Fleischmann Roy, Koenig Andrew S, Szumski Annette, Nab Henk W, Marshall Lisa, Bananis Eustratios
Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, Pfizer Inc., Collegeville, PA, USA and Pfizer Europe, Rome, Italy
Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, Pfizer Inc., Collegeville, PA, USA and Pfizer Europe, Rome, Italy.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2014 Nov;53(11):1984-93. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keu235. Epub 2014 Jun 6.
The aims of this study were to investigate the short-term benefit of etanercept (ETN) + MTX vs conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs; HCQ, LEF or SSZ) + MTX in subjects with established RA. The effect of disease duration (≤2 years vs >2 years) and severity (moderate vs severe) on treatment outcomes was also assessed. Methods. Data from Asian and Latin American subjects with inadequate response to MTX were pooled from the APPEAL (ETN 25 mg biweekly + MTX or csDMARD + MTX; NCT00422227) and Latin RA (ETN 50 mg/week + MTX or csDMARD + MTX; NCT00848354) studies. Endpoints included the 28-joint DAS with ESR (DAS28-ESR) low disease activity (LDA; ≤3.2), DAS28 remission (<2.6) and HAQ score ≤0.5.
Four hundred seventy-eight subjects received ETN + MTX, 245 subjects received csDMARD + MTX [HCQ + MTX (n = 81), LEF + MTX (n = 69), SSZ + MTX (n = 95)]. At week 16, significantly more subjects receiving ETN + MTX vs subjects on csDMARDs + MTX achieved DAS28-ESR LDA (39% vs 18%, P < 0.001), remission (18% vs 7%, P < 0.001) and HAQ ≤0.5 (48% vs 34%, P < 0.001). For both treatment arms, these endpoints were achieved by a greater proportion of subjects with ≤2 years vs >2 years disease duration and with moderate vs severe disease activity.
Overall, ETN + MTX was more effective in treating subjects with established RA than csDMARDs + MTX at 16 weeks. More subjects with shorter disease duration and moderate disease activity achieved optimal response regardless of treatment regimen.
clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00422227 and NCT00848354.
本研究旨在探讨在已确诊的类风湿关节炎(RA)患者中,与传统合成改善病情抗风湿药(csDMARDs;羟氯喹、来氟米特或柳氮磺胺吡啶)+甲氨蝶呤相比,依那西普(ETN)+甲氨蝶呤的短期疗效。还评估了病程(≤2年与>2年)和疾病严重程度(中度与重度)对治疗结果的影响。方法:将来自亚洲和拉丁美洲对甲氨蝶呤反应不佳的患者数据,合并自APPEAL(每两周一次25mg依那西普+甲氨蝶呤或csDMARD+甲氨蝶呤;NCT00422227)和拉丁RA(每周50mg依那西普+甲氨蝶呤或csDMARD+甲氨蝶呤;NCT00848354)研究。终点指标包括28个关节的疾病活动评分(DAS28)伴血沉(ESR)低疾病活动度(LDA;≤3.2)、DAS28缓解(<2.6)和健康评估问卷(HAQ)评分≤0.5。
478名受试者接受依那西普+甲氨蝶呤治疗,245名受试者接受csDMARD+甲氨蝶呤治疗[羟氯喹+甲氨蝶呤(n = 81)、来氟米特+甲氨蝶呤(n = 69)、柳氮磺胺吡啶+甲氨蝶呤(n = 95)]。在第16周时,与接受csDMARDs+甲氨蝶呤治疗的受试者相比,接受依那西普+甲氨蝶呤治疗的受试者显著更多地达到了DAS28-ESR LDA(39%对18%,P < 0.001)、缓解(18%对7%,P < 0.001)和HAQ≤0.5(48%对34%,P < 0.001)。对于两个治疗组,病程≤2年与>2年以及疾病活动度为中度与重度的受试者中,达到这些终点指标的比例更高。
总体而言,在治疗已确诊的类风湿关节炎患者时,依那西普+甲氨蝶呤在16周时比csDMARDs+甲氨蝶呤更有效。无论治疗方案如何,病程较短且疾病活动度为中度的受试者中,更多人实现了最佳反应。
clinicaltrials.gov,NCT00422227和NCT00848354。