4.7 Article

Immunogenicity does not influence treatment with etanercept in patients with ankylosing spondylitis

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 68, 期 4, 页码 531-535

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2008.089979

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wyeth
  2. Dutch Arthritis Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Immunogenicity, specifically the onset of antibodies against tumour necrosis factor (TNF) blocking agents, seems to play an important role in non-response to treatment with these drugs. Objectives: To assess the relation of clinical response of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to etanercept with etanercept levels, and the presence of antibodies to etanercept. Methods: Patients with AS were treated with etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, according to the international Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) working group consensus statement. Sera were collected at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of treatment. Clinical response was defined as a 50% improvement or as an absolute improvement of 2 points on a (0-10 scale) Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score. Functional etanercept levels were measured by a newly developed ELISA, measuring the binding of etanercept to TNF. Antibodies against etanercept were measured with a two-site assay and antigen binding test. Clinical data were used to correlate disease activity with serum etanercept levels. Results: In all, 53 consecutive patients were included. After 3 months of treatment 40 patients (76%) fulfilled the response criteria. Mean etanercept levels were 2.7 mg/litre and 3.0 mg/litre after 3 and 6 months respectively. Characteristics and etanercept levels of responders and non-responders were similar. No antibodies to etanercept were detected with any of the assays. Conclusion: Etanercept levels of responders and non-responders were similar and no antibodies to etanercept were detected with any of the assays. This study indicates that etanercept is much less immunogenic compared with the other TNF-blocking agents.

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