Differential drug retention between anti-TNF agents and alternative biological agents after inadequate response to an anti-TNF agent in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

BACKGROUND: After inadequate response to an antitumour necrosis factor (aTNF) agent for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), rheumatologists can choose an alternative aTNF or a biological agent with another mode of action (non-aTNF biological (non-aTNF-Bio)). OBJECTIVE: To compare drug retention rates of non-aTNF-Bio with alternative aTNF. METHODS: All patients within the Swiss RA cohort (SCQM-RA) treated with an alternative biotherapy after a prior inadequate response to aTNF were analysed. The drug retention of alternative aTNF was compared with non-aTNF-Bio using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: 1485 treatment courses after aTNF failure were available for analysis, 853 with alternative aTNF and 632 with non-aTNF-Bio. The median drug retention was 32 months (IQR 14-54) on non-aTNF-Bio versus 21 months (IQR 8-53) on alternative aTNF, or a 50% reduction drug discontinuation risk in favour of non-aTNF-Bio (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for non-aTNF-Bio: 0.50 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.62)). This effect appears to be modified by the type of prior aTNF failure, with a larger difference in favour of non-aTNF-Bio in patients having experienced a primary failure with a previous aTNF (HR: 0.33 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.47), p<0.001). CONCLUSION: After inadequate response to aTNF, and particularly after primary failure, patients on a non-aTNF-Bio agent have significantly higher drug retention rates.

Comparison of drug retention rates and causes of drug discontinuation between anti-tumor necrosis factor agents in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), yet drug discontinuation is common. The aim of this study was to compare treatment retention rates and specific causes of anti-TNF discontinuation in a population-based RA cohort. METHODS: All patients treated with etanercept, infliximab, or adalimumab within the Swiss Clinical Quality Management RA cohort between 1997 and 2006 were included in the study. Causes of treatment discontinuation were broadly categorized as adverse events (AEs) or nontoxic causes, and further subdivided into specific categories. Specific causes of treatment interruption were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model and adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 2,364 anti-TNF treatment courses met the inclusion criteria. Treatment discontinuation was reported 803 times: 309 with etanercept, 249 with infliximab, and 245 with adalimumab. Drug inefficacy represented the largest single cause of treatment discontinuation (55.8% of cases). The median time of receiving anti-TNF therapy was 37 months, but discontinuation rates differed between the 3 anti-TNF agents (P < 0.001), with shorter retention rates for infliximab (hazard ratio [HR] 1.24, 99% confidence interval [99% CI] 1.01-1.51). The specific causes of treatment discontinuation revealed an increased risk of AEs with infliximab (HR 1.4, 99% CI 1.003-1.96), mostly due to an increased risk of infusion or allergic reactions (HR 2.11, 99% CI 1.23-3.62). Other discontinuation causes were equally distributed between the anti-TNF agents. CONCLUSION: In this population, infliximab was associated with higher overall discontinuation rates compared with etanercept and adalimumab, which is mainly due to an increased risk of infusion or allergic reactions.

A systematic review of infliximab in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Several health authorities have recently revised the indication of infliximab (IFX) to include the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this systematic review of the literature was to appraise the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of early therapy with IFX. METHODS: We identified published clinical trials from 1966 to May 2006. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in RA with disease duration of less than 3 years comparing the treatment of methotrexate-IFX (MTX-IFX) with methotrexate-placebo (MTX-placebo). RESULTS: A total of 8 studies met inclusion criteria. Three studies reported redundant data regarding the vdH Sharp Score. Out of the 5 remaining studies, 4 analyzed structural joint destruction (vdH Sharp Score) and demonstrated a significant reduction in radiographic damage progression in favor of the combination of MTX-IFX compared with MTX-placebo (-4.1 vdH Sharp Score units (95% CI: 3.5; 4.6). Three studies also displayed a benefit of MTX-IFX on functional outcomes of RA (HAQ score) and disease activity measures (DAS, ACR response criteria), although less markedly. CONCLUSIONS: Although data might be skewed because of only 2 existing large studies with concordant data, results from RCTs demonstrate improved efficacy of the combination MTX-IFX compared with MTX-placebo in early RA. However, many early RA patients probably do not require the addition of IFX to achieve a satisfying clinical and radiological course. So far, no evidence has established the superiority of MTX-IFX over MTX-prednisone or other combinations of traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic agents.