Advertisement

Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 1013–1022 | Cite as

Switching profiles in a population-based cohort of rheumatoid arthritis receiving biologic therapy: results from the KOBIO registry

  • Dong-Jin Park
  • Sung Jae Choi
  • Kichul Shin
  • Hyoun-Ah Kim
  • Yong-Beom Park
  • Seong Wook Kang
  • Seung-Ki Kwok
  • Seong-Kyu Kim
  • Eon Jeong Nam
  • Yoon-Kyoung Sung
  • Jaejoon Lee
  • Chang Hoon Lee
  • Chan Hong Jeon
  • Shin-Seok Lee
Original Article

Abstract

Despite improved quality of care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, many still experience treatment failure with a biologic agent and eventually switch to another biologic agent. We investigated patterns of biologic treatment and reasons for switching biologics in patients with RA. Patients with RA who had started on a biologic agent or had switched to another biologic agent were identified from the prospective observational Korean nationwide Biologics (KOBIO) registry. The KOBIO registry contained 1184 patients with RA at the time of initiation or switching of biologic agents. Patients were categorized according to the chronological order of the introduction of biologic agents, and reasons for switching biologics were also evaluated. Of the 1184 patients with RA, 801 started with their first biologic agent, 228 were first-time switchers, and 89 were second-time or more switchers. Second-time or more switchers had lower rheumatoid factor and anti-CCP positivity, and higher disease activity scores at the time of enrollment than the other groups. Among these patients, tocilizumab was the most commonly prescribed biologic agent, followed by adalimumab and etanercept. The most common reason for switching biologics was inefficacy, followed by adverse events, including infusion reactions, infections, and skin eruptions. Furthermore, the proportion of inefficacy, as a reason for switching, was significantly higher with respect to switching between biologics with different mechanisms of action than between biologics with similar mechanisms. In this registry, we showed diverse prescribing patterns and differing baseline profiles based on the chronological order of biologic agents.

Keywords

Biologic agents Registry Rheumatoid arthritis Switching 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the enthusiastic collaboration of all rheumatologists and their nurses in Korea in providing the data. In addition, the authors acknowledge support from the KCR board members and the members of the KCR Clinical Trials Committee for establishing the national registry. The authors also thank the patients and their families for their participation.

Compliance with ethical standards

This research complied with the Helsinki Declaration. Informed consent was obtained from all enrolled participants. The same informed consent form (ICF) and study protocol were provided to the independent institutional review boards/ethics committees (IRB/EC) at each medical center, and each IRB/EC reviewed the appropriateness of the protocol and risks and benefits to the study participants. Ultimately, the IRB/EC at each medical center independently approved this study without revision of the ICF or study protocol.

Disclosures

None.

Funding

This study was supported by a grant (CRI 16039–22) Chonnam National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute. The KCR commissioned the KOBIO as a Korea nationwide project to investigate the safety of biologic agents in routine medical practice. KCR receives restricted grant from Korean pharmaceutical companies, presently Abbvie, BMS, Celltrion, Janssen, JW Pharmaceutical, and Pfizer. The investigators and their team have full academic freedom and are able to work independently of pharmaceutical industry influence. All decisions concerning analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution.

