No es el mismo pero ¿es igual? Cycling de agentes biológicos en artritis reumatoide. Experiencia en el Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social / Not the same, but is it the same? Cycling of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Experience in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Introducción: Los datos disponibles para los biocomparables comercializados actualmente no son concluyentes con respecto al potencial impacto del cambio por razones no médicas sobre la eficacia, la seguridad y la inmunogenicidad en los pacientes. En el futuro se expandirán las opciones de tratamiento biológico, biocomparable, no bio-comparables y otros de síntesis química, por lo que es importante conocer cómo se comporta la persistencia al tratamiento tras un cambio por razón no médica, que ya ocurre como un hecho habitual en los servicios médicos de seguridad social en México, ya que esto nos ayudará a entender los mejores estándares de tratamiento para pacientes con enfermedades inmunomediadas crónicas. Objetivos: El objetivo primario fue evaluar el impacto del cambio por razón no médica en pacientes con artritis reumatoide (AR) estables tratados con biológico innovador sobre la persistencia en el tratamiento, después de cambiar a un biocomparable o a un no biocomparable, en relación con los pacientes que continúan con el biológico innovador. Diseño del estudio: Estudio observacional (no intervencionista) de cohortes emparejado donde se comparó una cohorte histórica obtenida por la revisión de historias médicas de pacientes estables que no fueron cambiados de tratamiento por al menos 6meses, con dos cohortes de pacientes que fueron cambiados de tratamiento por razones no médicas a otro fármaco con la misma diana terapéutica (cycling). Resultados: Se incluyeron 264 pacientes con diagnóstico de AR (ACR/EULAR, 2010): 132 pacientes que fueron cambiados de tratamiento por razones no médicas por un fármaco de mecanismo similar de acción y 132 pacientes que no fueron cambiados de tratamiento. De los 264 pacientes participantes en el estudio, 230 pacientes (87,1%) corresponden al sexo femenino. El promedio de edad fue de 53,9años, la edad mínima 16años y la máxima 84 años. (AU)

Introduction: Available data for biocomparable drugs are not enough to make clear decisions with respect to the potential consequences of a change for non-medical reasons in efficacy, security and inmunogenicity in patients. In the near future, options on biological treatments, biocomparable drugs, non biocomparable drugs and new chemical synthesis options will grow. Therefore, it is important to know how patients behave in persistence of treatment after a change for non-medical reasons, which already happens on a regular basis in social security institutions in Mexico. This information will help us to better understand the standard of treatment for patients with chronic immunomediated conditions. Objective: The primary objective was to measure the impact of change for non-medical reasons in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with an innovative biological on persistence of treatment after changing to a biocomparable drug or a non-biocomparable drug, compared with those patients staying with the innovative biological. Study design: This is an observational study (non-interventionist) of paired cohorts, where an historic cohort obtained by review of clinical records of stable patients in which no modifications to treatment were made for at least six months is compared with two cohorts of patients whose treatments were switched to another treatment with the same therapeutic mechanism for-non-medical reasons (cycling). Results: We included 264 RA patients (ACR/EULAR, 2010); 132 were switched for non-medical reasons, and 132 were not switched. Two-hundred and thirty (87.1%) were female. Average age was 53.9years, ranging from 16 to 84years. Two-hundred and sixty-three patients were Latino (99.6%); one was Caucasian.(AU)

Not the same, but is it the same? Cycling of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Experience in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social.

INTRODUCTION: Available data for biocomparable drugs are not enough to make clear decisions with respect to the potential consequences of a change for non-medical reasons in efficacy, security and inmunogenicity in patients. In the near future, options on biological treatments, biocomparable drugs, non biocomparable drugs and new chemical synthesis options will grow. Therefore, it is important to know how patients behave in persistence of treatment after a change for non- medical reasons, which already happens on a regular basis in social security institutions in Mexico. This information will help us to better understand the standard of treatment for patients with chronic immunomediated conditions. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to measure the impact of change for non-medical reasons in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with an innovative biological on persistence of treatment after changing to a biocomparable drug or a non-biocomparable drug, compared with those patients staying with the innovative biological. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational study (non-interventionist) of paired cohorts, where an historic cohort obtained by review of clinical records of stable patients in which no modifications to treatment were made for at least six months is compared with two cohorts of patients whose treatments were switched to another treatment with the same therapeutic mechanism for-non-medical reasons (cycling). RESULTS: We included 264 RA patients (ACR/EULAR, 2010); 132 were switched for non-medical reasons, and 132 were not switched. Two-hundred and thirty (87.1%) were female. Average age was 53.9 years, ranging from 16 to 84 years. Two-hundred and sixty-three patients were Latino (99.6%); one was Caucasian. Persistence of treatment 12 months after the change was 84.8% (85.8% in Enbrel/Infinitam, 78.9% for Remicade/Remsima). No statistical difference was found with respect to RA clinical activity measured by DAS28 12 months after the switch (P > .05). In the 134 switched patients, 20 discontinued the new treatment due to lack of efficacy of the new drug and were changed to a different drug with a different biologic target. Although no differences were found in the cohorts of switched patients with respect to DAS 28 after 12 months of use, we did find differences in the frequency of adverse events. Forty-two patients had an adverse event in the drug switch cohorts: 33 in the Enbrel-Infinitam group and 9 in the Remicade-Remsima group. CONCLUSIONS: The persistence of treatment after switching from an innovative drug to a biocomparable or a non- biocomparable in RA patients did not show statistically significative differences in our cohorts, but we did find a higher number of adverse events when comparing those who were changed with those who continued on an innovative drug. Twenty patients in the switch groups had to receive a new drug with a different biological target due to lack of efficacy of the switched drug.

