Infliximab for treating XXXX in everyday practice.

@entity1 @entity310 @entity1596 @entity1691 @entity5145 @entity1851
The advent of @entity310 antagonists has had a revolutionary impact on the treatment of @entity1691 ( @entity1691 ). However, whether the benefits recorded in controlled trials are replicated in everyday practice has not been extensively evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of infliximab in @entity1 with @entity5145 , to identify factors associated with the treatment response, and to assess fulfillment of modified New York criteria and compliance with guidelines about using @entity310 antagonists. METHODS: Retrospective review of @entity1 given infliximab for axial @entity5145 between 2001 and 2003. Disease activity, motion limitation, laboratory tests, and the 6-week response rate were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 86 included @entity1 (48 @entity1 and 38 @entity1 , mean age, 44+/-11 years), 37% responded to infliximab therapy. @entity1596 and @entity1851 elevation at baseline predicted a response. Only 53% of @entity1 met modified New York criteria and only 23% met ASAS criteria for starting @entity310 antagonist therapy. CONCLUSION: Infliximab was less effective in our @entity1 with axial @entity5145 than expected based on the results of controlled trials. However, many @entity1 did not meet New York criteria for @entity1691 and/or ASAS criteria for @entity310 antagonist therapy. Therefore, our results do not challenge the usefulness of @entity310 antagonists in axial @entity1691 . Our @entity1 were treated before the development of guidelines for @entity310 antagonist therapy and before the introduction of magnetic resonance imaging as an evaluation tool in @entity1691 . Strict criteria should be used to decide when @entity310 antagonist therapy is appropriate in @entity1 with @entity5145 .
