References of "Klareskog, L"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailAssessment of long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept in a 5-year extension study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Klareskog, L.; Gaubitz, M.; Rodriguez-Valverde, V. et al

in Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011 Mar-Apr (2011)

Detailed reference viewed: 42 (2 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailBiomarkers and personalised medicine in rheumatoid arthritis: a proposal for interactions between academia, industry and regulatory bodies.
Miossec, P.; Verweij, C. L.; Klareskog, L. et al

in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2011), 70(10), 1713-8

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most appropriate conditions for the application of personalised medicine as a high degree of heterogeneity has been recognised, which remains to be explained. Such ... [more ▼]

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most appropriate conditions for the application of personalised medicine as a high degree of heterogeneity has been recognised, which remains to be explained. Such heterogeneity is also reflected in the large number of treatment targets and options. A growing number of biologics as well as small molecules are already in use and there are promising new drugs in development. In order to make the best use of treatment options, both targeted and non-targeted biomarkers have to be identified and validated. To this aim, new rules are needed for the interaction between academia and industry under regulatory control. Setting up multi-centre biosample collections with clear definition of access, organising early, possibly non-committing discussions with regulatory authorities, and defining a clear route for the validation, qualification and registration of the biomarker-drug combination are some of the more critical areas where effective collaboration between the drug industry, academia and regulators is needed. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 72 (15 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA long-term, open-label trial of the safety and efficacy of etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis not treated with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
Klareskog, L.; Gaubitz, M.; Rodriguez-Valverde, V. et al

in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2006), 65(12), 1578-1584

Objective: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: 549 patients entered this 5-year, open-label extension study and received etanercept ... [more ▼]

Objective: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: 549 patients entered this 5-year, open-label extension study and received etanercept 25 mg twice weekly. All patients showed inadequate responses to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs before entry into the double-blind studies. Safety assessments were carried out at regular intervals. Primary efficacy end points were the numbers of painful and swollen joints; secondary variables included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rate, Disease Activity Score and acute-phase reactants. Efficacy was analysed using the last-observation-carried-forward approach. Results: Of the 549 patients enrolled in the open-label trial, 467 (85%), 414 (75%) and 371 (68%) completed 1, 2 and 3 years, respectively; 363 (66%) remained in the study at the time of this analysis. A total exposure of 1498 patient-years, including the double-blind study, was accrued. In the open-label trial, withdrawals for efficacy-related and safety-related reasons were 11% and 13%, respectively. Frequent adverse events included upper respiratory infections, flu syndrome, rash and injection-site reactions. Rates of serious infections and malignancies remained unchanged over the course of the study; there were no reports of patients with central demyelinating disease or serious blood dyscrasias. After 3 years, ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were 78%, 51% and 27%, respectively. The Disease Activity Score score was reduced to 3.0 at 3 months and 2.6 at 3 years from 5.1. A sustained improvement was found in Health Assessment Questionnaire scores throughout the 3-year time period. Conclusion: After 3 years of treatment, etanercept showed sustained efficacy and a favourable safety profile. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (0 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailTherapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial
Klareskog, L.; van der Heijde, D.; de Jager, J. P. et al

in Lancet (2004), 363(9410), 675-681

Background Etanercept and methotrexate are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but no data exist on concurrent initiation or use of the combination compared with either drug alone. We aimed ... [more ▼]

Background Etanercept and methotrexate are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but no data exist on concurrent initiation or use of the combination compared with either drug alone. We aimed to assess combination treatment with etanercept and methotrexate versus the monotherapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods In a double-blind, randomised, clinical efficacy, safety, and radiographic study, 686 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated to treatment with etanercept 25 mg (subcutaneously twice a week), oral methotrexate (up to 20 mg every week), or the combination. Clinical response was assessed by criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The primary efficacy endpoint was the numeric index of the ACR response (ACR-N) area under the curve (AUC) over the first 24 weeks. The primary radiographic endpoint was change from baseline to week 52 in total joint damage and was assessed with the modified Sharp score. Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings Four patients did not receive any drug; thus 682 were studied. ACR-N AUC at 24 weeks was greater for the combination group compared with etanercept alone and methotrexate alone (18.3% years [95% CI 17.1-19.6] vs 14.7%-years [13.5-16.0], p<0.0001, and 12.2%-years [11.0-13.4], p<0.0001; respectively). The mean difference in ACR-N AUC between combination and methotrexate alone was 6.1 (95% CI 4.5-7.8, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was 2.5 (0.8-4.2, p=0.0034). The combination was more efficacious than methotrexate or etanercept alone in retardation of joint damage (mean total Sharp score -0.54 [95% CI -1.00 to -0.07] vs 2.80 [1.08 to 4.51], p<0.0001, and 0.52 [-0.10 to 1.15], p=0.0006; respectively). The mean difference in total Sharp score between combination and methotrexate alone was -3.34 (95% CI -4.86 to -1.81, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was -2.27 (-3.81 to -0.74, p=0.0469). The number of patients reporting infections or adverse events was similar in all groups. Interpretation The combination of etanercept and methotrexate was significantly better in reduction of disease activity, improvement of functional disability, and retardation of radiographic progression compared with methotrexate or etanercept alone. These findings bring us closer to achievement of remission and repair of structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 10 (0 ULg)