Structural changes in the sacroiliac joint on MRI and relationship to ASDAS inactive disease in axial spondyloarthritis: a 2-year study comparing treatment with etanercept in EMBARK to a contemporary control cohort in DESIR.
ASDAS
Anti-TNF
Axial spondyloarthritis
Etanercept
MRI
Sacroiliac joint
Journal
Arthritis research & therapy
ISSN: 1478-6362
Titre abrégé: Arthritis Res Ther
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101154438
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 01 2021
29 01 2021
Historique:
received:
08
05
2020
accepted:
19
01
2021
entrez:
30
1
2021
pubmed:
31
1
2021
medline:
22
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Limited information is available on the impact of treatment with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) on structural lesions in patients with recent-onset axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). We compared 2-year structural lesion changes on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) of patients with recent-onset axSpA receiving etanercept in a clinical trial (EMBARK) to similar patients not receiving biologics in a cohort study (DESIR). We also evaluated the relationship between the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and change in MRI structural parameters. The difference between etanercept (EMBARK) and control (DESIR) in the net percentage of patients with structural lesion change was determined using the SpondyloArthritis Research Consortium of Canada SIJ Structural Score, with and without adjustment for baseline covariates. The relationship between sustained ASDAS inactive disease, defined as the presence of ASDAS < 1.3 for at least 2 consecutive time points 6 months apart, and structural lesion change was evaluated. This study included 163 patients from the EMBARK trial and 76 from DESIR. The net percentage of patients with erosion decrease was significantly greater for etanercept vs control: unadjusted: 23.9% vs 5.3%; P = 0.01, adjusted: 23.1% vs 2.9%; P = 0.01. For the patients attaining sustained ASDAS inactive disease on etanercept, erosion decrease was evident in significantly more than erosion increase: 34/104 (32.7%) vs 5/104 (4.8%); P < 0.001. A higher proportion had erosion decrease and backfill increase than patients in other ASDAS status categories. However, the trend across ASDAS categories was not significant and decrease in erosion was observed even in patients without a sustained ASDAS response. These data show that a greater proportion of patients achieved regression of erosion with versus without etanercept. However, the link between achieving sustained ASDAS inactive disease and structural lesion change on MRI could not be clearly established. EMBARK: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01258738 , Registered 13 December 2010; DESIR: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01648907 , Registered 24 July 2012.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Limited information is available on the impact of treatment with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) on structural lesions in patients with recent-onset axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). We compared 2-year structural lesion changes on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) of patients with recent-onset axSpA receiving etanercept in a clinical trial (EMBARK) to similar patients not receiving biologics in a cohort study (DESIR). We also evaluated the relationship between the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and change in MRI structural parameters.
METHODS
The difference between etanercept (EMBARK) and control (DESIR) in the net percentage of patients with structural lesion change was determined using the SpondyloArthritis Research Consortium of Canada SIJ Structural Score, with and without adjustment for baseline covariates. The relationship between sustained ASDAS inactive disease, defined as the presence of ASDAS < 1.3 for at least 2 consecutive time points 6 months apart, and structural lesion change was evaluated.
RESULTS
This study included 163 patients from the EMBARK trial and 76 from DESIR. The net percentage of patients with erosion decrease was significantly greater for etanercept vs control: unadjusted: 23.9% vs 5.3%; P = 0.01, adjusted: 23.1% vs 2.9%; P = 0.01. For the patients attaining sustained ASDAS inactive disease on etanercept, erosion decrease was evident in significantly more than erosion increase: 34/104 (32.7%) vs 5/104 (4.8%); P < 0.001. A higher proportion had erosion decrease and backfill increase than patients in other ASDAS status categories. However, the trend across ASDAS categories was not significant and decrease in erosion was observed even in patients without a sustained ASDAS response.
CONCLUSIONS
These data show that a greater proportion of patients achieved regression of erosion with versus without etanercept. However, the link between achieving sustained ASDAS inactive disease and structural lesion change on MRI could not be clearly established.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
EMBARK: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01258738 , Registered 13 December 2010; DESIR: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01648907 , Registered 24 July 2012.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33514428
doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02428-8
pii: 10.1186/s13075-021-02428-8
pmc: PMC7844996
doi:
Substances chimiques
Etanercept
OP401G7OJC
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01258738', 'NCT01648907']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
43Références
Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Apr;52(4):995-9
pubmed: 15818666
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Aug;68(8):1899-903
pubmed: 27015283
Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Feb;77(2):221-227
pubmed: 28970213
J Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;45(2):195-201
pubmed: 29419448
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017 Oct;69(10):1590-1598
pubmed: 28482137
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Aug;70(8):1369-74
pubmed: 21622969
Joint Bone Spine. 2015 Oct;82(5):345-51
pubmed: 26190454
Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2014 Jul;26(4):377-83
pubmed: 24807404
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Nov;66(11):2958-67
pubmed: 25047851
Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Jan;77(1):78-84
pubmed: 28970212
Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Jan;77(1):3-17
pubmed: 28684559
Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2018 May 12;20(6):35
pubmed: 29754330
RMD Open. 2017 Jan 27;3(1):e000396
pubmed: 28176964
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2014 May;53(5):875-81
pubmed: 24407233
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Aug;68(8):1904-13
pubmed: 26990518
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Feb;68(2):418-29
pubmed: 26414004
Health Technol Assess. 2016 Feb;20(9):1-334, v-vi
pubmed: 26847392
Arthritis Res Ther. 2017 Oct 24;19(1):240
pubmed: 29065931
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Aug;66(8):2091-102
pubmed: 24891317
Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Apr 22;16(2):R100
pubmed: 24755322
Arthritis Res Ther. 2012 May 24;14(3):R124
pubmed: 22626458
Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Oct;77(10):1539-1540
pubmed: 29453216
Arthritis Res Ther. 2017 Jun 6;19(1):126
pubmed: 28587658
J Rheumatol. 2015 Jan;42(1):79-86
pubmed: 25320219
Ann Rheum Dis. 2009 Oct;68(10):1520-7
pubmed: 19454404
Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Jul;75(7):1328-35
pubmed: 26269397
Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Jun;74(6):1241-8
pubmed: 24718959
Eur Radiol. 2017 May;27(5):2024-2030
pubmed: 27651143
Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Sep;76(9):1502-1508
pubmed: 28283515