Towards stratified treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

N. Luurssen-Masurel, Angelique Elisabeth Adriana, Maria Weel, Johanna Maria, Wilhelmina Hazes, Pascal, Hendrik Pieter de Jong
{"title":"Towards stratified treatment of rheumatoid arthritis","authors":"N. Luurssen-Masurel, Angelique Elisabeth Adriana, Maria Weel, Johanna Maria, Wilhelmina Hazes, Pascal, Hendrik Pieter de Jong","doi":"10.37532/1758-4272.2020.15(3).73-82","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To compare the clinical efficacy of different initial treatment strategies in autoantibodynegative rheumatoid arthritis(RA) patients. Methods and findings: Data of the tREACH trial, a stratified single-blinded randomized clinical trial with a treat-to-target strategy, were used. For this analysis, we selected all autoantibodynegative RA patients, defined as fulfillment of 2010-criteria and absence of both rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibody, within the intermediate probability stratum. We compared the following initial treatment strategies in our autoantibody-negative RA population: 25mg methotrexate(iMTX) per week, 400mg hydroxychloroquine(iHCQ) daily or 15mg glucocorticoids(iGCs) orally in a 10-week tapering scheme without any DMARDs. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients with active disease, defined as a disease activity score(DAS)≥2.4, after 3 months of treatment. Secondary outcomes were DAS and functional ability(HAQ) over time using a linear mixed model(LMM), in which we respectively corrected for baseline DAS and HAQ. 116 patients were included and started with iMTX(n=44), iHCQ(n=35) or iGCs(n=37). After 3 months 34%, 34% and 76% of patients respectively treated with iMTX, iHCQ and iGCs had an active disease(p<.0005 for iHCQ and iMTX versus iGCs). Our corrected LMM showed no significant difference in DAS and HAQ over time between the different initial treatment strategies. Conclusions: Initial GCs without csDMARDs are also not indicated for autoantibody-negative RA patients. However, iHCQ and iMTX show similar (early) treatment responses in this subgroup of patients, which suggests that initial treatment can be stratified for autoantibody-negative and autoantibody-positive RA, but validation is needed.","PeriodicalId":13740,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Rheumatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37532/1758-4272.2020.15(3).73-82","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: To compare the clinical efficacy of different initial treatment strategies in autoantibodynegative rheumatoid arthritis(RA) patients. Methods and findings: Data of the tREACH trial, a stratified single-blinded randomized clinical trial with a treat-to-target strategy, were used. For this analysis, we selected all autoantibodynegative RA patients, defined as fulfillment of 2010-criteria and absence of both rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibody, within the intermediate probability stratum. We compared the following initial treatment strategies in our autoantibody-negative RA population: 25mg methotrexate(iMTX) per week, 400mg hydroxychloroquine(iHCQ) daily or 15mg glucocorticoids(iGCs) orally in a 10-week tapering scheme without any DMARDs. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients with active disease, defined as a disease activity score(DAS)≥2.4, after 3 months of treatment. Secondary outcomes were DAS and functional ability(HAQ) over time using a linear mixed model(LMM), in which we respectively corrected for baseline DAS and HAQ. 116 patients were included and started with iMTX(n=44), iHCQ(n=35) or iGCs(n=37). After 3 months 34%, 34% and 76% of patients respectively treated with iMTX, iHCQ and iGCs had an active disease(p<.0005 for iHCQ and iMTX versus iGCs). Our corrected LMM showed no significant difference in DAS and HAQ over time between the different initial treatment strategies. Conclusions: Initial GCs without csDMARDs are also not indicated for autoantibody-negative RA patients. However, iHCQ and iMTX show similar (early) treatment responses in this subgroup of patients, which suggests that initial treatment can be stratified for autoantibody-negative and autoantibody-positive RA, but validation is needed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
类风湿关节炎分层治疗的探讨
背景:比较不同初始治疗策略对自身抗体阴性类风湿性关节炎(RA)患者的临床疗效。方法和结果:采用分层单盲随机临床试验tREACH试验的数据,采用治疗-靶向策略。在本分析中,我们选择了所有自身抗体阴性的RA患者,定义为满足2010年标准,缺乏类风湿因子和抗瓜氨酸化蛋白抗体,在中间概率层内。我们比较了自身抗体阴性RA人群的以下初始治疗策略:每周25mg甲氨蝶呤(iMTX),每天400mg羟氯喹(iHCQ)或口服15mg糖皮质激素(iGCs),为期10周,无任何DMARDs。主要终点是治疗3个月后疾病活动性患者的比例,定义为疾病活动性评分(DAS)≥2.4。次要结果是使用线性混合模型(LMM)随时间的DAS和功能能力(HAQ),其中我们分别校正了基线DAS和HAQ。纳入116例患者,并开始使用iMTX(n=44), iHCQ(n=35)或iGCs(n=37)。3个月后,接受iMTX、iHCQ和iGCs治疗的患者中分别有34%、34%和76%的患者出现活动性疾病(p< 0.05)。iHCQ和iMTX与iGCs的差异为0005)。我们校正后的LMM显示不同初始治疗策略之间DAS和HAQ随时间的变化无显著差异。结论:没有csDMARDs的初始GCs也不适用于自身抗体阴性的RA患者。然而,iHCQ和iMTX在该亚组患者中显示出相似的(早期)治疗反应,这表明可以对自身抗体阴性和自身抗体阳性的RA进行初始治疗分层,但需要验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Severe coronal re-infection and issuesof mechanisms, monitoring and therapy Treatment patterns and costs ofpatients with ankylosing spondylitisinitiating biologic therapy in taiwan ??? apopulation-based analysis Effectiveness of adalimumab versus infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: A randomized double blinded clinical trial Synovitis with pitting edema as the presenting manifestation of antisynthetase syndrome Demographic, clinical, and serological features of Iraqi patients with rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation of 470 patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1