Patterns of biologic and targeted-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use in rheumatoid arthritis in Australia.

Ashley Fletcher, Marissa Lassere, Lyn March, Catherine Hill, Claire Barrett, Graeme Carroll, Rachelle Buchbinder
{"title":"Patterns of biologic and targeted-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use in rheumatoid arthritis in Australia.","authors":"Ashley Fletcher,&nbsp;Marissa Lassere,&nbsp;Lyn March,&nbsp;Catherine Hill,&nbsp;Claire Barrett,&nbsp;Graeme Carroll,&nbsp;Rachelle Buchbinder","doi":"10.1093/rheumatology/keac048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to describe treatment patterns in RA, including the frequency and reasons for switching or stopping biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The reasons for switching or stopping b/tsDMARDs were extracted from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) from 2003 to 2018 for RA participants. Switching patterns for each b/tsDMARD and time on first-, second- and third-line b/tsDMARDs were evaluated using Sankey diagrams and survival methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2839 participants were included in the analysis. The first-line b/tsDMARDs were etanercept (n = 1414), adalimumab (n = 1024), infliximab (n = 155), golimumab (n = 98), abatacept (n = 66), certolizumab (n = 38), tocilizumab (n = 21) and tofacitinib (n = 23). Of those starting first-, second- and third-line biologic therapy, 24.0%, 31.8% and 24.4% switched to another b/tsDMARD within 12 months, respectively. Inefficacy or adverse effects were the most common reasons for stopping therapy, irrespective of line of treatment. Compared with first-line etanercept, participants were more likely to stop adalimumab [Hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.29] and infliximab (HR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.46, 2.16). No differences were seen for other b/tsDMARDs. For second-line therapies compared with etanercept, the risk of stopping was lower for tocilizumab (HR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.70), rituximab (HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.85) and tofacitinib (HR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.57). Participants taking rituximab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib were also less likely to stop third-line therapy in comparison with participants taking etanercept.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Switching between b/tsDMARDs was common among ARAD participants with RA, most commonly due to inefficacy or adverse effects. Durability of exposure and reasons for switching varied between b/tsDMARDs.</p>","PeriodicalId":379078,"journal":{"name":"Rheumatology (Oxford, England)","volume":" ","pages":"3939-3951"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/52/72/keac048.PMC9536792.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rheumatology (Oxford, England)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keac048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe treatment patterns in RA, including the frequency and reasons for switching or stopping biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs).

Methods: The reasons for switching or stopping b/tsDMARDs were extracted from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) from 2003 to 2018 for RA participants. Switching patterns for each b/tsDMARD and time on first-, second- and third-line b/tsDMARDs were evaluated using Sankey diagrams and survival methods.

Results: A total of 2839 participants were included in the analysis. The first-line b/tsDMARDs were etanercept (n = 1414), adalimumab (n = 1024), infliximab (n = 155), golimumab (n = 98), abatacept (n = 66), certolizumab (n = 38), tocilizumab (n = 21) and tofacitinib (n = 23). Of those starting first-, second- and third-line biologic therapy, 24.0%, 31.8% and 24.4% switched to another b/tsDMARD within 12 months, respectively. Inefficacy or adverse effects were the most common reasons for stopping therapy, irrespective of line of treatment. Compared with first-line etanercept, participants were more likely to stop adalimumab [Hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.29] and infliximab (HR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.46, 2.16). No differences were seen for other b/tsDMARDs. For second-line therapies compared with etanercept, the risk of stopping was lower for tocilizumab (HR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.70), rituximab (HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.85) and tofacitinib (HR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.57). Participants taking rituximab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib were also less likely to stop third-line therapy in comparison with participants taking etanercept.

Conclusions: Switching between b/tsDMARDs was common among ARAD participants with RA, most commonly due to inefficacy or adverse effects. Durability of exposure and reasons for switching varied between b/tsDMARDs.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

澳大利亚类风湿关节炎患者使用生物和靶向合成抗风湿药物的模式
目的:本研究的目的是描述类风湿性关节炎的治疗模式,包括切换或停止生物和靶向合成DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs)的频率和原因。方法:从2003年至2018年澳大利亚风湿病协会数据库(ARAD)中提取RA参与者切换或停用b/tsDMARDs的原因。使用Sankey图和生存法评估每个b/tsDMARD的切换模式和第一、第二和第三线b/tsDMARD的时间。结果:共有2839名参与者被纳入分析。一线b/ tsdmard为依那西普(n = 1414)、阿达木单抗(n = 1024)、英夫利昔单抗(n = 155)、戈利单抗(n = 98)、阿巴接受普(n = 66)、certolizumab (n = 38)、tocilizumab (n = 21)和tofacitinib (n = 23)。在开始一线、二线和三线生物治疗的患者中,分别有24.0%、31.8%和24.4%在12个月内改用另一种b/tsDMARD。无效或不良反应是停止治疗的最常见原因,无论何种治疗方式。与一线依那西普相比,受试者更有可能停用阿达木单抗[风险比(HR) 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.29]和英夫利昔单抗(HR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.46, 2.16)。其他b/tsDMARDs未见差异。对于二线治疗,与依那西普相比,托珠单抗(HR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.70)、利妥昔单抗(HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.85)和托法替尼(HR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.57)的停药风险较低。与服用依那西普的患者相比,服用利妥昔单抗、托珠单抗和托法替尼的患者停止三线治疗的可能性也更小。结论:在患有RA的ARAD参与者中,b/ tsdmard之间的切换很常见,最常见的原因是无效或不良反应。暴露的持久性和切换的原因在b/ tsdmard之间有所不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书