Persistence of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An analysis of the South Korean National Health Insurance Database.
This study examined and compared the persistence of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, or abatacept as first- and subsequent-line treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in the South Korean clinical practice.
We conducted a retrospective cohort study with patients receiving adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, or abatacept between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2012, using the nationwide Korean National Health Insurance database. Patients who were receiving a newly initiated biologic treatment and those who switched from other biologic treatment were identified and classified into first- and subsequent-use cohorts, respectively. Treatment patterns during the 1-year after treatment initiation were measured as persistence, and discontinuation including restarting, switching, and stopping. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for discontinuation of biologic treatments.
We identified 4114 patients for the first-use cohort and 992 patients for the subsequent-use cohort. Treatment persistence with adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab was observed in 52.5%, 56.1%, and 52.6% of the patients, respectively, in the first-use cohort, without significant differences in duration of persistence among the treatments according to the Cox proportional hazard model. In the subsequent-use cohort, treatment persistence with adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and abatacept was observed in 45.7%, 58.5%, 43.0%, and 60.4% of the patients, respectively. The Cox proportional hazard model found that the patients who were receiving etanercept (HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52-0.88) and abatacept (HR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37-0.74) were significantly less likely to discontinue the treatment than those who were receiving infliximab.
Adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab had similar levels of persistence during the 1-year after treatment initiation, when used as first-line treatment. However, when used as a subsequent-line treatment, etanercept and abatacept had higher persistence than infliximab or adalimumab. Persistence could be a consideration when selecting the subsequent-line biologic treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in South Korea.
Lee MY
，Shin JY
，Park SY
，Kim D
，Cha HS
，Lee EK
... -
《-》
Comparative effectiveness of first-line tumour necrosis factor inhibitor versus non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor biologics and targeted synthetic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a large US registry study.
This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus a non-TNFi (biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs)) as the first-line treatment following conventional synthetic DMARDs, as well as potential modifiers of response, observed in US clinical practice.
Data were from a large US healthcare registry (Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry). The analysis included patients (aged ≥18 years) with a documented diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a valid baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of >2.8 and no prior bDMARD or tsDMARD use. Outcomes were captured at 1-year postinitiation of a TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, golimumab or infliximab) or a non-TNFi (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab, anakinra or tofacitinib) and included CDAI, 28-Joint Modified Disease Activity Score, patient-reported outcomes (including the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, EuroQol-5 Dimension score, sleep, anxiety, morning stiffness and fatigue) and rates of anaemia. Groups were propensity score-matched at baseline to account for potential confounding.
There were no statistically significant differences observed between the TNFi and non-TNFi treatment groups for outcomes assessed, except the incidence rate ratio for anaemia, which slightly favoured the TNFi group (19.04 per 100 person-years) versus the non-TNFi group (24.01 per 100 person-years, p=0.03). No potential effect modifiers were found to be statistically significant.
The findings of no significant differences in outcomes between first-line TNF versus first-line non-TNF groups support RA guidelines, which recommend individualised care based on clinical judgement and consideration of patient preferences.
Pappas DA
，St John G
，Etzel CJ
，Fiore S
，Blachley T
，Kimura T
，Punekar R
，Emeanuru K
，Choi J
，Boklage S
，Kremer JM
... -
《-》
Real-world Effectiveness of Biologic Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis After Etanercept Discontinuation in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.
The purpose of this study was to assess the real-world effectiveness of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who discontinued etanercept treatment and subsequently received another tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitor or a non-TNF-α biologic in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.
Medical record data of patients with RA were collected from a panel of rheumatologists in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Patients were required to have a diagnosis of RA, be ≥18 years old, and have initiated use of another TNF-α inhibitor (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, or infliximab) or a non-TNF-α biologic (abatacept or tocilizumab) between January 2014 and May 2015 after discontinuing use of etanercept. Reasons for discontinuing use of etanercept and selecting a second biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) were described. Study outcomes included European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response and change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score. The study outcomes were compared among treatment groups (ie, TNF-α inhibitors and non-TNF-α biologics) using descriptive and multivariable-adjusted analyses. As a secondary analysis, the study outcomes were also descriptively compared between each of the TNF-α inhibitors. Because adalimumab is one of the most commonly used TNF-α inhibitor to treat RA, a secondary analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes among adalimumab, other TNF-α inhibitors, and non-TNF-α inhibitors.
Patient characteristics before initiating treatment with a second DMARD were similar across treatment groups (all TNF-α inhibitors [n = 296] and non-TNF-α biologics [n = 276]). The most common reasons for discontinuing etanercept treatment were inadequate response, adverse effects, and patient preference. After etanercept, TNF-α inhibitors overall were associated with a significantly lower EULAR good response rate (56.0% vs. 64.4%, P < 0.05) and smaller CDAI score change (-6.3 vs -7.3, P = .06) relative to non-TNF-α biologics. However, the proportion of patients achieving an EULAR good response was numerically higher for adalimumab versus other TNF-α inhibitors (61.1% vs 51.6%, P = 0.11) and comparable versus non-TNF-α biologics (61.1% vs 64.4%, P = 0.52). Adalimumab was also associated with a CDAI score change significantly greater than that of other TNF-α inhibitors (-7.1 vs -5.8, P < 0.05) and comparable to that of non-TNF-α biologics (-7.1 vs -7.3, P = 0.79). The results were consistent in the multivariable-adjusted analysis and secondary analysis.
In this retrospective analysis of patients with RA in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, after discontinuation of etanercept treatment, TNF-α inhibitors as a class were overall less effective as second biologic DMARDs relative to non-TNF-α biologics; however, adalimumab was more or as effective as other TNF-α inhibitors and non-TNF-α biologics.
Li N
，Betts KA
，Messali AJ
，Skup M
，Garg V
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
