4.7 Article

Long-term safety and efficacy of certolizumab pegol in the treatment of Crohn's disease: 7-year results from the PRECiSE 3 study

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 40, 期 8, 页码 903-916

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.12930

关键词

-

资金

  1. UCB Pharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease were demonstrated in two 26-week double-blind studies (PRECiSE 1 & 2). AimTo report the safety and efficacy outcomes of long-term, CZP therapy from PRECiSE 3, in which patients received treatment up to 7years treatment. MethodsPatients completing PRECiSE 1 or 2 were eligible to enter PRECiSE 3 in which they received CZP 400mg, open-label, every 4weeks (without additional induction therapy) for up to 7years, for up to 91 doses from study start. Safety (adverse events, including infections and malignancies) and efficacy (Harvey-Bradshaw Index, faecal calprotectin, C-reactive protein) were prospectively monitored. Remission was analysed using observed cases, last observation carried forward imputation and nonresponder imputation. ResultsA total of 595 patients entered the study; 117 (20%) completed 7years. Discontinuation rates were 29.2%, 13.6%, 16.1%, 7.9%, 5.0%, 4.5% and 3.9% (years 1-7 respectively). During 1920 patient-years of exposure to CZP, no new safety signals were observed. Incidence rates (new cases/100 patient-years) for serious infections and malignant neoplasms were 4.37 and 1.06 respectively. No lymphoproliferative malignancies were reported. Clinical remission rates were 68% at each year (observed cases); rates by last observation carried forward and nonresponder imputation were 58% and 45% at year 1, 56% and 26% at year 3 and 55% and 13% at year 7 respectively. ConclusionCertolizumab pegol was well tolerated in the long-term treatment of Crohn's disease, with sustained remission in some patients continuing in the study for up to 7years. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00552058.

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