4.7 Article

Changes in bone mineral density during long-term treatment with adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a cohort study

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 52, 期 3, 页码 547-553

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes320

关键词

osteoporosis; rheumatoid arthritis; TNF inhibitor; adalimumab

资金

  1. Abbott Laboratories
  2. Abbott
  3. Pfizer
  4. UCB
  5. MSD
  6. BMS
  7. Roche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To investigate the effect of long-term adalimumab treatment on BMD of the lumbar spine, total hip and hands in patients with RA. Methods. In 184 established RA patients treated with adalimumab for at least 1 year, BMD measurements of the total hip and lumbar spine were performed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Metacarpal cortex BMD was measured using digital X-ray radiogrammetry. Results. After 1 year of treatment, BMD of the hip and lumbar spine remained stable, while BMD of the hands decreased significantly by -1.41% (P < 0.0001). After a mean follow-up of 4.0 (s.d. 1.0) years, mean BMD change per year was -0.58% and 0.07% for the hip and lumbar spine, respectively (overall P-value of hip was < 0.0001 and spine was 0.67). Predictors for BMD loss of the hip were anti-CCP positivity, non-use of bisphosphonates at baseline and BMI. In European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) non-responders at 52 weeks, BMD change of the hip and spine was -1.25% and 1.08%, respectively, for moderate responders -0.61% and -1.87%, respectively, and in EULAR good responders, BMD remained stable: -0.02% and 0.06%, respectively. BMD of the hands decreased in non-, moderate and good responders (-2.85%, -1.47% and -1.26%, respectively). Conclusion. In patients with severe, established RA, loss of BMD in the spine was arrested over 4 years of adalimumab treatment, whereas BMD of the hands and hip continued to decrease after 1 and 4 years, respectively. The changes in BMD are related to disease activity, underlining the importance of monitoring disease activity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据