Comparative effectiveness of first-line tumour necrosis factor inhibitor versus non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor biologics and targeted synthetic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a large US registry study
Dimitrios A. Pappas, Gregory St John, Carol J. Etzel, Stefano Fiore, Taylor Blachley, Toshio Kimura, Rajeshwari Punekar, Kelechi Emeanuru, Jeannie Choi, Susan Boklage, Joel M. Kremer
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus a non-TNFi (biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs)) as the first-line treatment following conventional synthetic DMARDs, as well as potential modifiers of response, observed in US clinical practice. METHODS: Data were from a large US healthcare registry (Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry). The analysis included patients (aged ≥18 years) with a documented diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a valid baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of >2.8 and no prior bDMARD or tsDMARD use. Outcomes were captured at 1-year postinitiation of a TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, golimumab or infliximab) or a non-TNFi (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab, anakinra or tofacitinib) and included CDAI, 28-Joint Modified Disease Activity Score, patient-reported outcomes (including the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, EuroQol-5 Dimension score, sleep, anxiety, morning stiffness and fatigue) and rates of anaemia. Groups were propensity score-matched at baseline to account for potential confounding. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences observed between the TNFi and non-TNFi treatment groups for outcomes assessed, except the incidence rate ratio for anaemia, which slightly favoured the TNFi group (19.04 per 100 person-years) versus the non-TNFi group (24.01 per 100 person-years, p=0.03). No potential effect modifiers were found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of no significant differences in outcomes between first-line TNF versus first-line non-TNF groups support RA guidelines, which recommend individualised care based on clinical judgement and consideration of patient preferences.