...
首页> 外文期刊>Arthritis Research >Head-to-head comparison of the safety of tocilizumab and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis patients (RA) in clinical practice: results from the registry of Japanese RA patients on biologics for long-term safety (REAL) registry
【24h】

Head-to-head comparison of the safety of tocilizumab and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis patients (RA) in clinical practice: results from the registry of Japanese RA patients on biologics for long-term safety (REAL) registry

机译:类风湿关节炎患者(RA)临床应用中tocilizumab和肿瘤坏死因子抑制剂安全性的正面对比:日本RA患者通过生物制剂进行长期安全性(REAL)注册的结果

获取原文
           

摘要

Introduction The objective of this study was to directly compare the safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) and TNF inhibitors (TNFIs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in clinical practice. Methods This prospective cohort study included RA patients starting TCZ [TCZ group, n?=?302, 224.68 patient-years (PY)] or TNFIs [TNFI group, n?=?304, 231.01 PY] from 2008 to 2011 in the registry of Japanese RA patients on biologics for long-term safety registry. We assessed types and incidence rates (IRs) of serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections (SIs) during the first year of treatment. Risks of the biologics for SAEs or SIs were calculated using the Cox regression hazard analysis. Results Patients in the TCZ group had longer disease duration ( P <0.001), higher disease activity ( P =?0.019) and more frequently used concomitant corticosteroids ( P <0.001) than those in the TNFI group. The crude IR (/100 PY) of SIs [TCZ 10.68 vs. TNFI 3.03; IR ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]), 3.53 (1.52 to 8.18)], but not SAEs [21.36 vs. 14.72; 1.45 (0.94 to 2.25)], was significantly higher in the TCZ group compared with the TNFI group. However, after adjusting for covariates using the Cox regression hazard analysis, treatment with TCZ was not associated with higher risk for SAEs [hazard ratio (HR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19] or SIs (HR 2.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 5.37). Conclusions The adjusted risks for SAEs and SIs were not significantly different between TCZ and TNFIs, indicating an influence of clinical characteristics of the patients on the safety profile of the biologics in clinical practice. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0583-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
机译:引言这项研究的目的是在临床实践中直接比较托珠单抗(TCZ)和TNF抑制剂(TNFIs)在类风湿关节炎(RA)患者中的安全性。方法这项前瞻性队列研究纳入了2008年至2011年开始进行TCZ治疗的RA患者[TCZ组,n?=?302,224.68患者年(​​PY)]或TNFIs [TNFI组,n?=?304,231.01 PY]。日本RA患者使用生物制剂进行长期安全注册的信息。我们评估了治疗第一年中严重不良事件(SAE)和严重感染(SI)的类型和发生率(IR)。使用Cox回归风险分析计算SAE或SI的生物制剂风险。结果TCZ组患者的病程比TNFI组更长(P <0.001),疾病活动度更高(P =?0.019),同时使用的皮质类固醇水平更高(P <0.001)。 SI的粗IR(/ 100 PY)[TCZ 10.68对TNFI 3.03; IR比率(95%置信区间[CI]),3.53(1.52至8.18)],而非SAE [21.36对14.72; 1.45(0.94至2.25)],TCZ组明显高于TNFI组。但是,在使用Cox回归风险分析调整协变量后,使用TCZ治疗与SAE [危险比(HR)1.28,95%CI 0.75至2.19]或SIs(HR 2.23,95%CI 0.93 to 5.37)。结论TCZ和TNFI之间调整后的SAE和SI风险无显着差异,表明在临床实践中患者的临床特征对生物制剂安全性的影响。电子补充材料本文的在线版本(doi:10.1186 / s13075-015-0583-8)包含补充材料,授权用户可以使用。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号