OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical response after switching to another TNFalpha antagonist in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and provide a review of the literature on this topic. METHODS: In this ongoing, longitudinal, observational study we have prospectively collected data of patients starting biological treatments since 2000. The present analysis is restricted to RA patients who switched to another anti-TNFalpha due to lack of efficacy (LaE), loss of efficacy (LoE), or adverse events (AEs) by the end of December 2007. Disease activity score (ESR-based DAS28) was calculated and the clinical response (none, moderate, good) was evaluated according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria. Clinical remission (DAS28 <2.6) and low disease activity (DAS28 </=3.2) were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 692 anti-TNFalpha-naïve patients has been registered, of whom 395 with a diagnosis of RA. Thirtyseven RA patients switched to another TNFalpha antagonist. Three months after switching, the proportion of patients with remission, low disease activity, good and moderate/good EULAR responses grew from 0%, 2.7%, 0%, and 5.4% (baseline before switching) to 16.2%, 35.1%, 27%, and 62.2% (p<0.05, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.000001, respectively). Of the patients who switched because of LaE, LoE, and AEs a moderate/good EULAR response was achieved in 38.4%, 66.6%, and 88.8% of patients, respectively. Mean treatment duration with the second anti-TNFalpha was significantly longer in patients switching for LoE and AEs than in those switching for LaE (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that RA patients may be successfully treated with another TNFalpha antagonist, especially those withdrawing for LoE or AEs.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical response after switching to another TNFalpha antagonist in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and provide a review of the literature on this topic. METHODS: In this ongoing, longitudinal, observational study we have prospectively collected data of patients starting biological treatments since 2000. The present analysis is restricted to RApatients who switched to another anti-TNFalpha due to lack of efficacy (LaE), loss of efficacy (LoE), or adverse events (AEs) by the end of December 2007. Disease activity score (ESR-based DAS28) was calculated and the clinical response (none, moderate, good) was evaluated according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria. Clinical remission (DAS28 <2.6) and low disease activity (DAS28 </=3.2) were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 692 anti-TNFalpha-naïve patients has been registered, of whom 395 with a diagnosis of RA. Thirtyseven RApatients switched to another TNFalpha antagonist. Three months after switching, the proportion of patients with remission, low disease activity, good and moderate/good EULAR responses grew from 0%, 2.7%, 0%, and 5.4% (baseline before switching) to 16.2%, 35.1%, 27%, and 62.2% (p<0.05, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.000001, respectively). Of the patients who switched because of LaE, LoE, and AEs a moderate/good EULAR response was achieved in 38.4%, 66.6%, and 88.8% of patients, respectively. Mean treatment duration with the second anti-TNFalpha was significantly longer in patients switching for LoE and AEs than in those switching for LaE (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that RApatients may be successfully treated with another TNFalpha antagonist, especially those withdrawing for LoE or AEs.
Authors: Marisa Iborra; Javier Pérez-Gisbert; Marta Maia Bosca-Watts; Alicia López-García; Valle García-Sánchez; Antonio López-Sanromán; Esther Hinojosa; Lucía Márquez; Santiago García-López; María Chaparro; Montserrat Aceituno; Margalida Calafat; Jordi Guardiola; Blanca Belloc; Yolanda Ber; Luis Bujanda; Belén Beltrán; Cristina Rodríguez-Gutiérrez; Jesús Barrio; José Luis Cabriada; Montserrat Rivero; Raquel Camargo; Manuel van Domselaar; Albert Villoria; Hugo Salata Schuterman; David Hervás; Pilar Nos Journal: J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 7.527
Authors: Regina Rendas-Baum; Gene V Wallenstein; Tamas Koncz; Mark Kosinski; Min Yang; John Bradley; Samuel H Zwillich Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2011-02-16 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Grant W Cannon; Scott L DuVall; Candace L Haroldsen; Liron Caplan; Jeffrey R Curtis; Kaleb Michaud; Ted R Mikuls; Andreas Reimold; David H Collier; George J Joseph; David J Harrison; Brian C Sauer Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Laura Ramos-Petersen; Christopher James Nester; Andres Reinoso-Cobo; Pilar Nieto-Gil; Ana Belen Ortega-Avila; Gabriel Gijon-Nogueron Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 2.430
Authors: Josef S Smolen; Jonathan Kay; Eric L Matteson; Robert Landewé; Elizabeth C Hsia; Stephen Xu; Yiying Zhou; Mittie K Doyle Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Remo Panaccione; William J Sandborn; Geert D'Haens; Douglas C Wolf; Sofie Berg; Jen-Fue Maa; Joel Petersson; Anne M Robinson Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 9.071
Authors: Vibeke Strand; Michael Schiff; Namita Tundia; Alan Friedman; Sebastian Meerwein; Aileen Pangan; Arijit Ganguli; Mahesh Fuldeore; Yan Song; Janet Pope Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 5.156