Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Correspondence on ‘Cardiovascular effects of biological versus csDMARD therapy in treatment naive, early rheumatoid arthritis’
  1. Athanasios N Georgiadis1,
  2. Eleftherios Pelechas2,
  3. Paraskevi V Voulgari2,
  4. Alexandros A Drosos1
  1. 1 Rheumatology Clinic, Internal Medicine, University of Ioannina Faculty of Medicine, Ioannina, Epirus, Greece
  2. 2 Rheumatology Clinic, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School, University of Ioannina Faculty of Medicine, Ioannina, Epirus, Greece
  1. Correspondence to Professor Alexandros A Drosos, Rheumatology Clinic, Internal Medicine, University of Ioannina Faculty of Medicine, Ioannina 45110, Greece; adrosos{at}cc.uoi.gr

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We have read with interest the article by Plein et al that has been published recently in the Annals of Rheumatic Diseases. The article deals with the cardiovascular (CV) effects of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) versus conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD therapy in early naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.1 The authors compared etanercept (ETN) plus methotrexate (MTX) treatment versus MTX treat-to-target (TT) approach in patients with early RA (ERA), without CV disease and maximum one traditional risk factor. All patients underwent CVMR at baseline and after 1 and 2 years thereafter. At diagnosis, patients with ERA had reduced vascular distensibility, evidence of myocardial fibrosis and reduced left ventricular mass. The study revealed the presence of CV damage …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors have contributed equally for the production of the current manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles