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
Open Access
- 21 July 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Annals Of The Rheumatic Diseases
- Vol. 80 (1), 96-102
- https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217209
Abstract
Objectives 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- The comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus anti-tumour necrosis factor switching for rheumatoid arthritis patients previously treated with an anti-tumour necrosis factorAnnals Of The Rheumatic Diseases, 2013
- Effect of tocilizumab on haematological markers implicates interleukin-6 signalling in the anaemia of rheumatoid arthritisArthritis Research & Therapy, 2013
- Indirect Treatment Comparison of Abatacept with Methotrexate Versus Other Biologic Agents for Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Despite Methotrexate Therapy in the United KingdomThe Journal of Rheumatology, 2012
- Abatacept with methotrexate versus other biologic agents in treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate: a network meta-analysisArthritis Research & Therapy, 2011
- A Modified Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Score Without Acute-phase Reactants (mDAS28) for Epidemiological ResearchThe Journal of Rheumatology, 2010
- The CORRONA databaseAnnals Of The Rheumatic Diseases, 2005
- EQ-SD: a measure of health status from the EuroQol GroupAnnals of Medicine, 2001
- SERIES EDITOR: F. WOLLHEIM: LETTER FROM KUWAITRheumatology, 1996
- The american college of rheumatology 1991 revised criteria for the classification of global functional status in rheumatoid arthritisArthritis & Rheumatism, 1992
- The american rheumatism association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritisArthritis & Rheumatism, 1988