We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Adalimumab-Based Treatment Versus Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs for Venous Thrombosis in Behçet's Syndrome: A Retrospective Study of Seventy Patients With Vascular Involvement.
Arthritis & Rheumatology 2018 September
OBJECTIVE: Since Behçet's syndrome (BS) is the prototype of inflammation-induced thrombosis, immunosuppressants are recommended in place of anticoagulants. We undertook this study to assess the clinical efficacy and the corticosteroid-sparing effect of adalimumab (ADA)-based treatment versus disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy in a large retrospective cohort of patients with BS-related venous thrombosis.
METHODS: We retrospectively collected data on 70 BS patients treated with DMARDs or ADA-based regimens (ADA with or without DMARDs) because of venous complications. Clinical and imaging evaluations were performed to define vascular response. We explored differences in outcomes between ADA-based regimens and DMARDs with respect to efficacy, corticosteroid-sparing role, and time on treatment. We also evaluated the role of anticoagulants as concomitant treatment.
RESULTS: After a mean ± SD follow-up period of 25.7 ± 23.2 months, ADA-based regimens induced clinical and imaging improvement of venous thrombosis more frequently (P = 0.001) and rapidly (P < 0.0001) than did DMARDs. The mean dose of corticosteroids administered at the last follow-up visit was significantly lower with ADA-based regimens than with DMARDs (P < 0.0001). The time on treatment was significantly longer with ADA plus DMARDs than with DMARDs alone (P = 0.002). No differences were found in terms of efficacy and time on treatment between DMARDs or ADA-based regimens among patients who received anticoagulants and those who did not.
CONCLUSION: In this large retrospective study, we have shown that ADA-based regimens are more effective and rapid than DMARDs in inducing resolution of venous thrombosis in BS patients, allowing reduction of steroid exposure. Moreover, our findings suggest that anticoagulation does not modify the efficacy of either ADA-based regimens or DMARDs for venous complications.
METHODS: We retrospectively collected data on 70 BS patients treated with DMARDs or ADA-based regimens (ADA with or without DMARDs) because of venous complications. Clinical and imaging evaluations were performed to define vascular response. We explored differences in outcomes between ADA-based regimens and DMARDs with respect to efficacy, corticosteroid-sparing role, and time on treatment. We also evaluated the role of anticoagulants as concomitant treatment.
RESULTS: After a mean ± SD follow-up period of 25.7 ± 23.2 months, ADA-based regimens induced clinical and imaging improvement of venous thrombosis more frequently (P = 0.001) and rapidly (P < 0.0001) than did DMARDs. The mean dose of corticosteroids administered at the last follow-up visit was significantly lower with ADA-based regimens than with DMARDs (P < 0.0001). The time on treatment was significantly longer with ADA plus DMARDs than with DMARDs alone (P = 0.002). No differences were found in terms of efficacy and time on treatment between DMARDs or ADA-based regimens among patients who received anticoagulants and those who did not.
CONCLUSION: In this large retrospective study, we have shown that ADA-based regimens are more effective and rapid than DMARDs in inducing resolution of venous thrombosis in BS patients, allowing reduction of steroid exposure. Moreover, our findings suggest that anticoagulation does not modify the efficacy of either ADA-based regimens or DMARDs for venous complications.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app