Cargando…

Serum etanercept concentrations in relation to disease activity and treatment response assessed by ultrasound, biomarkers and clinical disease activity scores: results from a prospective observational study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES: To identify the therapeutic range for etanercept and to assess the incidence of anti-etanercept antibody formation. METHODS: Associations between etanercept serum concentration and disease activity as well as treatment response were examined in a longitudinal observational study of rheum...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gehin, Johanna Elin, Syversen, Silje Watterdal, Warren, David John, Goll, Guro Løvik, Sexton, Joseph, Bolstad, Nils, Hammer, Hilde Berner
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8679136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34911811
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001985
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To identify the therapeutic range for etanercept and to assess the incidence of anti-etanercept antibody formation. METHODS: Associations between etanercept serum concentration and disease activity as well as treatment response were examined in a longitudinal observational study of rheumatoid arthritis patients starting etanercept. Disease activity was assessed by ultrasound (grey scale and power Doppler), 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Index, plasma calprotectin and C reactive protein. Etanercept concentration and anti-etanercept antibodies were analysed using automated in-house fluorescence assays. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were included, whereof 66% were biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) naïve and 91% used concomitant synthetic DMARD. At 3 months, the median etanercept concentration was 1.8 (IQR 1.1–2.5) mg/L. Longitudinal associations were found between etanercept concentration and disease activity assessed by plasma calprotectin, C reactive protein and DAS28, but not between etanercept concentration and improvement in disease activity by any of the parameters at 3, 6 or 12 months of treatment. Etanercept concentrations were not significantly different among patients who achieved response or remission, compared with non-response or non-remission. Hence, no therapeutic range could be identified. None of the patients developed anti-etanercept antibodies. CONCLUSION: Despite the use of sensitive and objective markers of inflammation, a therapeutic range could not be identified for etanercept. Hence, this study suggests that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring is unlikely to benefit rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with etanercept, but a potential benefit in certain clinical situations cannot be excluded.