4.7 Article

Lower etanercept levels are associated with high disease activity in ankylosing spondylitis patients at 24 weeks of follow-up

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 74, 期 10, 页码 1825-1829

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-205213

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pfizer [WS2084734, WS1420476]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Previous data have shown that etanercept levels are associated with clinical response in rheumatoid arthritis. However, for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), data regarding this topic are inconclusive. Objectives To investigate the relationship between etanercept levels and clinical response in patients with AS. Methods Observational prospective cohort study of 162 patients with AS =treated with etanercept, monitored during 24 weeks of treatment. Etanercept trough levels were determined, retrospectively, using an ELISA. Disease activity was measured using AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), including C-reactive protein (CRP) and Bath AS Disease Activity index (BASDAI). Active disease was defined as ASDAS >= 2.1. Since etanercept is a drug administered at home there might have been some variation in trough level sampling. Results At 24 weeks etanercept levels were significantly higher in patients with ASDAS<2.1, (3.8 mg/L; IQR 2.5-5.2) compared with patients with ASDAS >= 2.1 (2.3 mg/L; IQR 1.2-3.4; p <= 0.001). Generalised estimating equation analysis demonstrated a statistically significant association between etanercept levels and ASDAS, BASDAI, CRP and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (all p<0.001). When patients were categorised into quartiles according to etanercept levels, the lowest quartile (etanercept<1.80 mg/L) comprised 35% of all patients with ASDAS >= 2.1 while the highest quartile comprised only 14%. Conclusions Disease activity and inflammation are associated with etanercept levels in patients with AS at 24 weeks of treatment. Measuring etanercept levels might help in identifying overtreatment and undertreatment and optimise etanercept therapy in AS.

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