4.4 Review

The BeSt story: on strategy trials in rheumatoid arthritis

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 291-298

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BOR.0b013e32832a2f1c

关键词

combination therapy; result-driven treatment; rheumatoid arthritis; tight control; treatment strategy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review To give an overview of recent strategy trials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Recent findings Strategy studies showed a clear benefit of dynamic result-driven treatment towards tight control of disease activity compared with 'usual care' in rheumatoid arthritis patients. In addition, treatment given after short symptom duration gives better outcomes than later initiation of treatment. In many trials, combination therapies, especially combinations with prednisolone or biologicals, were superior to monotherapies. Moreover, combination therapies were more effective if given early in the disease as compared with a delayed introduction, giving support to the window of opportunity hypothesis. In the BeSt study, initial combination therapy could be successfully discontinued in half. of the patients, emphasizing that 'initial' would mean 'temporary'. Less evidence is available about initial combination in comparison with combination therapy with a shorter delay. Larger tight-controlled, goal-steered, dynamic strategy trials comparing initial combination therapy with a short-delay combination therapy will help to translate the use of initial (temporary) combination therapy into normal daily practice. Summary Treatment strategy trials have demonstrated that in the majority of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the following approach is the most beneficial: goal-steered, dynamic treatment towards tight control of disease activity, including early introduction of (an) effective disease-modifying antirheumatic drug(s) in combination with prednisone or antitumor necrosis factor, which includes tapering of the medication if remission or low disease activity is achieved.

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

4.4
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