ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of different concomitant disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on the persistence with antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodThis analysis included 10 396 patients with RA registered with the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register, a prospective observational cohort study, who were starting their first anti-TNF therapy and were receiving one of the following DMARD treatments at baseline: no DMARD (n=3339), methotrexate (MTX) (n=4418), leflunomide (LEF) (n=610), sulfasalazine (SSZ) (n=308), MTX+SSZ (n=902), MTX+ hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) (n=401) or MTX+SSZ+HCQ (n=418). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to study the persistence with anti-TNF therapy in each DMARD subgroup up to 5 years. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by anti-TNF used and start year and adjusted for a number of potential confounders, were used to compare treatment persistence overall and according to the reason for discontinuation between each of the DMARD subgroups, using MTX as reference.ResultsOne-year drug survival (95% CI) for the first anti-TNF therapy was 71% (71% to 72%) but this dropped to 42% (41% to 43%) at 5 years. Compared with MTX, patients receiving no DMARD, LEF or SSZ were more likely to discontinue their first anti-TNF therapy while patients receiving MTX in combination with other DMARDs showed better treatment persistence.ConclusionsThese results support the continued use of background DMARD combinations which include MTX. Consideration should be given to the discontinuation of LEF and SSZ monotherapy at the time anti-TNF therapies are started, with the possible exception of the SSZ+ETN combination.

Psoriasis phenotype and potentially modifiable factors are associated with poor outcomes with biologics, underscoring the need for lifestyle management. Effect sizes suggest that these factors alone cannot inform treatment selection.

ABSTRACT. Objective. To assess the effectiveness of rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in routine clinical practice, and to identify predictors of 6-month response to RTX in patients for whom at least 1 anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF) therapy has failed. Method. The analysis involved 646 patients with RA registered with the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR) who were starting RTX and were followed for at least 6 months. Change in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, and proportions of patients achieving disease remission were used to assess the clinical response 6 months after starting RTX. Regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with the response in the patients for whom anti-TNF therapy had not worked. The models included baseline demographics, disease characteristics, baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and drug history including biologic history.Results. The mean DAS28 at baseline was 6.2 (95% CI 6.1, 6.3), which decreased significantly to 4.8 (95% CI 4.7, 4.9) at the 6-month followup. Seventeen percent of the patients were EULAR good responders and 43% were moderate responders. Eight percent of the patients achieved disease remission. Subjects with higher baseline DAS28 score and those with positive rheumatoid factor (RF) status were significantly associated with a decrease in their DAS28 score (improvement), while women and patients with higher baseline HAQ score were less likely to improve. Conclusion. RTX has proven to be effective in routine clinical practice. When anti-TNF therapy fails, response to RTX was influenced by baseline DAS28 score, RF status, baseline HAQ score, and sex.

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of rituximab (RTX) or a second anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who had failed their first anti-TNF and switched to either RTX or a second anti-TNF, in routine clinical practice.MethodsRA patients were registered with the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Response to treatment 6 months after switching was assessed using European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and improvements in a Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score (0.22 unit or more). Regression analyses were used to compare EULAR response and improvement in HAQ score between the 2 groups, adjusting for propensity scores.ResultsIn total, 1,328 patients were included in the analysis of EULAR response, and 937 patients were included in the analysis of HAQ scores. Six months after switching, 54.8% of patients who switched to RTX were EULAR responders compared to 47.3% of those who switched to a second anti-TNF. A total of 38.4% of RTX patients achieved a clinically important improvement in HAQ score compared to 29.6% in anti-TNF patients. After adjustment using propensity scores, patients who switched to RTX were significantly more likely to achieve EULAR response (odds ratio [OR] 1.31; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.02, 1.69) compared to those who switched to an alternative anti-TNF. RTX patients were also significantly more likely to achieve improvements in HAQ score (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.07, 2.08).ConclusionThe results suggest that switching to RTX may be of more benefit than switching to an alternative anti-TNF therapy after failing the first anti-TNF therapy in RA patients.

No abstract