Pincus T, Sokka T, Kavanaugh A
Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-4500, USA.
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2004 Sep-Oct;22(5 Suppl 35):S50-6.
Therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may be assessed according to relative levels of measures to compare efficacy to another therapy or to a placebo, as in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%, 50%, or 70% (ACR 20 ACR 50 and ACR 70) responses, or by absolute levels of measures, as in disease activity scores (DAS), ACR criteria for remission, or "target values" of specific measures. Regulatory considerations have emphasized primarily relative comparisons to a placebo or standard therapy, derived in part from the weak efficacy of traditional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). While improvement compared to placebo certainly indicates efficacy, it is of concern that measures of inflammatory activity, such as swollen joints and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), may be stable or improved over periods of 5-10 years, while measures of damage, such as joint deformity and radiographic changes, may progress over the same period in the same patients. These findings suggest that improvement at a level of 20% or 50% may deter but not prevent severe long-term outcomes of radiographic progression, functional declines, work disability, and premature mortality, seen in most patients until the middle 1990s. Outcomes appear to be improved at this time, associated with aggressive treatment strategies and more powerful therapies, including biologic agents. In the Finnish Rheumatoid Arthritis Combination Therapy Trial (FinRACo), no patient who was in remission after 6 months was receiving work disability payments 4 1/2 years later, compared to 22% of patients who had ACR 20 or 50 responses and 54% of patients who did not have ACR 20 responses after 6 months who were all receiving work disability payments after 5 years. These findings suggest that absolute targets, including remission, may be realistic contemporary goals, with aggressive treatment strategies and more effective DMARDs and biologic agents.
类风湿关节炎(RA)的治疗方法可根据衡量指标的相对水平来评估,以比较与另一种治疗方法或安慰剂的疗效,如美国风湿病学会(ACR)20%、50%或70%(ACR 20、ACR 50和ACR 70)反应,也可根据衡量指标的绝对水平来评估,如疾病活动评分(DAS)、ACR缓解标准或特定指标的“目标值”。监管方面的考量主要强调与安慰剂或标准治疗的相对比较,部分原因是传统改善病情抗风湿药物(DMARDs)疗效较弱。虽然与安慰剂相比有所改善肯定表明有疗效,但令人担忧的是,炎症活动指标,如关节肿胀和红细胞沉降率(ESR),可能在5至10年期间保持稳定或有所改善,而损伤指标,如关节畸形和影像学改变,可能在同一时期内在同一患者中进展。这些发现表明,20%或50%水平的改善可能会延缓但无法预防影像学进展、功能下降、工作残疾和过早死亡等严重长期后果,在20世纪90年代中期之前,大多数患者都会出现这些情况。目前,随着积极的治疗策略和更有效的治疗方法,包括生物制剂的出现,预后似乎有所改善。在芬兰类风湿关节炎联合治疗试验(FinRACo)中,6个月后缓解的患者在4年半后均未领取工作残疾补贴,相比之下,6个月后有ACR 20或50反应的患者中有22%以及6个月后无ACR 20反应的患者中有54%在5年后都领取了工作残疾补贴。这些发现表明,包括缓解在内的绝对目标可能是现实的当代目标,需要积极的治疗策略以及更有效的DMARDs和生物制剂。