首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
   检索      


Feasibility of tailored treatment based on risk stratification in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis
Authors:Iris M Markusse  Jeska K de Vries-Bouwstra  K Huub Han  Peter AHM van der Lubbe  Anne A Schouffoer  Pit JSM Kerstens  Willem F Lems  Tom WJ Huizinga  Cornelia F Allaart
Institution:.Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO BOX 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands ;.Department of Rheumatology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands ;.Department of Rheumatology, Vlietland Hospital, Schiedam, the Netherlands ;.Department of Rheumatology, Haga Hospital, the Hague, the Netherlands ;.Department of Rheumatology, Reade, Amsterdam, the Netherlands ;.Department of Rheumatology, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Abstract:

Introduction

Personalized medicine is the holy grail of medicine. The EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) support differential treatment between patients with baseline characteristics suggestive of a non-poor prognosis (non-PP) or poor prognosis (PP) (presence of autoantibodies, a high inflammatory activity and damage on radiographs). We aimed to determine which prognostic risk groups benefit more from initial monotherapy or initial combination therapy.

Methods

508 patients were randomized to initial monotherapy (iMono) or initial combination therapy (iCombo). Disease outcomes of iMono and iCombo were compared within non-PP or PP groups as determined on baseline characteristics

Results

PP patients treated with iCombo after three months more often achieved ACR20 (70% vs 38%, P <0.001), ACR50 (48% vs 13%, P <0.001) and ACR70 response (24% vs 4%, P <0.001) than those treated with iMono, and had more improvement in HAQ (median decrease 0.75 vs 0.38, P <0.001). After 1 year, differences in ACR20 response and DAS-remission remained; PP patients treated with iCombo (vs iMono) had less radiographic progression (median 0.0 vs 1.5, P =0.001).Non-PP patients treated with iCombo after three months more often achieved an ACR response (ACR20: 71% versus 44%, P <0.001; ACR50: 49% vs 13%, P <0.001; ACR70: 17% vs 3%, P =0.001) than with iMono, and functional ability showed greater improvement (median decrease in HAQ 0.63 vs 0.38, P <0.001). After 1 year, differences in ACR20 and ACR50 response remained; radiographic progression was comparable between the groups.Non-PP and PP patients responded equally well to iCombo in terms of improvement of functional ability, with similar toxicity.

Conclusions

Since PP and non-PP patients benefit equally from iCombo through earlier clinical response and functional improvement than with iMono, we conclude that personalized medicine as suggested in the guidelines is not yet feasible. The choice of treatment strategy should depend more on rapid relief of symptoms than on prognostic factors.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register NTR262 (registered 7 September 2005) and NTR265 (8 September 2005).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-014-0430-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Keywords:
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号