4.7 Article

Efficacy of tumour necrosis factor blockers in reducing uveitis flares in patients with spondylarthropathy: a retrospective study

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 65, 期 12, 页码 1631-1634

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2006.052092

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) treatments (given for rheumatological manifestations) in reducing uveitis flares in patients with spondylarthropathy in daily practice. Methods: A retrospective observational study of all patients with spondylarthropathy with at least one uveitis flare treated with anti-TNF in one centre (December 1997 -December 2004). The number of uveitis flares per 100 patient-years was compared before and during anti-TNF treatment; each patient was his or her own control. The relative risk (RR) and the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. Results: 46 patients with spondylarthropathy treated with anti-TNF drugs had at least one uveitis flare (33 treated with anti-TNF antibodies, infliximab or adalimumab, and 13 with soluble TNF receptor, etanercept). The mean age at first symptoms was 26 years, 71% were men. Patients were followed for 15.2 years (mean) before anti-TNF versus 1.2 years during anti-TNF treatment. The number of uveitis flares per 100 patient-years before and during anti-TNF were, respectively: for all anti-TNF treatments, 51.8 v 21.4 (p = 0.03), RR = 2.4, NNT= 3 (95% confidence interval (CI = 2 to 5); for soluble TNF receptor 54.6 v 58.5 (p = 0.92), RR = 0.9; and for anti-TNF antibodies -50.6 v 6.8 (p = 0.001), RR = 7.4, NNT= 2 (95% CI = 2 to 5). Conclusion: Anti-TNF treatments were efficacious in decreasing the number of uveitis flares in patients with spondylarthropathy. Anti-TNF antibodies decreased the rate of uveitis flares, whereas soluble TNF receptor did not seem to decrease this rate. These results could have consequences for the choice of anti-TNF treatment in certain patients.

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