References

  1. 1.
    Scott DL, Wolfe F, Huizinga TW (2010) Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 376:1094–1108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ et al (2010) 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 62:2569–2581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Helmick CG, Felson DT, Lawrence RC et al (2008) Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part I. Arthritis Rheum 58:15–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salaffi F, Carotti M, Gasparini S, Intorcia M, Grassi W (2009) The health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis: a comparison with a selected sample of healthy people. Health Qual Life Outcomes 7:25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL Jr et al (2016) 2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 68:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bae SC, Kim J, Choe JY et al (2017) A phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group trial comparing safety and efficacy of HD203, with innovator etanercept, in combination with methotrexate, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the HERA study. Ann Rheum Dis 76:65–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoo DH, Hrycaj P, Miranda P et al (2013) A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study to demonstrate equivalence in efficacy and safety of CT-P13 compared with innovator infliximab when coadministered with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: the PLANETRA study. Ann Rheum Dis 72:1613–1620CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nam JL, Ramiro S, Gaujoux-Viala C et al (2014) Efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2013 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 73:516–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Du Pan SM, Dehler S, Ciurea A et al (2009) Comparison of drug retention rates and causes of drug discontinuation between anti-tumor necrosis factor agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 61:560–568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomez-Reino JJ, Carmona L, Group B (2006) Switching TNF antagonists in patients with chronic arthritis: an observational study of 488 patients over a four-year period. Arthritis Res Ther 8:R29CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harrold LR, Reed GW, Kremer JM et al (2015) The comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus anti-tumour necrosis factor switching for rheumatoid arthritis patients previously treated with an anti-tumour necrosis factor. Ann Rheum Dis 74:430–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karlsson JA, Kristensen LE, Kapetanovic MC, Gulfe A, Saxne T, Geborek P (2008) Treatment response to a second or third TNF-inhibitor in RA: results from the South Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group Register. Rheumatology (Oxford) 47:507–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Navarro Coy NC, Brown S, Bosworth A et al (2014) The ‘Switch’ study protocol: a randomised-controlled trial of switching to an alternative tumour-necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitor drug or abatacept or rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed an initial TNF-inhibitor drug. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:452CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soderlin MK, Geborek P (2008) Changing pattern in the prescription of biological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. A 7-year follow-up of 1839 patients in southern Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis 67:37–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang J, Xie F, Delzell E et al (2013) Trends in the use of biologic agents among rheumatoid arthritis patients enrolled in the US medicare program. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 65:1743–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hyrich KL, Lunt M, Watson KD, Symmons DP, Silman AJ, British Society for Rheumatology Biologics R (2007) Outcomes after switching from one anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agent to a second anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a large UK national cohort study. Arthritis Rheum 56:13–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kang JH, Park DJ, Lee JW et al (2014) Drug survival rates of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. J Korean Med Sci 29:1205–1211CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spalding JR, Hay J (2006) Cost effectiveness of tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors as first-line agents in rheumatoid arthritis. PharmacoEconomics 24:1221–1232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA et al (1988) The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 31:315–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aletaha D, Smolen J (2005) The Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI): a review of their usefulness and validity in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 23:S100–S108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Somasinghe TN, Clarke B, Panthakalam S (2014) The Simplified Disease Activity Index (Sdai) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (Cdai) scores as alternatives to the current Das28 score. Ann Rheum Dis 73:902–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pincus T, Swearingen CJ, Bergman M, Yazici Y (2008) RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3), a rheumatoid arthritis index without formal joint counts for routine care: proposed severity categories compared to disease activity score and clinical disease activity index categories. J Rheumatol 35:2136–2147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Neovius M, Arkema EV, Olsson H et al (2015) Drug survival on TNF inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis comparison of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab. Ann Rheum Dis 74:354–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gerhold K, Richter A, Schneider M et al (2015) Health-related quality of life in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis in the era of biologics: data from the German biologics register RABBIT. Rheumatology (Oxford) 54:1858–1866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tubach F, Salmon-Ceron D, Ravaud P, Mariette X, Group RS (2005) The RATIO observatory: French registry of opportunistic infections, severe bacterial infections, and lymphomas complicating anti-TnFalpha therapy. Joint Bone Spine 72:456–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hetland ML, Christensen IJ, Tarp U et al (2010) Direct comparison of treatment responses, remission rates, and drug adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab: results from eight years of surveillance of clinical practice in the nationwide Danish DANBIO registry. Arthritis Rheum 62:22–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gomez-Reino JJ, Rodriguez-Lozano C, Campos-Fernandez C et al (2012) Change in the discontinuation pattern of tumour necrosis factor antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis