Article Text

FRI0186 Retention of First-Line anti-TNF Treatments and in Cases of Failure Retention Rates of anti-TNF Drug or A Non-TNF-Targeted Biologic in A Monocentric Cohort of 200 Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients
  1. M. Soubrier1,
  2. B. Pereira2,
  3. A. Tournadre1,
  4. S. Malochet-Guinamand1,
  5. M. Couderc1,
  6. S. Mathieu1,
  7. Z. Tatar1,
  8. D. Abdi1,
  9. T. Frayssac1,
  10. A. Fan1,
  11. J.-J. Dubost1
  1. 1Rheumatology department
  2. 2Biostatistics Unit, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France


Background While several registries have already evaluated the retention of first-line anti-TNF therapy in RA, divergent conclusions have at times been reported. Following treatment failure with a first-line anti-TNF agent, a non-TNF-targeted biologic is recommended rather than a second anti-TNF drug.

Objectives This study sought to compare the retention rate (RR) of a first-line anti-TNF treatment in routine care and in patients with inadequate or insufficient response the RR of either a second-line anti-TNF drug or a non-TNF-targeted biologic, in a monocenter cohort from Auvergne.

Methods All RA patients treated with anti-TNF between 2008 and 2015 were enrolled.

Results In total, 200 RA patients were analyzed, including 37 men and 163 women (81.5%). The mean age was 55.1 ± 13.1 years and disease duration was 8 years [3–15]. 89 (70.1%) patients had RF and 75 (72.8%) anti-CCP antibodies; 96 cases were erosive (69.6%). DAS-ESR was 4.87 ± 1.30. The first-line anti-TNF drugs were etanercept (ETA) (61%), adalimumab (ADA) (24%) or infliximab (IFM) (15%), either as monotherapy (14.6%) or associated with a DMARD (85.4%) (MTX: 64.5%). 131 patients had corticosteroids (mean dose: 7.5 mg/day). At 6 months, 73.8% were EULAR responders (27.8%: moderate; 46%: good). The overall median retention time (RT) was 55.1 months (ADA: 73.9 [19.3 -136.2], ETA 59.3 [17.1 –NA], IFM: 31.1 [7.1 -65.1] months). The RR of the first anti-TNF drug 2 years after initiation was 67.4% for ETA, 67.8% for ADA, and 55% for IFM. The hazard ratios (HR) for treatment cessation did not significantly differ between ETA and monoclonal antibodies. Inefficiencies were observed for 78 patients (70%), including 26 primary inefficiencies (33%) and 30% treatment discontinuations due to side-effects. Reasons for discontinuation did not significantly differ between the anti-TNF groups. IFM exhibited lower safety. Predictors of treatment discontinuation were older age, high activity disease, CRP, and rheumatoid nodules. In contrast, association with a DMARD significantly improved the median RT (17.5 vs. 60 months, 76 vs 29 months for MTX) for all anti-TNF drugs. Following treatment failure with the first anti-TNF therapy, a second anti-TNF was administered in 61 patients, while 44 were switched to a non-TNF-targeted biologic (22: rituximab; 8: abatacept; 10: tocilizumab; 4: anakinra). A second treatment failure was more common when using a second anti-TNF agent than with non-TNF-targeted biologics (77.1% vs. 9.1%, p<0.001). Loss of efficacy was the principal reason for discontinuing second anti-TNF drugs (46.8%). The median RT was 12 months [5–25] for second anti-TNF drugs and 10 months [6.5–14.5] for non-TNF-targeted agents. Treatment cessation did significantly differ between anti-TNF drugs and non-TNF-targeted agents (HR: 5.37 [51.92 -15.02]).

Conclusions Our results showed near-identical retention levels recorded for anti-TNF, lower safety for infliximab, improvement of retention when anti-TNF were associated with a DMARD and better efficacy achieved with a non-TNF-targeted biologic following the failure of a first-line anti-TNF treatment.

Disclosure of Interest None declared

Statistics from

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.