...
首页> 外文期刊>Rheumatology international. >Assessment of clinical efficacy and safety in a randomized double-blind study of etanercept and sulfasalazine in patients with ankylosing spondylitis from Eastern/Central Europe, Latin America, and Asia
【24h】

Assessment of clinical efficacy and safety in a randomized double-blind study of etanercept and sulfasalazine in patients with ankylosing spondylitis from Eastern/Central Europe, Latin America, and Asia

机译:在东欧/中欧,拉丁美洲和亚洲的强直性脊柱炎患者中进行依那西普和柳氮磺胺吡啶随机双盲研究的临床疗效和安全性评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of etanercept for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), sulfasalazine is often prescribed, especially in countries with limited access to biologic agents. The objective of this subset analysis of the ASCEND trial was to compare the efficacy of etanercept and sulfasalazine in treating patients with AS from Asia, Eastern/Central Europe, and Latin America. A total of 287 patients, 190 receiving etanercept 50 mg once weekly and 97 receiving sulfasalazine 3 g daily, from eight countries were included in this subset analysis. Differences in disease activity and patient-reported outcomes assessing health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) parameters in response to treatment were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for categorical efficacy endpoints and analysis of covariance model for continuous variables. At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving etanercept achieved ASAS20 (79.0 %) compared with patients receiving sulfasalazine (61.9 %; p = 0.002). At week 16, treatment with etanercept also resulted in significantly better responses than sulfasalazine for ASAS40 (64.7 vs. 35.1 %; p < 0.001), ASAS5/6 (48.1 vs. 26.3 %; p < 0.001), proportion of patients achieving 50 % response in Bath AS Disease Activity Index (65.8 vs. 42.3 %; p < 0.001), partial remission (35.3 vs. 17.5 %; p = 0.002), and all HRQoL parameters. Both treatments were well tolerated. Etanercept was significantly more effective than sulfasalazine in the treatment of patients with AS from Asia, Central/Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
机译:尽管已证明依那西普治疗强直性脊柱炎(AS)的功效,但经常开出柳氮磺吡啶处方,尤其是在生物制剂难以获得的国家。 ASCEND试验的这一子集分析的目的是比较依那西普和柳氮磺吡啶在治疗亚洲,东欧/中欧和拉丁美洲的AS患者中的疗效。此子集分析包括来自八个国家的287名患者,其中190名每周接受一次etanercept 50 mg的治疗,97名患者接受每日3g的柳氮磺胺吡啶的治疗。使用Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel检验对分类功效终点进行分析,并评估连续变量的协方差分析模型,分析疾病活动度和患者报告的结果对评估与治疗相关的健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)参数的差异。与接受柳氮磺胺吡啶的患者(61.9%; p = 0.002)相比,在第16周,接受依那西普的患者达到ASAS20的比例(79.0%)明显更高。在第16周时,依那西普治疗的ASAS40(64.7 vs. 35.1%; p <0.001),ASAS5 / 6(48.1 vs. 26.3%; p <0.001)也显着优于柳氮磺胺吡啶,达到50%的患者比例Bath AS疾病活动指数(65.8 vs. 42.3%; p <0.001),部分缓解(35.3 vs. 17.5%; p = 0.002)以及所有HRQoL参数均具有缓解。两种治疗均耐受良好。在亚洲,中欧/东欧和拉丁美洲的AS患者中,Etanercept比柳氮磺胺吡啶显着更有效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
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