首页> 外文期刊>Arthritis care & research >Rituximab or a second anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy for rheumatoid arthritis patients who have failed their first anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy? Comparative analysis from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register
【24h】

Rituximab or a second anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy for rheumatoid arthritis patients who have failed their first anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy? Comparative analysis from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register

机译:对于首次抗肿瘤坏死因子治疗失败的类风湿关节炎患者,利妥昔单抗或第二种抗肿瘤坏死因子治疗?来自英国风湿病生物学学会注册的比较分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Objective To compare the effectiveness of rituximab (RTX) or a second anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who had failed their first anti-TNF and switched to either RTX or a second anti-TNF, in routine clinical practice. Methods RA patients were registered with the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Response to treatment 6 months after switching was assessed using European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and improvements in a Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score (0.22 unit or more). Regression analyses were used to compare EULAR response and improvement in HAQ score between the 2 groups, adjusting for propensity scores. Results In total, 1,328 patients were included in the analysis of EULAR response, and 937 patients were included in the analysis of HAQ scores. Six months after switching, 54.8% of patients who switched to RTX were EULAR responders compared to 47.3% of those who switched to a second anti-TNF. A total of 38.4% of RTX patients achieved a clinically important improvement in HAQ score compared to 29.6% in anti-TNF patients. After adjustment using propensity scores, patients who switched to RTX were significantly more likely to achieve EULAR response (odds ratio [OR] 1.31; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.02, 1.69) compared to those who switched to an alternative anti-TNF. RTX patients were also significantly more likely to achieve improvements in HAQ score (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.07, 2.08). Conclusion The results suggest that switching to RTX may be of more benefit than switching to an alternative anti-TNF therapy after failing the first anti-TNF therapy in RA patients.
机译:目的比较利妥昔单抗(RTX)或第二种抗肿瘤坏死因子(anti-TNF)治疗在类风湿性关节炎(RA)初次使用抗TNF治疗失败并改用RTX或第二种抗TNF治疗的患者中的疗效,在常规临床实践中。方法RA患者在英国风湿病生物学学会注册。使用欧洲抗风湿病联盟(EULAR)标准评估了切换后6个月对治疗的反应,并评估了健康评估问卷(HAQ)得分(0.22单位或更高)。使用回归分析比较两组之间的EULAR反应和HAQ得分的改善,并调整倾向得分。结果总共有1,328例患者被纳入EULAR反应分析,而937例患者被纳入HAQ评分分析。转换后六个月,转换为RTX的患者中有54.8%是EULAR应答者,而转换为第二种抗TNF的患者为47.3%。与抗TNF患者中的29.6%相比,总共38.4%的RTX患者在HAQ评分上取得了重要的临床改善。使用倾向评分进行调整后,与使用替代抗逆转录病毒疗法的患者相比,转换为RTX的患者更有可能实现EULAR反应(优势比[OR] 1.31; 95%置信区间[95%CI] 1.02、1.69)。肿瘤坏死因子RTX患者也更有可能实现HAQ评分的改善(OR 1.49; 95%CI 1.07,2.08)。结论结果表明,在RA患者中首次抗TNF治疗失败后,转用RTX可能比改用其他抗TNF治疗更有益。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号