DAS-28-based EULAR response and HAQ improvement in rheumatoid arthritis patients switching between TNF antagonists

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>No definitive data are available regarding the value of switching to an alternative TNF antagonist in rheumatoid arthritis patients who fail to respond to the first one. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment response in a clinical setting based on HAQ improvement and EULAR response criteria in RA patients who were switched to a second or a third TNF antagonist due to failure with the first one.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was an observational, prospective study of a cohort of 417 RA patients treated with TNF antagonists in three university hospitals in Spain between January 1999 and December 2005. A database was created at the participating centres, with well-defined operational instructions. The main outcome variables were analyzed using parametric or non-parametric tests depending on the level of measurement and distribution of each variable.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mean (± SD) DAS-28 on starting the first, second and third TNF antagonist was 5.9 (± 2.0), 5.1 (± 1.5) and 6.1 (± 1.1). At the end of follow-up, it decreased to 3.3 (± 1.6; Δ = -2.6; p > 0.0001), 4.2 (± 1.5; Δ = -1.1; p = 0.0001) and 5.4 (± 1.7; Δ = -0.7; p = 0.06). For the first TNF antagonist, DAS-28-based EULAR response level was good in 42% and moderate in 33% of patients. The second TNF antagonist yielded a good response in 20% and no response in 53% of patients, while the third one yielded a good response in 28% and no response in 72%. Mean baseline HAQ on starting the first, second and third TNF antagonist was 1.61, 1.52 and 1.87, respectively. At the end of follow-up, it decreased to 1.12 (Δ = -0.49; p < 0.0001), 1.31 (Δ = -0.21, p = 0.004) and 1.75 (Δ = -0.12; p = 0.1), respectively. Sixty four percent of patients had a clinically important improvement in HAQ (defined as ≥ -0.22) with the first TNF antagonist and 46% with the second.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A clinically significant effect size was seen in less than half of RA patients cycling to a second TNF antagonist.</p

How safe are the biologicals in treating asthma and rhinitis?

A number of biological agents are available or being investigated for the treatment of asthma and rhinitis. The safety profiles of these biologic agents, which may modify allergic and immunological diseases, are still being elucidated. Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy, the oldest biologic agent in current use, has the highest of frequency of the most serious and life-threatening reaction, anaphylaxis. It is also one of the only disease modifying interventions for allergic rhinitis and asthma. Efforts to seek safer and more effective allergen immunotherapy treatment have led to investigations of alternate routes of delivery and modified immunotherapy formulations. Sublingual immunotherapy appears to be associated with a lower, but not zero, risk of anaphylaxis. No fatalities have been reported to date with sublingual immunotherapy. Immunotherapy with modified formulations containing Th1 adjuvants, DNA sequences containing a CpG motif (CpG) and 3-deacylated monophospholipid A, appears to provide the benefits of subcutaneous immunotherapy with a single course of 4 to 6 preseasonal injections. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events or anaphylaxis in the clinical trials of these two immunotherapy adjuvants. Omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody against IgE, has been associated with a small risk of anaphylaxis, affecting 0.09% to 0.2% of patients. It may also be associated with a higher risk of geohelminth infection in patients at high risk for parasitic infections but it does not appear to affect the response to treatment or severity of the infection

The Global Burden of Disease Study 2010: Interpretation and Implications for the Neglected Tropical Diseases

This article analyzes the "Global Burden of Disease Study 2010" and examines the study's implications for neglected tropical diseases

Phenotypes Determined by Cluster Analysis and Their Survival in the Prospective European Scleroderma Trials and Research Cohort of Patients With Systemic Sclerosis

Objective: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a heterogeneous connective tissue disease that is typically subdivided into limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc) and diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) depending on the extent of skin involvement. This subclassification may not capture the entire variability of clinical phenotypes. The European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) database includes data on a prospective cohort of SSc patients from 122 European referral centers. This study was undertaken to perform a cluster analysis of EUSTAR data to distinguish and characterize homogeneous phenotypes without any a priori assumptions, and to examine survival among the clusters obtained. / Methods: A total of 11,318 patients were registered in the EUSTAR database, and 6,927 were included in the study. Twenty‐four clinical and serologic variables were used for clustering. / Results: Clustering analyses provided a first delineation of 2 clusters showing moderate stability. In an exploratory attempt, we further characterized 6 homogeneous groups that differed with regard to their clinical features, autoantibody profile, and mortality. Some groups resembled usual dcSSc or lcSSc prototypes, but others exhibited unique features, such as a majority of lcSSc patients with a high rate of visceral damage and antitopoisomerase antibodies. Prognosis varied among groups and the presence of organ damage markedly impacted survival regardless of cutaneous involvement. / Conclusion: Our findings suggest that restricting subsets of SSc patients to only those based on cutaneous involvement may not capture the complete heterogeneity of the disease. Organ damage and antibody profile should be taken into consideration when individuating homogeneous groups of patients with a distinct prognosis