over 10 years: data from the Spanish registry BIOBADASER 2.0. Ann Rheum Dis 71:382–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kalkan A, Roback K, Hallert E, Carlsson P (2014) Factors influencing rheumatologists’ prescription of biological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: an interview study. Implement Sci 9:153CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ogale S, Hitraya E, Henk HJ (2011) Patterns of biologic agent utilization among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:204CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Favalli EG, Biggioggero M, Marchesoni A, Meroni PL (2014) Survival on treatment with second-line biologic therapy: a cohort study comparing cycling and swap strategies. Rheumatology (Oxford) 53:1664–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Finckh A, Ciurea A, Brulhart L et al (2010) Which subgroup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis benefits from switching to rituximab versus alternative anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents after previous failure of an anti-TNF agent? Ann Rheum Dis 69:387–393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaufmann J, Feist E, Roske AE, Schmidt WA (2013) Monotherapy with tocilizumab or TNF-alpha inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: efficacy, treatment satisfaction, and persistence in routine clinical practice. Clin Rheumatol 32:1347–1355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gabay C, Emery P, van Vollenhoven R et al (2013) Tocilizumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (ADACTA): a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 4 trial. Lancet 381:1541–1550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Backhaus M, Kaufmann J, Richter C et al (2015) Comparison of tocilizumab and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective analysis of 1603 patients managed in routine clinical practice. Clin Rheumatol 34:673–681CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smolen JS, Landewe R, Breedveld FC et al (2014) EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update. Ann Rheum Dis 73:492–509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strand V, Williams S, Miller PSJ, Saunders K, Grant S, Kremer JM (2013) Discontinuation of biologic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (Ra): analysis from the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (Corrona) database. Ann Rheum Dis 72:71–72Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Potter C, Hyrich KL, Tracey A et al (2009) Association of rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide positivity, but not carriage of shared epitope or PTPN22 susceptibility variants, with anti-tumour necrosis factor response in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 68:69–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    van der Heijde D, Klareskog L, Landewe R et al (2007) Disease remission and sustained halting of radiographic progression with combination etanercept and methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 56:3928–3939CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Burmester GR, Ferraccioli G, Flipo RM et al (2008) Clinical remission and/or minimal disease activity in patients receiving adalimumab treatment in a multinational, open-label, twelve-week study. Arthritis Rheum 59:32–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gottenberg JE, Courvoisier DS, Hernandez MV et al (2016) Brief report: association of rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity with better effectiveness of abatacept: results from the Pan-European Registry Analysis. Arthritis Rheumatol 68:1346–1352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maneiro RJ, Salgado E, Carmona L, Gomez-Reino JJ (2013) Rheumatoid factor as predictor of response to abatacept, rituximab and tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 43:9–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hetland ML, Lindegaard HM, Hansen A et al (2008) Do changes in prescription practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological agents affect treatment response and adherence to therapy? Results from the nationwide Danish DANBIO Registry. Ann Rheum Dis 67:1023–1026CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sato E, Tanaka E, Ochiai M et al (2015) Chronological changes in baseline disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received biologic DMARDs between 2003 and 2012. Mod Rheumatol 25:350–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhang J, Shan Y, Reed G et al (2011) Thresholds in disease activity for switching biologics in rheumatoid arthritis patients: experience from a large U.S. cohort. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63:1672–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nusslein HG, Alten R, Galeazzi M et al (2014) Real-world effectiveness of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis treatment in European and Canadian populations: a 6-month interim analysis of the 2-year, observational, prospective ACTION study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dong-Jin Park
    • 1
  • Sung Jae Choi
    • 2
  • Kichul Shin
    • 3
  • Hyoun-Ah Kim
    • 4
  • Yong-Beom Park
    • 5
  • Seong Wook Kang
    • 6
  • Seung-Ki Kwok
    • 7
  • Seong-Kyu Kim
    • 8
  • Eon Jeong Nam
    • 9
  • Yoon-Kyoung Sung
    • 10
  • Jaejoon Lee
    • 11
  • Chang Hoon Lee
    • 12
  • Chan Hong Jeon
    • 13
  • Shin-Seok Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RheumatologyChonnam National University Hospital & Medical SchoolGwangjuSouth Korea
  2. 2.Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal MedicineKorea University Ansan HospitalAnsanSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Internal MedicineSeoul Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical CenterSeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of RheumatologyAjou University Hospital, Ajou University School of MedicineSuwonSouth Korea
  5. 5.Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal MedicineYonsei UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  6. 6.Department of Internal MedicineChungnam National University School of MedicineDaejeonSouth Korea
  7. 7.Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St Maryʼs Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea
  8. 8.Department of Internal MedicineCatholic University of Daegu School of MedicineDaeguSouth Korea
  9. 9.Department of Internal MedicineKyungpook National University School of MedicineDaeguSouth Korea
  10. 10.Department of RheumatologyHanyang University Hospital for Rheumatic DiseasesSeoulSouth Korea
  11. 11.Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical CenterSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  12. 12.Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of MedicineWonkwang UniversityIksanSouth Korea
  13. 13.Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal MedicineSoonchunhyang University HospitalBucheonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations