Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2023
Pre-treatment calprotectin (MRP8/14) provides no added value to testing CRP alone in terms of predicting response to TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis in a post hoc analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Smith Samantha Louise, Alexander Sheree, Nair Nisha, Viatte Sebastien, Eyre Stephen, Hyrich Kimme L, Morgan Ann W, Wilson Anthony G, Isaacs John D, Plant Darren, Barton Anne
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The inflammatory protein calprotectin (MRP8/14) has been identified as a promising biomarker of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our aim was to test MRP8/14 as a biomarker of response to tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors in the largest RA cohort to date and to compare with C-reactive protein (CRP).
METHODS: Serum MRP8/14 was measured in 470 patients with RA about to commence treatment with adalimumab (n=196) or etanercept (n=274). Additionally, MRP8/14 was measured in the 3-month sera of 179 adalimumab-treated patients. Response was determined using European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria calculated using the traditional 4-component (4C) DAS28-CRP and alternate validated versions using 3-component (3C) and 2-component (2C), clinical disease activity index (CDAI) improvement criteria and change in individual outcome measures. Logistic/linear regression models were fitted for response outcome.
RESULTS: In the 3C and 2C models, patients with RA were 1.92 (CI: 1.04 to 3.54) and 2.03 (CI: 1.09 to 3.78) times more likely to be classified as EULAR responders if they had high (75th quartile) pre-treatment levels of MRP8/14 compared with low (25th quartile). No significant associations were observed for the 4C model. When only using CRP as a predictor, in the 3C and 2C analyses, patients above the 75th quartile were 3.79 (CI: 1.81 to 7.93) and 3.58 (CI: 1.74 to 7.35) times more likely to be EULAR responders and addition of MRP8/14 did not significantly improve model fit (p values=0.62 and 0.80, respectively). No significant associations were observed in the 4C analysis. Exclusion of CRP from the outcome measure (CDAI) did not result in any significant associations with MRP8/14 (OR 1.00 (CI: 0.99 to 1.01), suggesting that the associations were due to the correlation with CRP and that there is no additional utility of MRP8/14 beyond use of CRP in patients with RA starting TNFi therapy.
CONCLUSION: Beyond correlation with CRP, we found no evidence to suggest that MRP8/14 explains additional variability in response to TNFi in patients with RA over and above CRP alone.
METHODS: Serum MRP8/14 was measured in 470 patients with RA about to commence treatment with adalimumab (n=196) or etanercept (n=274). Additionally, MRP8/14 was measured in the 3-month sera of 179 adalimumab-treated patients. Response was determined using European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria calculated using the traditional 4-component (4C) DAS28-CRP and alternate validated versions using 3-component (3C) and 2-component (2C), clinical disease activity index (CDAI) improvement criteria and change in individual outcome measures. Logistic/linear regression models were fitted for response outcome.
RESULTS: In the 3C and 2C models, patients with RA were 1.92 (CI: 1.04 to 3.54) and 2.03 (CI: 1.09 to 3.78) times more likely to be classified as EULAR responders if they had high (75th quartile) pre-treatment levels of MRP8/14 compared with low (25th quartile). No significant associations were observed for the 4C model. When only using CRP as a predictor, in the 3C and 2C analyses, patients above the 75th quartile were 3.79 (CI: 1.81 to 7.93) and 3.58 (CI: 1.74 to 7.35) times more likely to be EULAR responders and addition of MRP8/14 did not significantly improve model fit (p values=0.62 and 0.80, respectively). No significant associations were observed in the 4C analysis. Exclusion of CRP from the outcome measure (CDAI) did not result in any significant associations with MRP8/14 (OR 1.00 (CI: 0.99 to 1.01), suggesting that the associations were due to the correlation with CRP and that there is no additional utility of MRP8/14 beyond use of CRP in patients with RA starting TNFi therapy.
CONCLUSION: Beyond correlation with CRP, we found no evidence to suggest that MRP8/14 explains additional variability in response to TNFi in patients with RA over and above CRP alone.