Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Dtsch Arztebl Int ; 112(25): 423-32, 2015 Jun 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26179016

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease with a prevalence of 36.7/100 000 in Germany and a female/male ratio of 4:1. The clinical course is variable, with a broad spectrum of organ manifestations; lupus nephritis develops in about half of all patients. METHODS: This review is based on a selective search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library, including current guidelines and expert recommendations. RESULTS: Assessment of clinical symptoms, laboratory findings, and optional biopsy results are the basis for early diagnosis of SLE. All patients should be treated with antimalarials as soon as the diagnosis is confirmed. In particular, hydroxychloroquine is associated with a higher rate of remission, fewer relapses, and reduced damage in the course of the disease, even in lupus nephritis. High-dose glucocorticoids should be given only when acutely indicated; immunosuppressives such as azathioprine, methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil may be administered to reduce glucocorticoids, according to the EULAR recommendations. Belimumab was recently approved as add-on therapy in autoantibody-positive SLE patients with high disease activity unresponsive to standard treatment. Short-term induction pulse therapy with low-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide, as well as continued mycophenolate mofetil treatment are advances in lupus nephritis. CONCLUSION: The long-term prognosis for SLE has improved markedly in recent decades because of earlier diagnosis and optimized treatment. Further research and randomized controlled trials are needed for the development of specifically targeted therapies.


Subject(s)
Antimalarials/administration & dosage , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Immunosuppressive Agents/administration & dosage , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/diagnosis , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/drug therapy , Biopsy , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Early Diagnosis , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/prevention & control , Physical Examination , Treatment Outcome
2.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) ; 66(11): 1627-33, 2014 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24664818

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the approved treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using rituximab + methotrexate (RTX + MTX) versus the off-label treatment variants of RTX in monotherapy or RTX in combination with leflunomide (RTX + LEF). METHODS: We included RTX-naive patients enrolled in the German biologics register RABBIT (Rheumatoid Arthritis: Observation of Biologic Therapy) between 2007 and 2012 (n = 907) who started treatment with RTX. Three treatment regimens (RTX + MTX, RTX + LEF, and RTX monotherapy) were analyzed regarding therapy discontinuation, dropout, RTX retreatment, and concomitant glucocorticoid therapy. Effectiveness was evaluated with linear mixed models. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were similar across treatment regimens, except for poorer functional status and more comorbidities in RTX monotherapy. Average doses of glucocorticoids were lower in RTX + LEF compared to the 2 other groups. The frequency and timing of RTX retreatment (P > 0.62) as well as improvement in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) over time (P > 0.15) were similar in all treatment regimens. Within the first 12 months of treatment, the DAS28 decreased by 1.5 units, and between months 12 and 36, by a further 0.4 unit equally in all groups. Nevertheless, therapy discontinuation and dropout were significantly increased on RTX monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.7 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.2-2.3]), and additionally when patients were rheumatoid factor negative (HR 1.5 [95% CI 1.0-2.1]). CONCLUSION: In patients who continue therapy, RTX + LEF, RTX monotherapy, and RTX + MTX seem to be equally effective. However, given the lower adherence rates on monotherapy, this treatment option is not sufficient for all patients. Since many patients are intolerant to MTX, more licensed RTX treatment options are needed.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Murine-Derived/therapeutic use , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Isoxazoles/therapeutic use , Methotrexate/therapeutic use , Aged , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Germany , Humans , Leflunomide , Male , Middle Aged , Registries , Retrospective Studies , Rituximab , Treatment Outcome
3.
JAMA ; 301(7): 737-44, 2009 Feb 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19224750

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: The risk of bacterial infection is increased in patients treated with drugs that inhibit tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha). Little is known about the reactivation of latent viral infections during treatment with TNF-alpha inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether TNF-alpha inhibitors together as a class, or separately as either monoclonal anti-TNF-alpha antibodies (adalimumab, infliximab) or a fusion protein (etanercept), are related to higher rates of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Patients were enrolled in the German biologics register RABBIT, a prospective cohort, between May 2001 and December 2006 at the initiation of treatment with infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, or anakinra, or when they changed conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). Treatment, clinical status, and adverse events were assessed by rheumatologists at fixed points during follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hazard ratio (HR) of herpes zoster episodes following anti-TNF-alpha treatment. Study aims were to detect a clinically significant difference (HR, 2.0) between TNF-alpha inhibitors as a class compared with DMARDs and to detect an HR of at least 2.5 for each of 2 types of TNF-alpha inhibitors, the monoclonal antibodies or the fusion protein, compared with conventional DMARDs. RESULTS: Among 5040 patients receiving TNF-alpha inhibitors or conventional DMARDs, 86 episodes of herpes zoster occurred in 82 patients. Thirty-nine occurrences could be attributed to treatment with anti-TNF-alpha antibodies, 23 to etanercept, and 24 to conventional DMARDs. The crude incidence rate per 1000 patient-years was 11.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9-15.1) for the monoclonal antibodies, 8.9 (95% CI, 5.6-13.3) for etanercept, and 5.6 (95% CI, 3.6-8.3) for conventional DMARDs. Adjusted for age, rheumatoid arthritis severity, and glucocorticoid use, a significantly increased risk was observed for treatment with the monoclonal antibodies (HR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.05-3.15]), although this risk was lower than the threshold for clinical significance. No significant associations were found for etanercept use (HR, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.73-2.55]) or for anti-TNF-alpha treatment (HR, 1.63 [95% CI, 0.97-2.74]) as a class. CONCLUSION: Treatment with monoclonal anti-TNF-alpha antibodies may be associated with increased risk of herpes zoster, but this requires further study.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal/adverse effects , Antirheumatic Agents/adverse effects , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Herpes Zoster/etiology , Herpesvirus 3, Human/physiology , Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha/antagonists & inhibitors , Adalimumab , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/complications , Etanercept , Female , Herpes Zoster/epidemiology , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/adverse effects , Immunoglobulin G/therapeutic use , Incidence , Infliximab , Male , Middle Aged , Neuralgia, Postherpetic/epidemiology , Proportional Hazards Models , Prospective Studies , Receptors, Tumor Necrosis Factor/therapeutic use , Risk Factors , Survival Analysis , Virus Activation
4.
Arthritis Rheum ; 54(11): 3399-407, 2006 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17075823

