Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
J Rheumatol ; 50(2): 258-264, 2023 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36319005

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Enthesitis is a key pathological and clinical feature of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in children and adults. Enthesitis is typically assessed clinically using several validated enthesitis scoring systems that have been used in clinical trials. Enthesitis treatment response has been reported as change in the total enthesitis score or the proportion of patients who achieved complete resolution. The majority of trials in PsA did not require patients to have enthesitis at study entry since enthesitis was evaluated only as a secondary outcome. Despite the inherent limitations of the clinical assessment of enthesitis, imaging of the entheses using ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging has rarely been used in clinical trials to assess response to treatment of enthesitis. This systematic review summarizes existing evidence regarding pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical interventions for enthesitis in patients with PsA to facilitate an evidence-based update of the Group for Research and Assessment in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) treatment recommendations for PsA. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review to identify 41 randomized clinical trials that reported enthesitis treatment response in patients with PsA. For each intervention, the response effect size was summarized and the quality of evidence was graded. Recommendations were then formulated for the various pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies. RESULTS: We included 41 randomized clinical trials in our review and graded each intervention. CONCLUSION: Several classes of systemic conventional and advanced therapies and local measures were recommended for active enthesitis in patients with PsA.


Assuntos
Artrite Psoriásica , Entesopatia , Psoríase , Adulto , Criança , Humanos , Artrite Psoriásica/diagnóstico por imagem , Artrite Psoriásica/tratamento farmacológico , Entesopatia/diagnóstico por imagem , Entesopatia/tratamento farmacológico , Ultrassonografia , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética
2.
Adv Rheumatol ; 62(1): 38, 2022 10 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36307836

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate disease activity among patients with axial spondyloarthritis (AS) treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for at least 12 weeks in private outpatient settings in Brazil. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, real-world study conducted in 17 Brazilian private health care institutes. Patients were selected if diagnosed with AS or axial radiographic spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) and treated with NSAIDs or TNFi for at least 12 weeks within the last 26 weeks prior to enrollment. The data were collected from interviewed-based and self-administered questionnaires from patients and physicians. Disease activity was defined as active (≥ 4), low /suboptimal (≥ 2 and < 4) and inactive (< 4) by Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and/or very high (≥ 3.5), high (≥ 2.1 to < 3.5), low (≥ 1.3 to < 2.1), and inactive (< 1.3) by AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS-CRP). Both patients and physicians' perceptions of disease control were assessed using a numeric rating scale (NRS; 0-inactive to 10-very active disease). RESULTS: The cohort included 378 patients with a mean age of 46 years, and the median time since diagnosis until enrollment was 5.4 years (interquartile range 2.7-10.5). Most patients were treated with TNFi alone (74%), followed by TNFi in combination with NSAID (15%), and NSAID alone (11%). About half AS patients showed active disease and 24% of patients showed low activity/suboptimal disease control despite having been treated for at least 12 weeks. Although TNFi showed better disease control than NSAID, inactive disease was experienced by few patients. The NRS (mean [standard deviation]) score for disease perception was 4.24 (3.3) and 2.85 (2.6) for patients and physicians, respectively. CONCLUSION: This real-world study showed that most AS patients on TNFi and/or NSAID had not achieved an adequate disease control, as almost 75% of them exhibited active disease or low activity/suboptimal disease control. There remains a need for improved disease management among patients with AS.


Assuntos
Espondilite Anquilosante , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Espondilite Anquilosante/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores do Fator de Necrose Tumoral , Estudos Transversais , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/uso terapêutico , Brasil , Resultado do Tratamento
3.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 3(2): e122-e130, 2021 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38279368

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Belimumab is approved for the treatment of active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Although clinical trials showed a favourable benefit-risk profile, numerical differences in the incidence of mortality and adverse events of special interest (AESIs) have been reported. We assessed the frequency of these events in patients with SLE receiving belimumab or placebo plus standard therapy. METHODS: BASE was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 4 trial done in 33 countries. Adults with active SLE were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous belimumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo, plus standard therapy, for 48 weeks. The primary endpoints were incidences of all-cause mortality and AESIs during the on-treatment period (first-to-last study drug dose + 28 days). Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population (patients grouped by actual treatment received >50% of the time). This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01705977). FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2012, and July 28, 2017, we randomly assigned 4018 patients. The as-treated population included 2002 patients in the belimumab group versus 2001 in the placebo group. Ten (0·50%) patients in the belimumab group died versus eight (0·40%) in the placebo group (difference 0·10%, 95% CI -0·31 to 0·51). Incidences were similar in the belimumab and placebo groups for serious infections (75 [3·75%] of 2002 vs 82 [4·10%] of 2001; difference -0·35%, 95% CI -1·55 to 0·85), opportunistic infections and other infections of interest (36 [1·80%] vs 50 [2·50%]; -0·70%, -1·60 to 0·20), non-melanoma skin cancers (4 [0·20%] vs 3 [0·15%]; 0·05%, -0·21 to 0·31) and other malignancies (5 [0·25%] vs 5 [0·25%]; 0·00%, -0·31 to 0·31). A higher proportion of patients in the belimumab group than in the placebo group had infusion and hypersensitivity reactions (8 [0·40%] vs 2 [0·10%]; 0·30%, -0·01 to 0·61), serious depression (7 [0·35%] vs 1 [0·05%]; 0·30%, 0·02 to 0·58), treatment-emergent suicidality (28 [1·42%] of 1972 patients vs 23 [1·16%] of 1986; 0·26%, -0·44 to 0·96), and sponsor-adjudicated serious suicide or self-injury (15 [0·75%] of 1972 patients vs 5 [0·25%] of 1986; post hoc difference 0·50%, 0·06 to 0·94). INTERPRETATION: In line with previously published data, incidences of all-cause mortality and AESIs were similar in patients given belimumab and placebo, except for serious infusion or hypersensitivity reactions, serious depression, treatment-emergent suicidality, and sponsor-adjudicated serious suicide or self-injury events. FUNDING: GSK.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA