2011
DOI: 10.1186/ar3249
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating the efficacy of sequential biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors

Abstract: IntroductionThe long-term treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) most often involves a sequence of different therapies. The response to therapy, disease progression and detailed knowledge of the role of different therapies along treatment pathways are key aspects to help physicians identify the best treatment strategy. Thus, understanding the effectiveness of different therapeutic sequences is of particular importance in the evaluation of long-term RA treatment strategies. The objective of this study was to sy… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
43
0
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
3
43
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous data indicate that patients with RA who fail their first biologic therapy experience worse efficacy on their second biologic [17][18][19][20]. Patients who are biologic-naïve experience better efficacy when they start a new biologic compared with patients who are biologic-experienced.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous data indicate that patients with RA who fail their first biologic therapy experience worse efficacy on their second biologic [17][18][19][20]. Patients who are biologic-naïve experience better efficacy when they start a new biologic compared with patients who are biologic-experienced.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These scores include ACR (American College of Rheumatology) [7] and DAS28 (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints) [8]. For instance, DAS28-based remission and low disease activity values (\2.6 and 3.2, respectively) allow the determination of lack of response (i.e., patients with no response achievement) or loss of response (i.e., patients with loss of response over time, referred to as secondary failures) [9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…По данным РПКИ, РТМ, АБЦ, ТЦЗ и ГЛМ [217][218][219][220][221] эффективны у пациентов, резистент-ных к ингибиторам ФНОα; материалы открытых иссле-дований, национальных регистров и систематических обзоров свидетельствуют об эффективности замены од-ного ингибитора ФНОα на другой у пациентов, рези-стентных к первому ингибитору ФНОα, особенно при развитии вторичной неэффективности первого препара-та [222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235]; у пациентов, серопозитивных по ревмато-идному фактору (РФ) и/или антителам к циклическим цитруллинированным белкам (АЦБ), лечение РТМ бо-лее эффективно, чем замена одного ингибитора ФНОα на другой [236][237][238][239][240][241]; эффективность ТОФА у пациентов, резистентных к БПВП [240][241][242][243][244][245] и ингибиторам ФНОα [246], подтверждена материалами метаанализов [247][248][249].…”
Section: рекомендация 19unclassified