4.7 Article

Comparative effectiveness of first-line tumour necrosis factor inhibitor versus non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor biologics and targeted synthetic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a large US registry study

Journal

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Volume 80, Issue 1, Pages 96-102

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217209

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Sanofi
  2. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found no significant differences in outcomes between TNFi and non-TNFi treatment groups for rheumatoid arthritis patients in US clinical practice. This supports RA guidelines that recommend individualized care based on clinical judgment and patient preferences.
Objectives This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus a non-TNFi (biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs)) as the first-line treatment following conventional synthetic DMARDs, as well as potential modifiers of response, observed in US clinical practice. Methods Data were from a large US healthcare registry (Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry). The analysis included patients (aged >= 18 years) with a documented diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a valid baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of >2.8 and no prior bDMARD or tsDMARD use. Outcomes were captured at 1-year postinitiation of a TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, golimumab or infliximab) or a non-TNFi (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab, anakinra or tofacitinib) and included CDAI, 28-Joint Modified Disease Activity Score, patient-reported outcomes (including the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, EuroQol-5 Dimension score, sleep, anxiety, morning stiffness and fatigue) and rates of anaemia. Groups were propensity score-matched at baseline to account for potential confounding. Results There were no statistically significant differences observed between the TNFi and non-TNFi treatment groups for outcomes assessed, except the incidence rate ratio for anaemia, which slightly favoured the TNFi group (19.04 per 100 person-years) versus the non-TNFi group (24.01 per 100 person-years, p=0.03). No potential effect modifiers were found to be statistically significant. Conclusions The findings of no significant differences in outcomes between first-line TNF versus first-line non-TNF groups support RA guidelines, which recommend individualised care based on clinical judgement and consideration of patient preferences.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available