4.5 Article

Adalimumab for Crohn's Disease in Clinical Practice at Mayo Clinic: The First 118 Patients

期刊

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
卷 16, 期 11, 页码 1912-1921

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1002/ibd.21272

关键词

Crohn's disease; inflammatory bowel disease; adalimumab; biologic therapy; anti-tumor necrosis factor antibody

资金

  1. Abbott Laboratories
  2. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  3. UCB Pharma
  4. Centocor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We sought to assess the effectiveness and safety of adalimumab for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) in clinical practice. Methods: Demographic, clinical, and treatment data were abstracted from the medical record. The primary outcome was clinical response to induction therapy with adalimumab for CD (complete, partial, or nonresponse). Results: In all, 118 patients were prescribed adalimumab for CD between January 2003 and June 2007. All but five subjects (96%) had received prior infliximab and 50 were on systemic corticosteroids at the time of initial adalimumab dose (44%). A complete response was achieved in 53 patients and 20 patients had no response. The cumulative probability of any response (complete or partial) was 81.3% at 1 year. Dose escalation was required in 59 patients (I-year cumulative probability, 54.0%). Among patients with complete response, 18 lost response during follow-up (I-year cumulative probability, 21.4%). Among 50 patients on corticosteroids at baseline the median daily dose was 20 mg, which decreased to a median of 0 mg during treatment. Sixty-four patients (54%) experienced a total of 117 adverse events. Thirteen patients (11%) experienced 15 serious adverse events. Sixteen patients (14%) discontinued adalimumab due to an adverse event. Conclusions: Adalimumab was both effective and well tolerated for the treatment of CD in this tertiary practice with a high prevalence of past infliximab exposure. This experience largely predates FDA approval of adalimumab for CD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据