ObjectiveTo investigate whether antidrug antibodies and/or drug non‐trough levels predict the long‐term treatment response in a large cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with adalimumab or etanercept and to identify factors influencing antidrug antibody and drug levels to optimize future treatment decisions.MethodsA total of 331 patients from an observational prospective cohort were selected (160 patients treated with adalimumab and 171 treated with etanercept). Antidrug antibody levels were measured by radioimmunoassay, and drug levels were measured by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay in 835 serial serum samples obtained 3, 6, and 12 months after initiation of therapy. The association between antidrug antibodies and drug non‐trough levels and the treatment response (change in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints) was evaluated.ResultsAmong patients who completed 12 months of followup, antidrug antibodies were detected in 24.8% of those receiving adalimumab (31 of 125) and in none of those receiving etanercept. At 3 months, antidrug antibody formation and low adalimumab levels were significant predictors of no response according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria at 12 months (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.71 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.57, 0.85]). Antidrug antibody–positive patients received lower median dosages of methotrexate compared with antidrug antibody–negative patients (15 mg/week versus 20 mg/week; P = 0.01) and had a longer disease duration (14.0 versus 7.7 years; P = 0.03). The adalimumab level was the best predictor of change in the DAS28 at 12 months, after adjustment for confounders (regression coefficient 0.060 [95% CI 0.015, 0.10], P = 0.009). Etanercept levels were associated with the EULAR response at 12 months (regression coefficient 0.088 [95% CI 0.019, 0.16], P = 0.012); however, this difference was not significant after adjustment. A body mass index of ≥30 kg/m2 and poor adherence were associated with lower drug levels.ConclusionPharmacologic testing in anti–tumor necrosis factor–treated patients is clinically useful even in the absence of trough levels. At 3 months, antidrug antibodies and low adalimumab levels are significant predictors of no response according to the EULAR criteria at 12 months.
Microarrays are a powerful tool for comparison and understanding of gene expression levels in healthy and diseased states. The method relies upon the assumption that signals from microarray features are a reflection of relative gene expression levels of the cell types under investigation. It has previously been reported that the classical fluorescent dyes used for microarray technology, Cy3 and Cy5, are not ideal due to the decreased stability and fluorescence intensity of the Cy5 dye relative to the Cy3, such that dye bias is an accepted phenomena necessitating dye swap experimental protocols and analysis of differential dye affects. The incentive to find new fluorophores is based on alleviating the problem of dye bias through synonymous performance between counterpart dyes. Alexa Fluor 555 and Alexa Fluor 647 are increasingly promoted as replacements for CyDye in microarray experiments. Performance relates to the molecular and steric similarities, which will vary for each new pair of dyes as well as the spectral integrity for the specific application required. Comparative analysis of the performance of these two competitive dye pairs in practical microarray applications is warranted towards this end. The findings of our study showed that both dye pairs were comparable but that conventional CyDye resulted in significantly higher signal intensities (P < 0.05) and signal minus background levels (P < 0.05) with no significant difference in background values (P > 0.05). This translated to greater levels of differential gene expression with CyDye than with the Alexa Fluor counterparts. However, CyDye fluorophores and in particular Cy5, were found to be less photostable over time and following repeated scans in microarray experiments. These results suggest that precautions against potential dye affects will continue to be necessary and that no one dye pair negates this need.
Routine axillary dissection is primarily used as a means of assessing prognosis to establish appropriate treatment plans for patients with primary breast carcinoma. However, axillary dissection offers no therapeutic benefit to node negative patients and patients may incur unnecessary morbidity, including mild to severe impairment of arm motion and lymphedema, as a result. This paper outlines a method of evaluating the probability of harbouring lymph node metastases at the time of initial surgery by assessment of tumour based parameters, in order to provide an objective basis for further selection of patients for treatment or investigation. The novel aspect of this study is the use of Maximum Entropy Estimation (MEE) to construct probabilistic models of the relationship between the risk factors and the outcome. Two hundred and seventeen patients with invasive breast carcinoma were studied. Surgical treatment included axillary clearance in all cases, so that the pathologic status of the nodes was known. Tumour size was found to be significantly correlated (P < 0.001) to the axillary lymph node status in the multivariate anlaysis with age (P = 0.089) and vascular invasion (P = 0.08) marginally correlated. Using the multivariate model constructed, 38 patients were predicted to have risk of nodal metastases lower than 20%, of these only 4 (10%) patients had lymph node metastases. A comparison with the Multivariate Logistic Regression (MLR) was carried out. It was found that the predictive quality of the MEE model was better than that of the MLR model. In view of the small sample size, further verification of this model is required in assessing its practical application to a larger population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.