Mueller Ruediger B, Spaeth Michael, von Restorff Cord, Ackermann Christoph, Schulze-Koops Hendrik, von Kempis Johannes
Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, 9007 St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Division of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine IV, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2019 Mar 3;8(3):302. doi: 10.3390/jcm8030302.
Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) includes the use of conventional (cs), biologic (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and oral, intramuscularly, intravenous, or intraarticular (IA) glucocorticoids (GCs). In this paper, we analysed whether a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy optimizing csDMARD, oral, and IA-GC treatment as an adjunct new therapy to a new certolizumab pegol (CZP) therapy improves the effectivity in RA patients.
43 patients with active RA (≥6 tender, ≥6 swollen joints, ESR ≥ 20 mm/h or CRP ≥ 7mg/L) despite csDMARD treatment for ≥ 3 months and naïve to bDMARDs were randomized to CZP (200 mg/2 weeks after loading with 400 mg at weeks 0⁻2⁻4) plus a treat-to-target strategy (T2T, = 21), or to CZP added to the established csDMARD therapy (fixed regimen, = 22). The T2T strategy consisted of changing the baseline csDMARD therapy (1) SC-methotrexate (dose: 15 ≥ 20 ≥ 25 mg/week, depending on the initial dose) ≥ leflunomide (20 mg/d) ≥ sulphasalazine (2 × 1000 mg/d) plus (2) oral GCs (prednisolone 20⁻15⁻12.5⁻10⁻7.5⁻5⁻2.5⁻0 mg/d tapered every five days) and (3) injections of ≤5 affected joints with triamcinolone. DMARD modification and an addition of oral GCs were initiated, depending on the achievement of low disease activity (DAS 28 < 3.2). The primary objective was defined as the ACR 50 response at week 24.
ACR 50 was achieved in 76.2% of the T2T, as compared to 36.4% of the fixed regimen patients ( = 0.020). ACR 20 and 70 responses were achieved in 90.5% and 71.4% of the T2T patients and 59.1% and 27.3% of the fixed regimen patients, respectively ( = 0.045 and = 0.010, respectively). The adverse event rate was similar for both groups (T2T = 51; fixed regimen = 55).
Treat-to-target management with the optimization of csDMARDs, oral, and IA-GCs of RA patients in parallel to a newly established CZP treatment was safe and efficacious in comparison to a fixed regimen of csDMARDs background therapy.
类风湿关节炎(RA)的治疗包括使用传统(cs)、生物(b)改善病情抗风湿药物(DMARDs)以及口服、肌内、静脉或关节内(IA)糖皮质激素(GCs)。在本文中,我们分析了一种达标治疗(T2T)策略,即优化csDMARD、口服和IA-GC治疗作为新的赛妥珠单抗(CZP)治疗的辅助新疗法,是否能提高RA患者的疗效。
43例尽管接受了≥3个月的csDMARD治疗且未使用过bDMARDs但仍患有活动性RA(≥6个压痛关节、≥6个肿胀关节、红细胞沉降率(ESR)≥20mm/h或C反应蛋白(CRP)≥7mg/L)的患者被随机分为接受CZP(在第0、2、4周给予400mg负荷剂量后,每2周给予200mg)加达标治疗策略(T2T,n = 21),或接受添加到已确立的csDMARD治疗中的CZP(固定方案,n = 22)。T2T策略包括改变基线csDMARD治疗(1)皮下注射甲氨蝶呤(剂量:根据初始剂量,15≥20≥25mg/周)≥来氟米特(20mg/d)≥柳氮磺胺吡啶(2×1000mg/d)加(2)口服GCs(泼尼松龙20⁻15⁻12.5⁻10⁻7.5⁻5⁻2.5⁻0mg/d,每5天递减)和(3)对≤5个受累关节注射曲安奈德。根据低疾病活动度(疾病活动度评分28(DAS 28)<3.2)的达成情况,开始调整DMARD并添加口服GCs。主要目标定义为第24周时达到美国风湿病学会(ACR)50反应。
T2T组76.2%的患者达到ACR 50,而固定方案组患者为36.4%(P = 0.020)。T2T组90.5%和71.4%的患者分别达到ACR 20和70反应,固定方案组患者分别为59.1%和27.3%(分别为P = 0.045和P = 0.010)。两组的不良事件发生率相似(T2T组n = 51;固定方案组n = 55)。
与csDMARD背景治疗的固定方案相比,在新确立CZP治疗的同时,对RA患者的csDMARDs以及口服和IA-GCs进行优化的达标治疗管理是安全有效的。