4.0 Article

Long-term efficacy and safety of etanercept in children with polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis - Interim results from an ongoing multicenter, open-label, extended-treatment trial

期刊

ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 218-226

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/art.10710

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of etanercept in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) participating in an ongoing multicenter, open-label, extended-treatment trial. All patients had been participants in an initial randomized efficacy and safety trial of etanercept. Methods. Etanercept was administered at a dosage of 0.4 mg/kg (maximum 25 mg) subcutaneously twice each week. Safety and efficacy evaluations were performed every 3-4 months. The JRA 30% definition of improvement (DOI) was defined as improvement of greater than or equal to30% in at least 3 of 6 response variables used to assess disease activity, with no more than 1 variable worsening by more than 30%. Results. At the time of analysis, 48 of the 58 patients (83%) were still enrolled in the study; 43 of them (74%) had completed 2 years of treatment. Of these 43 patients, 81% met the JRA 30% DOI, 79% met the JRA 50% DOI, and 67% met the JRA 70% DOI. Ten children started low-dose methotrexate after year 1. Of the 32 children taking prednisone, the dosage was decreased to <5 mg/day in 26 (81%). Two children had serious infections (varicella with aseptic meningitis in one and complicated sepsis in the other). In general, adverse events were of the types seen in a general pediatric patient population. Conclusion. Children with severe, longstanding, methotrexate-resistant polyarticular JRA demonstrated sustained clinical improvement with >2 years of continuous etanercept treatment. Etanercept was generally well-tolerated. There were no increases in the rates of adverse events over time. However, children taking etanercept should be monitored closely for infections.

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

4.0
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