Luis Arturo Gutierrez-Gonzalez, Marco Antonio Rivera Gudiño, Ibell Oropeza Ceija, Marialina Marin Leonet, Zair Tovar Noguera
{"title":"利妥昔单抗在类风湿关节炎患者中的疗效和安全性对比抗肿瘤药物治疗失败案例","authors":"Luis Arturo Gutierrez-Gonzalez, Marco Antonio Rivera Gudiño, Ibell Oropeza Ceija, Marialina Marin Leonet, Zair Tovar Noguera","doi":"10.2174/1874312920130913004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our aim was to compare an AntiCD20 therapy (rituximab) for rheumatoid arthritis in two patient populations (Group 1), anti-TNFα naïve patients and inadequate responders to Anti-TNFα therapy (Group 2).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed the efficacy of the drug Rituximab (RTX) in RA patients who failed methotrexate (MTX) or had a relative or absolute contraindication to receive anti-TNFα therapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>25 patients were identified according to the above criteria and followed up for a mean period of 6 months. Thirteen patients were biologic naïve and twelve patients had already failed anti-TNFα therapy. Group 1 used 2> DMARDs (32% vs 20%, p<0.005), group 2 had more years of disease progression (5±1.89 v s4.10±3.92, p<0.001). The remission as measured by the DAS28 reached faster in group 1 (1.25±0.12 vs 2.15±1.64, p<0,001). Severe infections especially by herpes viruses were more frequent in group 2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Comparing clinical improvement in both groups the decrease of acute phase reactants and the clinical remission measured by DAS28 was reached in both groups, however it was reached more belatedly in group 2 (at 6 months), this is due to the fact that they have more years of the disease evolution and a higher HAQ.</p>","PeriodicalId":39124,"journal":{"name":"Open Rheumatology Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/94/e8/TORJ-7-81.PMC3812784.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Rituximab in Biologic-Naive Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis vs Anti-Tnf Therapy Failure.\",\"authors\":\"Luis Arturo Gutierrez-Gonzalez, Marco Antonio Rivera Gudiño, Ibell Oropeza Ceija, Marialina Marin Leonet, Zair Tovar Noguera\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1874312920130913004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our aim was to compare an AntiCD20 therapy (rituximab) for rheumatoid arthritis in two patient populations (Group 1), anti-TNFα naïve patients and inadequate responders to Anti-TNFα therapy (Group 2).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed the efficacy of the drug Rituximab (RTX) in RA patients who failed methotrexate (MTX) or had a relative or absolute contraindication to receive anti-TNFα therapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>25 patients were identified according to the above criteria and followed up for a mean period of 6 months. Thirteen patients were biologic naïve and twelve patients had already failed anti-TNFα therapy. Group 1 used 2> DMARDs (32% vs 20%, p<0.005), group 2 had more years of disease progression (5±1.89 v s4.10±3.92, p<0.001). The remission as measured by the DAS28 reached faster in group 1 (1.25±0.12 vs 2.15±1.64, p<0,001). Severe infections especially by herpes viruses were more frequent in group 2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Comparing clinical improvement in both groups the decrease of acute phase reactants and the clinical remission measured by DAS28 was reached in both groups, however it was reached more belatedly in group 2 (at 6 months), this is due to the fact that they have more years of the disease evolution and a higher HAQ.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39124,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Rheumatology Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/94/e8/TORJ-7-81.PMC3812784.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Rheumatology Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874312920130913004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2013/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Rheumatology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874312920130913004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究目的我们的目的是比较抗CD20疗法(利妥昔单抗)治疗类风湿性关节炎在两类患者(第1组)、抗肿瘤坏死因子(TNFα)天真患者和抗肿瘤坏死因子(TNFα)疗法反应不足者(第2组)中的疗效:我们分析了利妥昔单抗(RTX)对甲氨蝶呤(MTX)治疗失败或有相对或绝对禁忌症的 RA 患者的疗效。其中,13 名患者为生物制剂天真者,12 名患者抗 TNFα 治疗失败。第一组使用了2种以上的DMARDs(32%对20%,P结论:比较两组患者的临床改善情况,两组患者的急性期反应物均有所下降,DAS28测量的临床缓解率均有所提高,但第2组患者的临床缓解率较晚(6个月)达到,这是因为他们的病程较长,HAQ较高。
Efficacy and Safety of Rituximab in Biologic-Naive Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis vs Anti-Tnf Therapy Failure.
Objectives: Our aim was to compare an AntiCD20 therapy (rituximab) for rheumatoid arthritis in two patient populations (Group 1), anti-TNFα naïve patients and inadequate responders to Anti-TNFα therapy (Group 2).
Methods: We analyzed the efficacy of the drug Rituximab (RTX) in RA patients who failed methotrexate (MTX) or had a relative or absolute contraindication to receive anti-TNFα therapy.
Results: 25 patients were identified according to the above criteria and followed up for a mean period of 6 months. Thirteen patients were biologic naïve and twelve patients had already failed anti-TNFα therapy. Group 1 used 2> DMARDs (32% vs 20%, p<0.005), group 2 had more years of disease progression (5±1.89 v s4.10±3.92, p<0.001). The remission as measured by the DAS28 reached faster in group 1 (1.25±0.12 vs 2.15±1.64, p<0,001). Severe infections especially by herpes viruses were more frequent in group 2.
Conclusions: Comparing clinical improvement in both groups the decrease of acute phase reactants and the clinical remission measured by DAS28 was reached in both groups, however it was reached more belatedly in group 2 (at 6 months), this is due to the fact that they have more years of the disease evolution and a higher HAQ.
期刊介绍:
ENTHAM Open publishes a number of peer-reviewed, open access journals. These free-to-view online journals cover all major disciplines of science, medicine, technology and social sciences. BENTHAM Open provides researchers a platform to rapidly publish their research in a good-quality peer-reviewed journal. All peer-reviewed accepted submissions meeting high research and ethical standards are published with free access to all.