The impact of a csDMARD in combination with a TNF inhibitor on drug retention and clinical remission in axial spondyloarthritis
Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie Médium print
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
35323903
DOI
10.1093/rheumatology/keac174
PII: 6551986
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- MTX, SSZ, TNF inhibitors, ankylosing, epidemiology, spondylitis,
- MeSH
- antirevmatika * terapeutické užití MeSH
- axiální spondyloartritida * MeSH
- inhibitory TNF terapeutické užití MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- spondylartritida * farmakoterapie MeSH
- TNF-alfa MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- Názvy látek
- antirevmatika * MeSH
- inhibitory TNF MeSH
- TNF-alfa MeSH
OBJECTIVES: Many axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) patients receive a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) in combination with a TNF inhibitor (TNFi). However, the value of this co-therapy remains unclear. The objectives were to describe the characteristics of axSpA patients initiating a first TNFi as monotherapy compared with co-therapy with csDMARD, to compare one-year TNFi retention and remission rates, and to explore the impact of peripheral arthritis. METHODS: Data was collected from 13 European registries. One-year outcomes included TNFi retention and hazard ratios (HR) for discontinuation with 95% CIs. Logistic regression was performed with adjusted odds ratios (OR) of achieving remission (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS)-CRP < 1.3 and/or BASDAI < 2) and stratified by treatment. Inter-registry heterogeneity was assessed using random-effect meta-analyses, combined results were presented when heterogeneity was not significant. Peripheral arthritis was defined as ≥1 swollen joint at baseline (=TNFi start). RESULTS: Amongst 24 171 axSpA patients, 32% received csDMARD co-therapy (range across countries: 13.5% to 71.2%). The co-therapy group had more baseline peripheral arthritis and higher CRP than the monotherapy group. One-year TNFi-retention rates (95% CI): 79% (78, 79%) for TNFi monotherapy vs 82% (81, 83%) with co-therapy (P < 0.001). Remission was obtained in 20% on monotherapy and 22% on co-therapy (P < 0.001); adjusted OR of 1.16 (1.07, 1.25). Remission rates at 12 months were similar in patients with/without peripheral arthritis. CONCLUSION: This large European study of axial SpA patients showed similar one-year treatment outcomes for TNFi monotherapy and csDMARD co-therapy, although considerable heterogeneity across countries limited the identification of certain subgroups (e.g. peripheral arthritis) that may benefit from co-therapy.
Center of Rheumatic Diseases University of Medicine and Pharmacy Bucharest Romania
Centre for Rheumatology Research University Hospital
Clinical Epidemiology Division Department of Medicine Solna Karolinska Institutet
Clinical Epidemiology Division Department of Medicine Solna Karolinska Institutet Stockholm
Department for Rheumatology and Immunology Inselspital University Hospital Bern Bern Switzerland
Department for Rheumatology University Hospital Reykjavik Iceland
Department of Clinical Medicine Aarhus University Aarhus Denmark
Department of Clinical Medicine University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark
Department of Rheumatology Aarhus University Hospital
Department of Rheumatology Amsterdam UMC location VUmc Amsterdam Netherlands
Department of Rheumatology Hospital Garcia de Orta Almada
Department of Rheumatology University Hospital Zurich University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland
Department of Rheumatology University Medical Centre Ljubljana
Department of Rheumatology University of Lisbon Lisbon Portugal
Division of Rheumatology and Research Diakonhjemmet Hospital Oslo
Division of Rheumatology and Research Diakonhjemmet Hospital Oslo Norway
Division of Rheumatology Department of Medicine Celal Bayar University Manisa Turkey
Division of Rheumatology Geneva University Hospital Geneva Switzerland
Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague
Faculty of Medicine University of Iceland Reykjavik Iceland
Faculty of Medicine University of Ljubljana Ljubljana Slovenia
Health Technology Assessment Agency of Carlos 3 Institute of Health Madrid Spain
Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses Ltd Brno Czech Republic
Rheumatology Inflammation Center Helsinki University Hospital Helsinki Finland
Rheumatology Service Hospital Clinico Universitario Santiago de Compostela Spain
Rheumatology Theme Inflammation and Ageing Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm Sweden
Rheumatology Unit DETO University of Bari Bari Italy
Sfanta Maria Hospital University of Medicine and Pharmacy Bucharest Romania
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org