Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Anterior uveitis in patients with spondyloarthritis treated with secukinumab or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in routine care: does the choice of biological therapy matter?
  1. Ulf Lindström1,
  2. Karin Bengtsson1,
  3. Tor Olofsson2,
  4. Daniela Di Giuseppe3,
  5. Bente Glintborg4,5,
  6. Helena Forsblad-d'Elia1,
  7. Lennart T H Jacobsson1,
  8. Johan Askling3
  1. 1Department of Rheumatology and Inflammation Research, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
  2. 2Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Rheumatology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
  3. 3Clinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  4. 4DANBIO and Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research (COPECARE), Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Centre of Head and Orthopedics, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
  5. 5Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ulf Lindström, Department of Rheumatology and Inflammation Research, University of Gothenburg Sahlgrenska Academy, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; ulf.lindstrom{at}gu.se

Abstract

Background The effect of interleukin 17-inhibitors on anterior uveitis (AU) in spondyloarthritis (SpA) is poorly understood. This study aimed to compare the risk of AU during treatment with secukinumab versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

Methods Patients with SpA starting secukinumab or a TNFi 2015 through 2018 were identified in the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register. Occurrence of AU was identified based on diagnosis codes in outpatient ophthalmology care in the National Patient Register. The main outcomes were crude rates of AU-diagnoses per 100 patient-years, and adjusted HRs for AU, during treatment, in patients without AU during the year before treatment start (in order to reduce confounding by indication). HRs were adjusted for age, sex, history of AU and patient global assessment of disease activity.

Results Based on 4851 treatment starts (456 secukinumab; 4395 any TNFi), the rate of AU-diagnoses per 100 patient-years was 6.8 (95% CI 5.2 to 8.7) for secukinumab. Among the TNFi, the rate varied from 2.9 (95% CI 2.1 to 3.7) for infliximab and 4.0 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.9) for adalimumab to 7.5 (95% CI 6.7 to 8.4) for etanercept. The adjusted HRs for first AU (adalimumab as reference) were: secukinumab 2.32 (95% CI 1.16 to 4.63), infliximab 0.99 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.96), etanercept 1.82 (95% CI 1.13 to 2.93), golimumab 1.59 (95% CI 0.90 to 2.80) and certolizumab 1.12 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.83). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the pattern of higher AU rates with secukinumab and etanercept versus monoclonal TNFi.

Conclusion As used in clinical practice in SpA, secukinumab appears to be associated with a higher risk of AU, compared with the monoclonal TNFi and a similar risk compared with etanercept.

  • spondylitis
  • ankylosing
  • tumor necrosis factor inhibitors
  • antirheumatic agents
  • biological therapy

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Josef S Smolen

  • Contributors All authors have contributed substantially according to the contributorship guidelines.

  • Funding The study was financed by grants from the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils, the ALF-agreement, and by grants from Nordforsk, Foreum and the Swedish Research Council.

  • Competing interests TO reports personal fees from Eli Lilly, other from Merck Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. BG reports grants from BMS, grants from Pfizer, grants from AbbVie, outside the submitted work. LTJ reports personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Eli-Lily, personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. JA reports grants from Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and UCB, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

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.