4.7 Article

Patient-reported outcomes improve with etanercept plus methotrexate in active early rheumatoid arthritis and the improvement is strongly associated with remission: the COMET trial

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 69, 期 1, 页码 222-225

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2008.102509

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wyeth Research, USA
  2. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0508-10299] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Versus Arthritis [18475] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To compare the effects of etanercept (ETN) 50 mg once weekly plus methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX alone on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the relationship between remission and PRO improvement. Methods: In this double-blind, randomised clinical trial (COMET), PROs included: the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), EuroQoL health status, fatigue and pain visual analogue scales, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Medical Outcomes Short-Form-36. Mean changes from baseline were analysed by analysis of covariance using the last observation carried forward method. Results from week 52 are presented. Results: Most PROs demonstrated significantly greater improvements with ETN+MTX than MTX alone, including physical functioning, pain, fatigue and overall health status. A significantly greater improvement in HAQ score was observed in the ETN+MTX than the MTX group (-1.02 vs -0.72; p<0.001) and a greater proportion reached the minimal clinically important difference of 0.22 (88% vs 78%; p<0.006). The relationship between PRO score and clinical status indicated that improvement was greatest among patients achieving remission. Conclusions: Early treatment with ETN+MTX leads to significantly greater improvements in multiple dimensions of PROs than MTX alone. The close relationship between disease activity and PRO improvement suggests that early treatment, with remission as a goal, should maximise the chance of restoring normal functioning and HRQoL.

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