Damjanov Nemanja, Shehhi Waleed Al, Huang Feng, Kotak Sameer, Burgos-Vargas Ruben, Shirazy Khalid, Bananis Eustratios, Szumski Annette, Llamado Lyndon J Q, Mahgoub Ehab
Institute of Rheumatology, University of Belgrade School of Medicine, Belgrade, Resavska 69, Belgrade, 11000, Serbia.
Al Biraa Arthritis Centre, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Rheumatol Int. 2016 May;36(5):643-51. doi: 10.1007/s00296-016-3452-0. Epub 2016 Mar 11.
Despite the demonstrated efficacy of etanercept for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), sulfasalazine is often prescribed, especially in countries with limited access to biologic agents. The objective of this subset analysis of the ASCEND trial was to compare the efficacy of etanercept and sulfasalazine in treating patients with AS from Asia, Eastern/Central Europe, and Latin America. A total of 287 patients, 190 receiving etanercept 50 mg once weekly and 97 receiving sulfasalazine 3 g daily, from eight countries were included in this subset analysis. Differences in disease activity and patient-reported outcomes assessing health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) parameters in response to treatment were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for categorical efficacy endpoints and analysis of covariance model for continuous variables. At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving etanercept achieved ASAS20 (79.0 %) compared with patients receiving sulfasalazine (61.9 %; p = 0.002). At week 16, treatment with etanercept also resulted in significantly better responses than sulfasalazine for ASAS40 (64.7 vs. 35.1 %; p < 0.001), ASAS5/6 (48.1 vs. 26.3 %; p < 0.001), proportion of patients achieving 50 % response in Bath AS Disease Activity Index (65.8 vs. 42.3 %; p < 0.001), partial remission (35.3 vs. 17.5 %; p = 0.002), and all HRQoL parameters. Both treatments were well tolerated. Etanercept was significantly more effective than sulfasalazine in the treatment of patients with AS from Asia, Central/Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
尽管已证明依那西普治疗强直性脊柱炎(AS)有效,但柳氮磺胺吡啶仍常被处方使用,尤其是在生物制剂获取受限的国家。这项对ASCEND试验的亚组分析的目的是比较依那西普和柳氮磺胺吡啶在治疗来自亚洲、东欧/中欧和拉丁美洲的AS患者中的疗效。该亚组分析纳入了来自8个国家的总共287例患者,其中190例接受每周一次50mg依那西普治疗,97例接受每日3g柳氮磺胺吡啶治疗。使用 Cochr an-Mantel-Haenszel检验分析分类疗效终点的疾病活动差异和评估健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)参数的患者报告结局,并使用协方差分析模型分析连续变量。在第16周时,接受依那西普治疗的患者达到ASAS20的比例(79.0%)显著高于接受柳氮磺胺吡啶治疗的患者(61.9%;p = 0.002)。在第16周时,依那西普治疗在ASAS40(64.7%对35.1%;p < 0.001)、ASAS5/6(48.1%对26.3%;p < 0.001)、在巴斯强直性脊柱炎疾病活动指数中达到50%缓解的患者比例(65.8%对42.3%;p < 0.001)、部分缓解(35.3%对17.5%;p = 0.002)以及所有HRQoL参数方面也比柳氮磺胺吡啶产生了显著更好的反应。两种治疗的耐受性均良好。在治疗来自亚洲、中欧/东欧和拉丁美洲的AS患者方面,依那西普显著比柳氮磺胺吡啶更有效。