RESUMEN
In Germany, Tocilizumab (TCZ) is used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis both in biologic-naïve patients and those with previous failures of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). The long-term effectiveness and retention rates of TCZ in patients with different numbers of prior bDMARD failures has rarely been investigated. We included 885 RA patients in the analyses, enrolled with the start of TCZ between 2009 and 2015 in the German biologics register RABBIT. Patients were stratified according to prior bDMARD failures: no prior bDMARD or 1, 2 or ≥ 3 bDMARD failures. We applied Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox-regression to examine treatment adherence as well as linear mixed effects models to investigate effectiveness over 3 years of follow-up. Compared to biologic-naïve patients, those with prior bDMARD failures at start of TCZ were younger but had significantly longer disease duration and more comorbidities. DAS28 at baseline and loss of physical function were highest in patients with ≥ 3 bDMARD failures. During follow-up, patients with up to two bDMARD failures on average reached low disease activity (LDA, DAS28 < 3.2). Those with ≥ 3 prior bDMARDs had a slightly lower response. However, after 3 years, nearly 50% of them achieved LDA. Treatment continuation on TCZ therapy was similar in patients with ≤ 2 bDMARD failures but significantly lower in those with ≥ 3 bDMARD failures. TCZ seems to be similarly effective in patients with no, one or two prior bDMARD failures. The majority of patients achieved LDA already after 6 months and maintained it over a period of 3 years. TCZ proved effective even in the high-risk group of patients with more than two prior bDMARD failures.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/administración & dosificación , Artritis Reumatoide/tratamiento farmacológico , Productos Biológicos/administración & dosificación , Sustitución de Medicamentos , Adulto , Anciano , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/efectos adversos , Artritis Reumatoide/diagnóstico , Artritis Reumatoide/inmunología , Productos Biológicos/efectos adversos , Comorbilidad , Esquema de Medicación , Femenino , Alemania , Humanos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Sistema de Registros , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Insuficiencia del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare the approved treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using rituximab + methotrexate (RTX + MTX) versus the off-label treatment variants of RTX in monotherapy or RTX in combination with leflunomide (RTX + LEF). METHODS: We included RTX-naive patients enrolled in the German biologics register RABBIT (Rheumatoid Arthritis: Observation of Biologic Therapy) between 2007 and 2012 (n = 907) who started treatment with RTX. Three treatment regimens (RTX + MTX, RTX + LEF, and RTX monotherapy) were analyzed regarding therapy discontinuation, dropout, RTX retreatment, and concomitant glucocorticoid therapy. Effectiveness was evaluated with linear mixed models. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were similar across treatment regimens, except for poorer functional status and more comorbidities in RTX monotherapy. Average doses of glucocorticoids were lower in RTX + LEF compared to the 2 other groups. The frequency and timing of RTX retreatment (P > 0.62) as well as improvement in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) over time (P > 0.15) were similar in all treatment regimens. Within the first 12 months of treatment, the DAS28 decreased by 1.5 units, and between months 12 and 36, by a further 0.4 unit equally in all groups. Nevertheless, therapy discontinuation and dropout were significantly increased on RTX monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.7 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.2-2.3]), and additionally when patients were rheumatoid factor negative (HR 1.5 [95% CI 1.0-2.1]). CONCLUSION: In patients who continue therapy, RTX + LEF, RTX monotherapy, and RTX + MTX seem to be equally effective. However, given the lower adherence rates on monotherapy, this treatment option is not sufficient for all patients. Since many patients are intolerant to MTX, more licensed RTX treatment options are needed.