was performed; p<0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Seventeen patients withdrew (active = 9; placebo = 8); none withdrew due to drug toxicity. An unprecedented placebo response (often p<0.001 in within-group change) was observed. The active RA-1 group remained numerically superior at all evaluation timepoints. RA-1 demonstrated few significant differences: (1) increased proportion with 50% reduction in swollen joint count (95% CI approximately 1.52, 29.90) and swollen joint score (95% CI approximately 0.91, 28.73); (2) reduced rheumatoid factor (95% CI approximately -303.7, -2.72); 39% in the RA-1 group versus 30% placebo showed ACR 20% improvement (95% CI approximately -5.48, 24.59). Only minor side effects were seen, with no significant differences by treatment group. CONCLUSION: In a trial with sufficient power, RA-1 revealed efficacy that was not significantly superior to the strong placebo response, except for improvement in joint swelling. Further, the effect on RF and good safety profile led to an open label phase.
BACKGROUND: Leukotrienes and prostaglandines are important mediators of inflammation. While prostaglandine synthesis can be influenced by NSAIDs therapeutical approaches to the 5-lipoxygenase pathway are rare. Resinous extracts of Boswellia serrata (H15, indish incense), known from traditional ayurvedic medicine, decrease leukotriene synthesis in vitro. Case reports suggest a clinical role for that drug. METHODS: Outpatients with active RA have been enrolled into a multicenter controlled trial. Patients received 9 tablets of active drug (3600 mg) or placebo daily in addition to their previous therapy. Doses of NSAIDs could be adjusted on demand. Efficacy parameters, Ritchies Index for swelling and pain, ESR, CRP, pain on VAS and NSAID dose were documented at baseline and 6 and 12 weeks after initiation. Mean values and medians were calculated to compare the groups for significant or clinically relevant change from baseline or difference between both groups at any time point of observation. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients were recruited in 4 centers, the data have been published in abstract form. Only 37 patients (verum 18, placebo 19), enrolled in Ratingen were available for detailed efficacy and safety analysis. All evaluations in these patients were performed by one investigator (G.H.). There was no subjective, clinical or laboratory parameter showing a significant or clinically relevant change from baseline or difference between both groups at any time point of observation. The mean NSAID dose reduction reached levels of 5.8% (H15) and 3.1% (placebo). One patient in each group showed a good response in all parameters but 4 patients in each group worsened. The others showed no alteration of their disease. CONCLUSION: Treatment with H15 showed no measurable efficacy. Controlled studies including a greater patient population are necessary to confirm or reject our results.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), a plant seed oil-derived unsaturated fatty acid that suppresses inflammation and joint tissue injury in animal models, in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Fifty-six patients with active RA were randomized to treatment groups in a 6-month, double-blind trial of GLA versus placebo. This was followed by a 6-month, single-blind trial during which all patients received GLA. Patients were treated with 2.8 gm/day of GLA as the free fatty acid or with sunflower seed oil (placebo) administered in identical capsules. RESULTS: Treatment with GLA for 6 months resulted in statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions in the signs and symptoms of disease activity in patients with RA. Overall meaningful responses (at least 25% improvement in 4 measures) were also better in the GLA treatment group (14 of 22 patients versus 4 of 19 in the placebo group; P = 0.015). During the second 6 months, both groups exhibited improvement in disease activity. Thus, patients taking GLA during the entire study showed progressive improvement during the second 6 months. In this group, 16 of 21 patients showed meaningful improvement at 12 months compared with study entry. CONCLUSION: GLA at doses used in this study is a well-tolerated and effective treatment for active RA. GLA is available as a component of several plant seed oils and is usually taken in far lower doses than were used in this trial. It is not approved in the United States for the treatment of any condition, and should not be viewed as therapy for any disease. Further controlled studies of its in RA are warranted.
Background: Extracts of the medicinal plant Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF) have been used in China for centuries to treat a spectrum of inflammatory diseases. Objective: To compare the benefits and side effects of TwHF extract with those of sulfasalazine for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis. Design: Randomized, controlled trial. A computer-generated code with random, permuted blocks was used to assign treatment. Setting: 2 U.S. academic centers (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, and University of Texas, Dallas, Texas) and 9 rheumatology subspecialty clinics (in Dallas and Austin, Texas; Tampa and Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Arlington, Virginia; Duncanville, Pennsylvania; Wheaton and Greenbelt, Maryland; and Lansing, Michigan). Patients: 121 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and 6 or more painful and swollen joints. Intervention: TwHF extract, 60 mg 3 times daily, or sulfasalazine, 1 g twice daily. Patients could continue stable doses of oral prednisone or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs but had to stop taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at least 28 days before randomization. Measurements: The primary outcome was the rate of achievement of 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR 20) at 24 weeks. Secondary end points were safety; radiographic scores of joint damage; and serum levels of interleukin-6, cholesterol, cortisol, and adrenocorticotropic hormone. Results: Outcome data were available for only 62 patients at 24 weeks. In a mixed-model analysis that imputed data for patients who dropped out, 65.0% (95% CI, 51.6% to 76.9%) of the TwHF group and 32.8% (CI, 21.3% to 46.0%) of the sulfasalazine group met the ACR 20 response criteria (P = 0.001). Patients receiving TwHF also had significantly higher response rates for ACR 50 and ACR 70 in mixed-model analyses. Analyses of only completers showed similar significant differences between the treatment groups. Significant improvement was demonstrated in all individual components of the ACR response, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability score. Interleukin-6 levels rapidly and significantly decreased in the TwHF group. Although not statistically significant, radiographic progression was lower in the TwHF group. The frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups. Limitations: Only 62% and 41% of patients continued receiving TwHF extract and sulfasalazine, respectively, during the 24 weeks of the study. Long-term outcome data were not collected on participants who discontinued treatment. Conclusion: In patients who continued treatment for 24 weeks and could also use stable oral prednisone and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, attainment of the ACR 20 response criteria was significantly greater with TwHF extract than with sulfasalazine. Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.
