Real-world evidence of TNF inhibition in axial spondyloarthritis: can we generalise the results from clinical trials?

Management guidelines assume that results from clinical trials can be generalised, although seldom is data available to test this assumption. We aimed to determine the proportion of patients commencing tumour necrosis factor inhibition (TNFi) who would have been eligible for relevant clinical trials, and whether treatment response differs between these groups and the trials themselves. The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) recruited a real-world cohort of TNFi-naïve spondyloarthritis patients with data collection from clinical records and patient questionnaires. Participant characteristics were extracted from trials identified from a recent Health Technology Assessment of TNFi for ankylosing spondylitis/non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the differences, including treatment response, between BSRBR-AS participants who would/would not have been eligible for the clinical trials and with trial participants. Among 2420 BSRBR-AS participants, those commencing TNFi (34%) had shorter symptom duration (15 vs 22 years) but more active disease (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) 6.4 vs 4.0; Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Functional Index (BASFI) 6.2 vs 3.8). Of those commencing TNFi, 41% met eligibility criteria for ≥1 of fourteen relevant trials; they reported higher disease activity (BASDAI 6.9 vs 6.1) and poorer function (BASFI 6.6 vs 6.0). 61.7% of trial participants reported a positive treatment response, vs 51.3% of BSRBR-AS patients (difference: 10.4%; 95% CI 4.4% to 16.5%). Potential eligibility for trials did not influence treatment response (difference 2.0%; -9.4% to 13.4%). Fewer patients in the real world respond to TNFi than is reported in the trial literature. This has important implications for the generalisability of trial results, and the cost-effectiveness of TNFi agents.

Predicting response to anti-TNFα therapy among patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA): results from BSRBR-AS.

OBJECTIVES: While many axSpA patients, eligible to receive anti-TNFα therapy, derive benefit when prescribed them, some patients do not. The current study aims to identify modifiable targets to improve outcome as well as non-modifiable targets that identify groups less likely to derive benefit. METHODS: The BSRBR-AS is a prospective cohort study of axSpA patients who, at recruitment, were naïve to biologic therapy. Those in the 'biologic' sub-cohort commenced their first anti-TNFα therapy at recruitment or during follow-up. Prior to commencement, information was collected on socio-economic, clinical and patient-reported factors. Outcome was assessed according to ASAS20, ASAS40, ASDAS reduction and achieving a moderate/inactive ASDAS disease state. RESULTS: 335 participants commenced their first anti-TNFα therapy and were followed up at a median of 14 (inter-quartile range 12-17) weeks. Response varied between 33% and 52% according to criteria used. Adverse socio-economic factors, fewer years in education predicted lower likelihood of response across outcome measures as did not working full-time. Co-morbidities and poor mental health were clinical and patient-reported factors, respectively, associated with lack of response. The models, particularly those using ASDAS, were good at predicting those who did not respond (negative predictive value (NPV) 77%). CONCLUSION: Some factors predicting non-response (such as mental health) are modifiable but many (such as social/economic factors) are not modifiable in clinic. They do, however, identify patients who are unlikely to benefit from biologic therapy alone. Priority should focus on how these patients receive the benefits that many derive from such therapies.