Real-life data of etanercept efficacy and safety in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a 24-month retrospective study at a single center.

IF 3.6 3区医学 Q2 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY

Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1080/14712598.2024.2388193

Ramazan Emre Yiğit, Kadir Ulu, Şengül Çağlayan, Betül Sözeri

{"title":"Real-life data of etanercept efficacy and safety in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a 24-month retrospective study at a single center.","authors":"Ramazan Emre Yiğit, Kadir Ulu, Şengül Çağlayan, Betül Sözeri","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2024.2388193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of etanercept (ETA) use in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).Methods: The 24-month data of patients with JIA on etanercept in a single center were evaluated retrospectively. Response to treatment was assessed according to 10-joint Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS10), and JIA-American College of Rheumatology (ACR) improvement criteria. Safety assessments were based on adverse event (AE) reports.Results: The study included 152 patients with JIA. The mean age at diagnosis of JIA was 8.5 ± 4.4 years, and treatment with ETA started at a mean age of 11.1 ± 4.4 years. The mean duration of ETA use was 16 ± 11.1 months. The mean JADAS10 score at baseline was 18.5 ± 5.9. By the third month, it had reduced to 8.6 ± 6.6 and by the sixth month to 5.7 ± 6. By the twelfth month, the JADAS10 score was 4.9 ± 6.7, and by the twenty-fourth month, it had worsened to 7.3 ± 7.8. ACR50 response was achieved in 79.6% of patients at 3 months, 67.1% at 6 months, 79.3% at twelfth months, 70.7% at the twenty-fourth month. During ETA treatment, 10 patients required hospitalization for serious infections.Conclusion: Etanercept is a safe and effective option for patients with JIA. However, variations in response between JIA subtypes highlight the need for individualized treatment strategies.","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"855-862"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2388193","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of etanercept (ETA) use in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Methods: The 24-month data of patients with JIA on etanercept in a single center were evaluated retrospectively. Response to treatment was assessed according to 10-joint Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS10), and JIA-American College of Rheumatology (ACR) improvement criteria. Safety assessments were based on adverse event (AE) reports.

Results: The study included 152 patients with JIA. The mean age at diagnosis of JIA was 8.5 ± 4.4 years, and treatment with ETA started at a mean age of 11.1 ± 4.4 years. The mean duration of ETA use was 16 ± 11.1 months. The mean JADAS10 score at baseline was 18.5 ± 5.9. By the third month, it had reduced to 8.6 ± 6.6 and by the sixth month to 5.7 ± 6. By the twelfth month, the JADAS10 score was 4.9 ± 6.7, and by the twenty-fourth month, it had worsened to 7.3 ± 7.8. ACR50 response was achieved in 79.6% of patients at 3 months, 67.1% at 6 months, 79.3% at twelfth months, 70.7% at the twenty-fourth month. During ETA treatment, 10 patients required hospitalization for serious infections.

Conclusion: Etanercept is a safe and effective option for patients with JIA. However, variations in response between JIA subtypes highlight the need for individualized treatment strategies.

查看原文本刊更多论文

幼年特发性关节炎中依那西普疗效和安全性的真实数据：在一个中心进行的为期24个月的回顾性研究。

研究目的本研究旨在评估依那西普（ETA）用于幼年特发性关节炎（JIA）的疗效和安全性：方法：回顾性评估了一个中心的幼年特发性关节炎患者使用依那西普治疗24个月的数据。根据10关节幼年关节炎疾病活动度评分（JADAS10）和JIA-美国风湿病学会（ACR）改善标准评估治疗反应。安全性评估基于不良事件（AE）报告：研究纳入了 152 名 JIA 患者。确诊JIA的平均年龄为（8.5±4.4）岁，开始接受ETA治疗的平均年龄为（11.1±4.4）岁。使用 ETA 的平均时间为 16 ± 11.1 个月。基线时的 JADAS10 平均得分是（18.5 ± 5.9）分。第三个月时，得分降至 8.6 ± 6.6，第六个月时降至 5.7 ± 6。第 12 个月时，JADAS10 评分为 4.9 ± 6.7，第 24 个月时，恶化为 7.3 ± 7.8。79.6%的患者在三个月、67.1%的患者在六个月、79.3%的患者在十二个月、70.7%的患者在二十四个月时获得了 ACR50 反应。在ETA治疗期间，有10名患者因严重感染需要住院治疗：结论：对于JIA患者来说，依那西普是一种安全有效的选择。结论：依那西普对JIA患者是一种安全有效的选择，但不同亚型JIA患者的反应存在差异，因此需要采取个体化的治疗策略。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 医学-生物工程与应用微生物

CiteScore

8.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy. Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development. The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease. The journal welcomes: Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results; Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.