4.7 Article

Adalimumab for the treatment of Behcet's disease: experience in 19 patients

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 51, 期 10, 页码 1825-1831

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes130

关键词

Behcet's disease; adalimumab; refractory; treatment

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACyT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To describe the experience of two tertiary Spanish centres (Hospital Clinico San Cecilio, Granada and Hospital Clinic, Barcelona) with the use of adalimumab for the treatment of severe clinical manifestations in patients with Behcet's disease (BD) in whom immunosuppressive therapy had failed. Methods. Retrospective chart review from patients with BD treated with adalimumab in two specialized Spanish centres (Hospital Clinico San Cecilio, Granada and Hospital Clinic, Barcelona). Results. From November 2006 to February 2011, 19 patients with BD were treated with adalimumab. The reason to initiate adalimumab was refractory disease in 17 (89.5%) patients and adverse events to CSA and infliximab in two (10.5%) patients, respectively. The main clinical manifestations leading to adalimumab administration were panuveitis in eight patients, severe bipolar aphthosis in eight, retinal vasculitis in three and severe folliculitis in three. Overall, adalimumab achieved clinical improvement in 17 of the 19 patients. Of note, ocular manifestations (panuveitis and retinal vasculitis) responded rapidly in all cases. In addition to clinical improvement, treatment with adalimumab was associated with reduction in the number and dose of standard immunosuppressive agents. Of interest, seven patients had received TNF-alpha inhibitors before adalimumab, five infliximab and the remaining two etanercept. Adalimumab was withdrawn in only one patient due to severe infusional reaction in the form of urticaria and angioedema. Conclusion. Adalimumab is a valid option for patients with BD and recalcitrant non-controlling manifestations with good safety profile.

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

4.7
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