Real-world effectiveness of anti-TNF switching in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review of the literature.

Anti-tumor necrosis factors (Anti-TNFs) are a class of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs indicated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Refractory patients are commonly managed by switching from one anti-TNF to another. To assess the evidence on the effectiveness of anti-TNF cycling in PsA patients, a systematic review of the literature was conducted. MEDLINE- and Embase-indexed English-language publications were systematically searched from 1995 to 2015 for studies assessing real-world effectiveness outcomes of anti-TNF cycling in PsA patients. Of 1086 citations identified, 18 studies were included; most conducted in Europe. Six of seven studies testing between lines found significant differences in effectiveness between earlier and subsequent lines of anti-TNF therapy. First-line therapy yielded better results compared with second-line therapy, and significant differences were observed between second- and third-line anti-TNF treatments. In the only study with multivariate regression testing for predictors of response, Danish registry patients were less likely to respond (American College of Rheumatology 20 % or 50 % response) to a second anti-TNF course if safety, rather than lack of effect, caused them to switch (odds ratio [OR] 0.04; p = 0.003 and OR 0.05; p = 0.03, respectively). Effectiveness of anti-TNFs at second line and later is reported in a small number of real-world studies of PsA patients. Subsequent treatment lines may be associated with less response in some measures. More research is needed to quantify the effectiveness of sequential anti-TNF lines in this progressive population' and to compare these effects with responses to drugs with different mechanisms of action.

Characteristics and temporal trends in patient registries: focus on the life sciences industry, 1981-2012.

PURPOSE: Patient registries are used to monitor safety, examine real-world effectiveness, and may potentially contribute to comparative effectiveness research. To our knowledge, life sciences industry (LSI)-sponsored registries have not been systematically categorized. This study represents a first step toward understanding such registries over time. METHODS: Studies described as registries were identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Characteristics from these registry records were abstracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Of 1202 registries identified, approximately 47% reported LSI sponsorship. These 562 LSI registries varied in focus: medical devices (n = 193, 34%), specific drugs (n = 173, 31%), procedures (n = 29, 5%), or particular diseases (n = 139, 25%). Thirty-three registries (<6%) evaluated pregnancy outcomes. The most common therapeutic area was cardiovascular (n = 234, 42%); others included endocrinology, immunology, oncology, musculoskeletal disorders, and neurology. The two most often measured outcomes were clinical effectiveness and safety, each of which appeared in 363/562 (65%) of LSI registries. Other outcomes included real-world clinical practice patterns (n = 122, 22%), patient-reported outcomes (n = 106, 19%), disease epidemiology/natural history (n = 69, 12%), and economic outcomes (n = 30, 5%). The number of LSI registries and their geographic diversity has increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: The LSI registries represent a substantial proportion of all patient registries documented in ClinicalTrials.gov. These prospective studies are growing in number and encompass diverse therapeutic areas and geographic regions. Most registries measure multiple outcomes and capture real-world data that may be unavailable through other study designs. This classification of LSI registries documents their use for studying heterogeneity of diseases, examining treatment patterns, measuring patient-reported outcomes, examining economic outcomes, and performing comparative effectiveness research.