Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2019
Association of Baseline Peptidylarginine Deiminase 4 Autoantibodies With Favorable Response to Treatment Escalation in Rheumatoid Arthritis.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка 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.
Darrah Erika, Yu Fang, Cappelli Laura C, Rosen Antony, O'Dell James R, Mikuls Ted R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the baseline presence of autoantibodies to peptidylarginine deiminase 4 (PAD4) predicts therapeutic response to biologic and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy was unsuccessful.
METHODS: Baseline serum from 282 RA patients in whom MTX monotherapy was unsuccessful was screened for the presence of anti-PAD4 antibodies by immunoprecipitation. Clinical response to either triple DMARD (MTX, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) or MTX/etanercept combination therapy was determined at 24 and 48 weeks post-treatment initiation. Disease activity was measured using the Disease Activity Score 28-joint assessment (DAS28), and erosive disease was quantified using the Sharp/van der Heijde scoring method. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to model the clinical responses to treatment in patients with and those without baseline anti-PAD4 antibodies.
RESULTS: Anti-PAD4 antibody positivity was associated with male sex, a history of never smoking, and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies. At baseline, patients with anti-PAD4 antibodies had longer disease duration and significantly more radiographic joint damage than anti-PAD4-negative patients, but did not differ in disease activity according to the DAS28. In unadjusted analyses and multivariable GEE models, patients with anti-PAD4 antibodies exhibited greater improvements in DAS28 (adjusted P = 0.02 and P = 0.008, respectively) and less radiographic progression (adjusted P = 0.01 and P = 0.002, respectively) compared to anti-PAD antibody-negative patients, independent of treatment received.
CONCLUSION: Although anti-PAD4 antibodies were associated with worse baseline radiographic joint damage, suggesting a history of active or undiagnosed disease, treatment escalation therapy was more effective in reducing disease activity and slowing the progression of joint damage in this patient subset.
METHODS: Baseline serum from 282 RA patients in whom MTX monotherapy was unsuccessful was screened for the presence of anti-PAD4 antibodies by immunoprecipitation. Clinical response to either triple DMARD (MTX, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) or MTX/etanercept combination therapy was determined at 24 and 48 weeks post-treatment initiation. Disease activity was measured using the Disease Activity Score 28-joint assessment (DAS28), and erosive disease was quantified using the Sharp/van der Heijde scoring method. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to model the clinical responses to treatment in patients with and those without baseline anti-PAD4 antibodies.
RESULTS: Anti-PAD4 antibody positivity was associated with male sex, a history of never smoking, and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies. At baseline, patients with anti-PAD4 antibodies had longer disease duration and significantly more radiographic joint damage than anti-PAD4-negative patients, but did not differ in disease activity according to the DAS28. In unadjusted analyses and multivariable GEE models, patients with anti-PAD4 antibodies exhibited greater improvements in DAS28 (adjusted P = 0.02 and P = 0.008, respectively) and less radiographic progression (adjusted P = 0.01 and P = 0.002, respectively) compared to anti-PAD antibody-negative patients, independent of treatment received.
CONCLUSION: Although anti-PAD4 antibodies were associated with worse baseline radiographic joint damage, suggesting a history of active or undiagnosed disease, treatment escalation therapy was more effective in reducing disease activity and slowing the progression of joint damage in this patient subset.