| Literature DB >> 36226143 |
Giuseppe Germanò1,2, Pierluigi Macchioni1,2, Beatrice Maranini3, Giovanni Ciancio3, Sara Bonazza3, Marcello Govoni3, Carlo Salvarani1,2.
Abstract
Background: Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should aim at full remission. Ultrasonography (US) might have an added value to clinical examination in assessing disease activity of RA. In this study we evaluated the ultrasound response, next to clinical and laboratory response, in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (TOF).Entities:
Keywords: OMERACT; clinical remission; rheumatoid arthritis; tofacitinib; ultrasonography
Year: 2022 PMID: 36226143 PMCID: PMC9549158 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.990317
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Patients baseline characteristics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female (%) | 44 (85%) | ||||
| Mean age, years (st. dev) | 59.2 (12.0) | ||||
| Patients ACPA+ (%) | 23 (44%) | ||||
| Patients ANA+ (%) | 13 (25%) | ||||
| Patients with Rx erosive disease (%) | 41 (79%) | ||||
| Mean number RX eroded joints/patients, hands and feet (st. dev) | 4.40 (6.27) | ||||
| Mean disease duration, years (st. dev) | 9.97 (8.75) | ||||
| Number of bDMARDs failed, patients (%) | 0 = 19 (36.5%) | ||||
| Patients steroids users (%) | 33 (65%) | ||||
| Mean steroid daily dose, mg/day (st. dev) | 3.13 (3.08) | ||||
| DMARDs users (%) | 24 (52.2%) | ||||
| Mean weekly MTX dose, mg (st. dev) | 7.33 (8.09) | ||||
| Patients with DMARDs dose reduction (%) | |||||
| Patients withdrew from the study and causes | 1. Dyspnea | 3. Lymphoma |
Variation of clinical and laboratory parameters during treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients with CRP <0.50 mg/dl (%) | 20 (38.5%) | 24 (48%) | 26 (52%) | 29 (59%) | 28 (61%) |
| Mean DAS28 (st. dev) | 4.9 (1.2) | 3.3 (1.3) | 2.6 (1.4) | 2.2 (2.0) | 2.24 (0.99) |
| Mean DAS28 variation vs. baseline (st. dev) | −1.62 (1.05) | −2.33 (1.24) | −2.90 (1.07) | −2.48 (2.26) | |
| EULAR response (%) | NR: 6 (12%), | NR: 3 (6%), | NR: 2 (4%), | NR: 1 (2%), | |
| Mean HAQ values (st. dev) | 1.4 (0.7) | 0.9 (0.7) | 0.7 (0.7) | 0.4 (0.5) | 0.45 (0.49) |
| Patients with HAQ values | 0 | 3 (5.8%) | 14 (28.6%) | 20 (40.8%) | 21 (43%) |
P-values vs. baseline values. NR, no response; MR, moderate response; GR, good response.
Standardized response mean (SRM) of ultrasound lesion scores.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TNS GS score | 0.90 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 1.0 |
| TNS PD score | 0.79 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.90 |
| Joint GS score | 1.19 | 1.31 | 1.22 | 1.24 |
| Joint PD score | 1.02 | 1.03 | 1.05 | 1.08 |
| OMERACT joint score | 1.09 | 1.30 | 1.06 | 1.0 |
SRM: trivial < 0.20, small 0.20–0.40, moderate 0.50–0.79 and good ≥ 0.80.
TnsGS, tenosynovitis Gray Scale; TnsPD, tenosynovitis Power Doppler; JointGS, Joint Gray Scale; JointPD, Joint Power Doppler.
Variations of ultrasound lesion scores during treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean TnsGS score (st. dev) | 10.5 (11.4) | 3.9 (4.4) | 2.0 (2.9) | 2.0 (3.2) | 0.78 (1.78) |
| Pts with TnsGS score = 0 (%) | 6 (12.8%) | 17 (34.7%) | 23 (58%) | 34 (69.1%) | 36 (73.5%) |
| Mean TnsPD score (st. dev) | 11 (12) | 3.2 (4.0) | 1.6 (3.4) | 2.0 (3.3) | 0.67 (1.59) |
| Pts with TnsPDscore = 0 (%) | 0 | 16 (32.7%) | 33 (67.3%) | 35 (71.4%) | 37 (77.1%) |
| Mean joint GS score (st. dev) | 23.5 (18.4) | 11.6 (9.9) | 7.8 (7.8) | 5.6 (7.2) | 4.44 (6.14) |
| Pts with joint GS score = 0 (%) | 0 | 0 | 9 (19.6%) | 13 (26.5%) | 17 (35.4%) |
| Mean joint PD score (st. dev) | 22.7 (19.3) | 7.9 (8.3) | 5.4 (7.8) | 3.3 (5.7) | 1.88 (3.52) |
| Pts with joint PD score = 0 (%) | 0 | 7 (13.7%) | 14 (28%) | 17 (34.7%) | 24 (50%) |
| Mean joint OMERACT score (st. dev) | 25.66 (20–57) | 14.78 (15.46) | 9.42 (11.06) | 7.05 (9.95) | 4.27 (5.57) |
| Pts with joint OMERACT score = 0 (%) | 0 | 0 | 5 (10%) | 7 (14.3%) | 10 (20.4%) |
TnsGS, tenosynovitis Gray Scale; TnsPD, tenosynovitis Power Doppler; JointGS, Joint Gray Scale; Pts, patients; JointPD, Joint Power Doppler; p-values = vs. baseline.