Skip Navigation



Rheumatology Advance Access published online on April 17, 2008

Rheumatology, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ken127
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
47/7/1000    most recent
ken127v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hyrich, K. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hyrich, K. L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2008 The Author(s) This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Effects of switching between anti-TNF therapies on HAQ response in patients who do not respond to their first anti-TNF drug

K. L. Hyrich, M. Lunt, W. G. Dixon, K. D. Watson, D. P. M. Symmons and on behalf of the BSR Biologics Register

Arthritis Research Campaign Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Correspondence to: K. L. Hyrich, Arthritis Research Campaign Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK. E-mail: kimme.hyrich{at}manchester.ac.uk


   Abstract

Objectives. Small studies have shown an improvement in disease activity in patients with RA who have switched between anti-TNF therapies for reasons of inefficacy. However, it is not clear whether switching improves longer term outcomes, such as disability. This analysis compares changes in HAQ scores 1 yr following lack of response to a first anti-TNF based on subsequent treatment during that year.

Methods. Analysis was limited to RA patients with inefficacy to a first anti-TNF based on (i) clinician opinion and/or (ii) disease activity score in 28 joints and had an HAQ measured at time of non-response and 12 months later. Patients were classified into three groups based on treatment during the next 12 months: (i) continued anti-TNF despite non-response; (ii) stopped anti-TNF with no further biologics; and (iii) switched to a second anti-TNF. Mean improvement in HAQ was compared among the groups using multivariable linear regression models.

Results. As of July 2006, 868 patients met the inclusion for this analysis. Four hundred and seventy-nine patients stopped anti-TNF of whom 331 switched to a second anti-TNF. Three hundred and eighty-nine continued treatment. Patients who continued and those who switched had improvements in HAQ over the 12 months, unlike patients who discontinued all biologic therapy. The best improvement was seen in those who switched [adjusted mean improvement in HAQ 0.15 (95% CI 0.26, 0.05)].

Conclusion. There is a significant improvement in HAQ in patients who switch to a second anti-TNF, providing an effective next choice of therapy for some patients who fail to respond to their first anti-TNF.

KEY WORDS: Rheumatoid arthritis, Anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy, Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, Disability, Treatment response, Switching

Submitted 31 December 2007; Accepted 25 February 2008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Immunol.Home page
C. Capini, M. Jaturanpinyo, H.-I Chang, S. Mutalik, A. McNally, S. Street, R. Steptoe, B. O'Sullivan, N. Davies, and R. Thomas
Antigen-Specific Suppression of Inflammatory Arthritis Using Liposomes
J. Immunol., March 15, 2009; 182(6): 3556 - 3565.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.