4.2 Article

Effect of the extended dosing interval of anti-TNF-α NANOBODY® compound ozoralizumab in patients with low disease activity rheumatoid arthritis

期刊

MODERN RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mr/road097

关键词

Ozoralizumab; rheumatoid arthritis; tapering; tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor; VHH antibody

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article evaluates the efficacy and safety of extending the dosing interval of ozoralizumab from every 4 weeks to every 8 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The results indicate that extending the dosing interval is effective and well tolerated in patients maintaining a disease activity score below 3.2.
Objectives: This article aims to evaluate the effect of the extended dosing interval on the efficacy and safety of ozoralizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods: In a long-term extension study (HOSHIZORA trial) for patients who had completed a phase II/III study with methotrexate or a phase III study without methotrexate, the dosing interval of ozoralizumab was allowed to extend from every 4 weeks (Q4W) to every 8 weeks (Q8W), at the physician's discretion, for patients who had maintained a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) <3.2 at the last two time points. The continuation rate, efficacy, and safety were examined in patients who had completed 24 weeks after the change in the dosing interval by the data cut-off point.Results: Of the 32 patients who maintained DAS28-ESR <3.2 and changed the interval from Q4W to Q8W, 28 (87.5%) remained on Q8W for 24 weeks. At Week 24, the percentages of patients who remained on Q8W and achieved DAS28-ESR <2.6 and <3.2 were 71.9% and 84.4%, respectively. No safety concerns were observed for 24 weeks in the Q8W group.Conclusions: In patients with RA and maintained DAS28-ESR <3.2 with ozoralizumab, efficacy was sustained and well tolerated after the dosing interval was extended from Q4W to Q8W.

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

4.2
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