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluate the efficacy of treatments in selected groups of patients defined by strict inclusion criteria. The value of these trials in predicting therapeutic effectiveness in "real world" patients is limited. This observational cohort study was designed to complement the knowledge obtained in RCTs by evaluating the effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) according to their eligibility for the major trials. METHODS: Using the data from the German biologics register Rheumatoid Arthritis Observation of Biologic Therapy (RABBIT [in German]), we investigated how many of the RA patients who were treated with a TNF inhibitor (infliximab, etanercept, or adalimumab) would have been eligible for the major clinical trials that led to approval of the drugs. In addition, therapeutic effectiveness was compared in the eligible and ineligible patients using the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) and 50% (ACR50) improvement response criteria. RESULTS: Only 21-33% of the patients in the RABBIT register would have been eligible for the major trials. In these patients, the ACR20 and ACR50 improvement responses, indicating therapeutic effectiveness, were comparable with the response rates in the published trials. ACR response rates were lower in those patients considered ineligible for the trials; however, absolute improvement was similar to that in eligible patients. Ineligible patients had lower baseline disease activity, more comorbidity, and lower functional status. CONCLUSION: RCT cohorts reflect only a minor proportion of the patients treated with biologic agents in routine care. In the clinic setting, the indications for treatment with biologic agents are not identical to the inclusion criteria for trials. Despite the smaller relative improvement achieved in these patients with longstanding, severe RA who would not fulfill the inclusion criteria of a major trial, the majority of such patients would nevertheless benefit from biologic therapy.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Patient Selection , Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha/antagonists & inhibitors , Adalimumab , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Cohort Studies , Etanercept , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/therapeutic use , Infliximab , Male , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Receptors, Tumor Necrosis Factor/therapeutic use , Registries/statistics & numerical data
5.
Arthritis Rheum ; 52(11): 3403-12, 2005 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16255017

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence rates of serious and nonserious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who start treatment with a biologic agent, and to compare these rates with those in patients with RA who receive conventional treatment. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the German biologics register between May 2001 and September 2003 were included. Treating rheumatologists assessed adverse events and serious adverse events. All adverse events and serious adverse events experienced within 12 months after study entry were analyzed. Propensity score methods were applied to estimate which part of a rate increase was likely to be attributable to differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: Data were available for 512 patients receiving etanercept, 346 patients receiving infliximab, 70 patients receiving anakinra, and 601 control patients treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The total number of adverse events per 100 patient-years was 22.6 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 18.7-27.2) among patients receiving etanercept, 28.3 (95% CI 23.1-34.7) among patients receiving infliximab, and 6.8 (95% CI 5.0-9.4) among controls (P < 0.0001). Significant differences in the rate of serious adverse events were also observed. For patients receiving etanercept, those receiving infliximab, and controls, the total numbers of serious adverse events per 100 patient-years were 6.4 (95% CI 4.5-9.1), 6.2 (95% CI 4.0-9.5), and 2.3 (95% CI 1.3-3.9), respectively (P = 0.0016). After adjusting for differences in the case patient mix, the relative risks of serious adverse events were 2.2 (95% CI 0.9-5.4) for patients receiving etanercept and 2.1 (95% CI 0.8-5.5) for patients receiving infliximab, compared with controls. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with biologic agents have a higher a priori risk of infection. However, our data suggest that this risk is increased by treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.


Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents/adverse effects , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/complications , Biological Products/adverse effects , Infections/chemically induced , Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha/antagonists & inhibitors , Adalimumab , Antibodies, Monoclonal/adverse effects , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/epidemiology , Etanercept , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/adverse effects , Infections/epidemiology , Infections/pathology , Infliximab , Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein , Male , Middle Aged , Receptors, Tumor Necrosis Factor , Registries , Sialoglycoproteins/adverse effects
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...