4.4 Article

Clinical efficacy and safety of golimumab in biologically experienced and naive patients with active ulcerative colitis: A real-life experience from two Italian IBD centers

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 468-474

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1751-2980.12648

关键词

drug-related side effects and adverse reactions; biological naive; clinical remission; golimumab; ulcerative colitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of golimumab in biological naive and experienced patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) treated at two Italian IBD centers. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively maintained UC database from March 2015 to March 2017. Patients received golimumab 200 mg at week 0, 100 mg at week 2, then 50 mg or 100 mg every 4 weeks. Follow-up was recorded at 12 and 24 weeks and in March 2017, with a median follow-up of 64 weeks. The main outcomes evaluated were clinical remission (CR) and adverse event rates. RESULTS: Of the 59 patients (44% naive and 56% experienced), CR rate was 47% at 12-week follow-up, 55% (among the 49 patients on treatment) at 24-week follow-up and 49% (among 35 patients on treatment) at the last follow-up visit. Median treatment duration was 52 weeks (interquartile range 30-64 weeks) among patients treated for >6 months. Overall, 10 (17%) patients experienced adverse events, of whom 50% discontinued treatment. The most frequent adverse events were infections. Biological naive and experienced patients did not differ in terms of CR and adverse event rates. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-life experience showed that CR decreased over time and was achieved by almost one-third of the cohort at the last follow-up visit. Golimumab showed an overall favorable safety profile and the results were not different between biological naive and experienced patients. Future research is needed to confirm our results and to identify criteria to select patients most likely to respond.

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

4.4
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