Ultrasound and multi-biomarker disease activity score for assessing and predicting clinical response to tofacitinib treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Multi-biomarker disease activity score
Outcome measures
Rheumatoid arthritis
Ultrasound
Journal
BMC rheumatology
ISSN: 2520-1026
Titre abrégé: BMC Rheumatol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101738571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
06
04
2020
accepted:
05
08
2020
entrez:
22
10
2020
pubmed:
23
10
2020
medline:
23
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) and the multi-biomarker disease activity (MBDA) score are outcome measures that may aid in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. This study evaluated tofacitinib response by MSUS/MBDA scores and assessed whether baseline MSUS/MBDA scores or their early changes predict later clinical response. Twenty-five RA patients treated with tofacitinib were assessed at baseline, 2, 6 and 12-weeks. Power doppler (PDUS) and gray scale (GSUS) ultrasound scores, MBDA score, clinical disease activity index (CDAI), and disease activity score (DAS28) were obtained. Pearson correlations and multiple linear regression models were used to evaluate associations and identify predictors of response to therapy. MSUS, MBDA scores, CDAI, and DAS28 improved significantly over 12 weeks ( RA patients treated with tofacitinib for 12 weeks demonstrated improvement by clinical, imaging, and biomarker end-points. Baseline PDUS and MBDA score were predictive of CDAI and DAS28 responses. This is the first study to evaluate early measurements of MSUS and MBDA score as predictors of clinical response in RA patients treated with tofacitinib. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02321930 (registered 12/22/2014).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) and the multi-biomarker disease activity (MBDA) score are outcome measures that may aid in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. This study evaluated tofacitinib response by MSUS/MBDA scores and assessed whether baseline MSUS/MBDA scores or their early changes predict later clinical response.
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-five RA patients treated with tofacitinib were assessed at baseline, 2, 6 and 12-weeks. Power doppler (PDUS) and gray scale (GSUS) ultrasound scores, MBDA score, clinical disease activity index (CDAI), and disease activity score (DAS28) were obtained. Pearson correlations and multiple linear regression models were used to evaluate associations and identify predictors of response to therapy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
MSUS, MBDA scores, CDAI, and DAS28 improved significantly over 12 weeks (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
RA patients treated with tofacitinib for 12 weeks demonstrated improvement by clinical, imaging, and biomarker end-points. Baseline PDUS and MBDA score were predictive of CDAI and DAS28 responses. This is the first study to evaluate early measurements of MSUS and MBDA score as predictors of clinical response in RA patients treated with tofacitinib.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02321930 (registered 12/22/2014).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33089069
doi: 10.1186/s41927-020-00153-4
pii: 153
pmc: PMC7569763
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02321930']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
55Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsVK Ranganath, MD, MS- consultant BMS, DSMB Amgen, grants- Pfizer, BMS, Mallinckrodt, Genentech. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.
Références
Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Jun;74(6):1102-9
pubmed: 24812287
N Engl J Med. 2012 Aug 9;367(6):495-507
pubmed: 22873530
Clin Rheumatol. 2019 Feb;38(2):437-445
pubmed: 30159791
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2019 May 1;58(5):874-883
pubmed: 30590790
Mod Rheumatol. 2017 Mar;27(2):252-256
pubmed: 27585858
Arthritis Rheum. 2004 Feb;50(2):387-94
pubmed: 14872480
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Nov;64(11):1625-40
pubmed: 23111854
Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Mar;64(3):617-29
pubmed: 21952978
Arthritis Res Ther. 2013 Jan 08;15(1):R4
pubmed: 23298444
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015 Dec;54(12):2285-6
pubmed: 26316582
Rheumatol Int. 2018 Oct;38(10):1891-1899
pubmed: 30121699
Curr Med Res Opin. 2019 Sep;35(9):1483-1493
pubmed: 30777458
Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Aug;37(8):2043-2053
pubmed: 29656373
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015 Aug;54(8):1408-14
pubmed: 25731769
Scand J Rheumatol. 2019 Jan;48(1):9-16
pubmed: 29985080
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011 Mar;50(3):506-12
pubmed: 21071479
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2011 Apr;7(4):216-24
pubmed: 21283147
Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 Jun;72(6):804-14
pubmed: 23520036
Adv Ther. 2013 Aug;30(8):713-26
pubmed: 23943546
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013 May;52(5):839-46
pubmed: 23287359
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014 Sep-Oct;32(5 Suppl 85):S-29-34
pubmed: 25365086
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Nov;70(11):1995-8
pubmed: 21784724
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Dec;64(12):1794-803
pubmed: 22736476
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018 May;70(5):703-712
pubmed: 28805018
Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Aug;58(8):2248-56
pubmed: 18668537
Arthritis Rheum. 2003 Apr;48(4):955-62
pubmed: 12687537
Lancet. 2013 Feb 9;381(9865):451-60
pubmed: 23294500
J Rheumatol. 2016 Nov;43(11):2010-2018
pubmed: 27803342
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2014 Nov;53(11):2110-8
pubmed: 24929634
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 Nov;67(11):2855-60
pubmed: 26213309
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Aug;63(8):1150-8
pubmed: 21584942
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 04;10(3):e0118620
pubmed: 25738587
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Mar 4;18(1):99
pubmed: 28259162
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017 May;69(5):953-963
pubmed: 27992691
Arthritis Rheum. 2009 Sep 15;61(9):1194-201
pubmed: 19714611
BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 3;4:8
pubmed: 32025629
Arthritis Rheum. 2010 Sep;62(9):2569-81
pubmed: 20872595