New to MyHealth?
Manage Your Care From Anywhere.
Access your health information from any device with MyHealth. You can message your clinic, view lab results, schedule an appointment, and pay your bill.
ALREADY HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
DON'T HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
NEED MORE DETAILS?
MyHealth for Mobile
Interleukin-6 receptor blockade or TNFa inhibition for reducing glycaemia in patients with RA and diabetes: post hoc analyses of three randomised, controlled trials.
Interleukin-6 receptor blockade or TNFa inhibition for reducing glycaemia in patients with RA and diabetes: post hoc analyses of three randomised, controlled trials. Arthritis research & therapy Genovese, M. C., Burmester, G. R., Hagino, O. n., Thangavelu, K. n., Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. n., John, G. S., González-Gay, M. A., Mandrup-Poulsen, T. n., Fleischmann, R. n. 2020; 22 (1): 206Abstract
Diabetes is common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Interleukin (IL)-6 is implicated in both the pathogenesis of RA and in glucose homeostasis; this post hoc analysis investigated the effects of IL-6 receptor vs. tumour necrosis factor inhibition on glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with RA with or without diabetes.Data were from two placebo-controlled phase III studies of subcutaneous sarilumab 150/200?mg q2w?+?methotrexate or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and a phase III monotherapy study of sarilumab 200?mg q2w vs. adalimumab 40?mg q2w. Patients with diabetes were identified by medical history or use of antidiabetic medication (patients with HbA1c =?9% were excluded from all three studies). HbA1c was measured at baseline and weeks 12/24. Safety and efficacy were assessed in RA patients with or without diabetes.Patients with diabetes (n?=?184) were older, weighed more and exhibited higher RA disease activity than patients without diabetes (n?=?1928). Regardless of diabetes status, in patients on background csDMARDs, least squares (LS) mean difference (95% CI) in change from baseline in HbA1c for sarilumab 150?mg/200?mg vs. placebo at week 24 was -?0.28 (-?0.40, -?0.16; nominal p?
View details for DOI 10.1186/s13075-020-02229-5
View details for PubMedID 32907617