TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative effectiveness and predictors of response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapies in rheumatoid arthritis
AU - Canhão, Helena
AU - Rodrigues, Ana Maria
AU - Mourão, Ana Filipa
AU - Martins, Fernando
AU - Santos, Maria José
AU - Canas-silva, José
AU - Polido-pereira, Joaquim
AU - Silva, José Alberto Pereira
AU - Costa, José António
AU - Araújo, Domingos
AU - Silva, Cândida
AU - Santos, Helena
AU - Duarte, Cátia
AU - Da silva, José Antonio Pereira
AU - Pimentel-santos, Fernando M.
AU - Branco, Jaime Cunha
AU - Karlson, Elizabeth W.
AU - Fonseca, João Eurico
AU - Solomon, Daniel H.
N1 - Funding Information:
positions on two Pfizer sponsored trials and has directed an educational course supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. He serves as an epidemiology consultant to CORRONA. J.A.P.S. has received honoraria as a speaker or consultant and benefited from research support from several pharmaceutical companies involved in the production of biologic agents (Abbott, Amgen, MSD, Pfizer and Roche), always at sums less than E10 000. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Funding Information:
Funding: This work was supported by a grant from Harvard-Portugal Program HMSP-ICS/SAU-ICT/0002/ 2010.
PY - 2012/11
Y1 - 2012/11
N2 - Objectives: Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab are effective TNF inhibitors (TNFis) in the treatment of RA, but no randomized clinical trials have compared the three agents. Prior observational data are not consistent. We compared their effectiveness over 1 year in a prospective cohort.Methods: Analyses were performed on subjects' first episode of TNFi use in the Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Register, Reuma.pt. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with European League Against Rheumatism good response sustained at two consecutive observations separated by 3 months during the first year of TNFi use. Comparisons were performed using conventional adjusted logistic regression, as well as matching subjects across the three agents using a propensity score. In addition, baseline predictors of treatment response to TNFi were identified.Results: The study cohort included 617 RA patients, 250 starting etanercept, 206 infliximab and 161 adalimumab. Good response was achieved by 59.6% for adalimumab, 59.2% for etanercept and 51.9% for infliximab (P = 0.21). The modelled probability of good response did not significantly differ across agents (etanercept vs adalimumab OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.55, 1.71; etanercept vs infliximab OR = 1.25, 95% CI 0.74, 2.12; infliximab vs adalimumab OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.47, 1.36). Matched propensity score analyses also showed no significant treatment response differences. Greater educational attainment was a predictor of better response, while smoking, presence of ACPA, glucocorticoid use and worse physician assessment of disease activity at baseline each predicted a reduced likelihood of treatment response.Conclusion: Over 1 year, we found no difference in effectiveness between adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab.
AB - Objectives: Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab are effective TNF inhibitors (TNFis) in the treatment of RA, but no randomized clinical trials have compared the three agents. Prior observational data are not consistent. We compared their effectiveness over 1 year in a prospective cohort.Methods: Analyses were performed on subjects' first episode of TNFi use in the Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Register, Reuma.pt. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with European League Against Rheumatism good response sustained at two consecutive observations separated by 3 months during the first year of TNFi use. Comparisons were performed using conventional adjusted logistic regression, as well as matching subjects across the three agents using a propensity score. In addition, baseline predictors of treatment response to TNFi were identified.Results: The study cohort included 617 RA patients, 250 starting etanercept, 206 infliximab and 161 adalimumab. Good response was achieved by 59.6% for adalimumab, 59.2% for etanercept and 51.9% for infliximab (P = 0.21). The modelled probability of good response did not significantly differ across agents (etanercept vs adalimumab OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.55, 1.71; etanercept vs infliximab OR = 1.25, 95% CI 0.74, 2.12; infliximab vs adalimumab OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.47, 1.36). Matched propensity score analyses also showed no significant treatment response differences. Greater educational attainment was a predictor of better response, while smoking, presence of ACPA, glucocorticoid use and worse physician assessment of disease activity at baseline each predicted a reduced likelihood of treatment response.Conclusion: Over 1 year, we found no difference in effectiveness between adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab.
KW - Comparative effectiveness
KW - RA
KW - Response predictors
KW - Reuma.pt register
KW - TNF inhibitors
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867809188&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/rheumatology/kes184
DO - 10.1093/rheumatology/kes184
M3 - Article
C2 - 22843791
AN - SCOPUS:84867809188
SN - 1462-0324
VL - 51
SP - 2020
EP - 2026
JO - Rheumatology (United Kingdom)
JF - Rheumatology (United Kingdom)
IS - 11
M1 - kes184
ER -