Suppr超能文献

治疗策略是否会影响 RA 患者实现并维持 DMARD 无缓解的能力?一项比较强化 DAS 指导治疗策略与常规治疗中靶向治疗的观察性研究结果。

Does treatment strategy influence the ability to achieve and sustain DMARD-free remission in patients with RA? Results of an observational study comparing an intensified DAS-steered treatment strategy with treat to target in routine care.

机构信息

Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, C-01-046, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Department of Rheumatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Arthritis Res Ther. 2019 May 7;21(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s13075-019-1893-z.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To study the impact of treatment strategy on achieving and sustaining disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-free remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Two hundred seventy-nine RA patients (median follow-up 7.8 years) were studied. Of these, 155 patients participated in a disease activity score (DAS) < 1.6 steered trial aimed at DMARD-free remission. Initial treatment comprised methotrexate with high-dose prednisone (60 mg/day) and a possibility to start biologicals after 4 months. In the same period and hospital, 124 patients were treated according to routine care, comprising DAS < 2.4 steered treatment. Percentages of DMARD-free remission (absence of synovitis for ≥ 1 year after DMARD cessation), late flares (recurrence of clinical synovitis ≥ 1 year after DMARD cessation), and DMARD-free sustained remission (DMARD-free remission sustained during complete follow-up) were compared between both treatment strategies.

RESULTS

Patients receiving intensive treatment were younger and more often ACPA-positive. On a group level, there was no significant association between intensive treatment and DMARD-free remission (35% vs 29%, corrected hazard ratio (HR) 1.4, 95%CI 0.9-2.2), nor in ACPA-negative RA (49% versus 44%). In ACPA-positive RA intensive treatment resulted in more DMARD-free remission (25% vs 6%, corrected HR 4.9, 95%CI 1.4-17). Intensive treatment was associated with more late flares (20% versus 8%, HR 2.3, 95%CI 0.6-8.3). Subsequently, there was no difference in DMARD-free sustained remission on a group level (28% versus 27%), nor in the ACPA-negative (43% versus 42%) or ACPA-positive stratum (17% versus 6%, corrected HR 3.1, 95%CI 0.9-11).

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive treatment did not result in more DMARD-free sustained remission, compared to routine up-to-date care. The data showed a tendency towards an effect of intensive treatment in ACPA-positive RA; this needs further investigation.

摘要

目的

研究治疗策略对类风湿关节炎(RA)患者达到并维持疾病缓解状态(即无疾病修饰抗风湿药(DMARD)缓解)的影响。

方法

共纳入 279 名 RA 患者(中位随访时间 7.8 年),其中 155 名患者参与了旨在实现无 DMARD 缓解的疾病活动评分(DAS)<1.6 指导的试验。初始治疗包括甲氨蝶呤联合高剂量泼尼松(60mg/天),4 个月后可开始使用生物制剂。同期和同一医院,124 名患者根据常规治疗方案(DAS<2.4 指导的治疗)进行治疗。比较两种治疗策略的无 DMARD 缓解率(DMARD 停药后≥1 年无滑膜炎)、迟发性复发(DMARD 停药后≥1 年再次出现临床滑膜炎)和无 DMARD 持续缓解率(整个随访期间无 DMARD 缓解)。

结果

接受强化治疗的患者更年轻,且 ACPA 阳性率更高。从整体水平来看,强化治疗与无 DMARD 缓解之间无显著相关性(35% vs 29%,校正后的危险比(HR)1.4,95%CI 0.9-2.2),在 ACPA 阴性 RA 中也是如此(49% vs 44%)。在 ACPA 阳性 RA 中,强化治疗可使更多患者获得无 DMARD 缓解(25% vs 6%,校正 HR 4.9,95%CI 1.4-17)。强化治疗与更多迟发性复发相关(20% vs 8%,HR 2.3,95%CI 0.6-8.3)。随后,整体水平上无 DMARD 持续缓解率无差异(28% vs 27%),在 ACPA 阴性(43% vs 42%)或 ACPA 阳性(17% vs 6%)患者中也无差异(校正 HR 3.1,95%CI 0.9-11)。

结论

与常规最新治疗相比,强化治疗并未使更多患者获得无 DMARD 持续缓解。数据显示强化治疗在 ACPA 阳性 RA 中可能具有一定效果,但仍需进一步研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1a2d/6505077/6d8b39cab66f/13075_2019_1893_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验