4.4 Article

Cyclophosphamide could be a better choice than methotrexate as induction treatment for patients with more severe Takayasu's arteritis

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 37, 期 12, 页码 2019-2026

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00296-017-3847-6

关键词

Takayasu's arteritis; Cyclophosphamide; Methotrexate; Induction; Treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess the effectiveness of cyclophosphamide (CYC) versus methotrexate (MTX) for active Takayasu's arteritis (TA). The current study was based on a cohort of TA at Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University. TA was diagnosed using the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria. Fifty-eight subjects receiving induction treatment with CYC (n = 46) or MTX (N = 12) were included in the analysis. Effectiveness and toxicity were assessed in all 58 cases. Clinical remission was defined as: Kerr score reduction to ae 1 and glucocorticoids (GC) treatment at a dose of ae 0.2 mg/kg/day (ae 15 mg/day) at the end of the 6th month. At the baseline, the CYC group had higher Kerr scores (60.9% vs. 16.7% at ae3, p = 0.044), higher ESR (55 +/- 52 vs. 25 +/- 22 mm/H, p = 0.048), ITAS_ESR (12.4 +/- 1.7 vs. 9.1 +/- 1.1 mg/L, p = 0.043). The 6-month clinical remission rate was 71.7% vs. 75% in the CYC and MTX group, respectively. In the CYC group, a significant decrease was observed in ESR (55 +/- 52 vs. 25 +/- 48 mm/H, p = 0.008), hs-CRP (27 +/- 23 vs. 6.9 +/- 6.6 mg/L, p = 0.007), ITAS (11.7 +/- 2.2 vs. 7.0 +/- 1.5, p = 0.048), and ITAS_ESR (7.1 +/- 2.0 vs. 12.4 +/- 1.7, p = 0.033). However, no significant reductions in these measures were demonstrated in the MTX group. Whole-body contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) revealed significant radiologic improvement (wall enhancement scores: 4.2 +/- 2.3 vs. 10.3 +/- 3.8, p = 0.032) in the CYC group, but not in the MTX group. No severe adverse events occurred in any subject. Cyclophosphamide could be a better choice than methotrexate as induction treatment for patients with more severe Takayasu's arteritis.

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