Not the same, but ¿is it the same? Cycling of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Experience in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. / No es el mismo pero ¿es igual? Cycling de agentes biológicos en artritis reumatoide. Experiencia en el Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social.

INTRODUCTION: Available data for biocomparable drugs are not enough to make clear decisions with respect to the potential consequences of a change for non-medical reasons in efficacy, security and inmunogenicity in patients. In the near future, options on biological treatments, biocomparable drugs, non biocomparable drugs and new chemical synthesis options will grow. Therefore, it is important to know how patients behave in persistence of treatment after a change for non-medical reasons, which already happens on a regular basis in social security institutions in Mexico. This information will help us to better understand the standard of treatment for patients with chronic immunomediated conditions. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to measure the impact of change for non-medical reasons in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with an innovative biological on persistence of treatment after changing to a biocomparable drug or a non-biocomparable drug, compared with those patients staying with the innovative biological. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational study (non-interventionist) of paired cohorts, where an historic cohort obtained by review of clinical records of stable patients in which no modifications to treatment were made for at least six months is compared with two cohorts of patients whose treatments were switched to another treatment with the same therapeutic mechanism for-non-medical reasons (cycling). RESULTS: We included 264 RA patients (ACR/EULAR, 2010); 132 were switched for non-medical reasons, and 132 were not switched. Two-hundred and thirty (87.1%) were female. Average age was 53.9years, ranging from 16 to 84years. Two-hundred and sixty-three patients were Latino (99.6%); one was Caucasian. Persistence of treatment 12months after the change was 84.8% (85.8% in Enbrel/Infinitam, 78.9% for Remicade/Remsima). No statistical difference was found with respect to RA clinical activity measured by DAS28 12months after the switch (P>.05). In the 134 switched patients, 20 discontinued the new treatment due to lack of efficacy of the new drug and were changed to a different drug with a different biologic target. Although no differences were found in the cohorts of switched patients with respect to DAS28 after 12months of use, we did find differences in the frequency of adverse events. Forty-two patients had an adverse event in the drug switch cohorts: 33 in the Enbrel-Infinitam group and 9 in the Remicade-Remsima group. CONCLUSIONS: The persistence of treatment after switching from an innovative drug to a biocomparable or a non-biocomparable in RA patients did not show statistically significative differences in our cohorts, but we did find a higher number of adverse events when comparing those who were changed with those who continued on an innovative drug. Twenty patients in the switch groups had to receive a new drug with a different biological target due to lack of efficacy of the switched drug.

Loss of expression of DNA mismatch repair proteins in aberrant crypt foci identified in vivo by magnifying colonoscopy in subjects with hereditary nonpolyposic and sporadic colon rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study are to characterize the frequency, density, and distribution of aberrant crypt foci (ACF) and its histological features and to determine the frequency of loss of expression of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) proteins of subjects with hereditary nonpolyposic colorectal cancer (HNPCC) and sporadic colon rectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Patients with HNPCC, first-degree relatives of subjects with HNPCC, sporadic CRC, and average risk subjects of sporadic CRC were included prospectively. Total colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy using methylene blue 0.5% and magnification in the right colon (cecum and 20 cm of the ascending colon) and in the left colon (rectum) was performed; loss of expression of MLH1 and MSH2 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry in confirmed ACF. RESULTS: Fifty-two subjects were included. Thirty-eight of the 119 ACF detected by endoscopy were biopsied. In 14 of the 38 specimens (36.8%), ACF were confirmed by histology (Cohen's kappa, 0.44). In subjects with HNPCC, ACF were identified more frequently in the right segment of the colon than in the left (73.1% vs. 26%); in contrast, ACF predominated in the left segment of the colon (89.3% vs. 10.6%) in subjects with sporadic CRC. There was a loss of MLH1 expression in ACF in subjects with HNPCC. CONCLUSIONS: In HNPCC, we found a greater density of ACF in the right colon, and in sporadic CRC, greater density in the left. ACF present loss in the expression of DNA MMR protein and can be used as an early marker in patients with a risk of HNPCC in whom carcinogenesis appears to be accelerated.