Department of Rheumatology, Gaetano Pini Institute, Milan, Italy.
Department of Clinical Sciences and Health Community, University of Milan, Division of Rheumatology, Gaetano Pini Institute, Milan, Italy.
Autoimmun Rev. 2017 Dec;16(12):1185-1195. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2017.10.002. Epub 2017 Oct 14.
The introduction of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) has dramatically changed the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, in a real-life setting about 30-40% of bDMARD treated patients experience drug discontinuation because of either inefficacy or adverse events. According to international recommendations, to date the best strategy for managing first-line bDMARD failures has not been defined yet and available data (especially on TNF inhibitors [TNFis]) seem to drive toward a personalized approach for the individual patient. Some TNFi partial responders may benefit from optimization of concomitant methotrexate therapy or from switching to a different concomitant sDMARD such as leflunomide. Conversely, apart from infliximab, TNFi dose escalation seems to be poor efficacious and poor cost-effective compared with alternative strategies. Albeit counterintuitive, the use of a second TNFi after the failure of the first-one (cycling strategy) is supported by clear evidences and has become widespread in the 2000s as the result of the limited alternative options till the introduction of bDMARDs with a mechanism of action other than TNF blockade. Nowadays, the use of abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or JAK inhibitors as second-line agent (swapping strategy) is strongly supported by RCTs and real-life experiences. In the absence of head-to-head trials directly comparing these two strategies, meta-analyses of separated RCTs failed to find significant differences in favor of one or another choice. However, results from most observational studies, including well designed prospective pragmatic randomised analyses, demonstrated the superiority of swapping over cycling approach, whereas only few studies reported a comparable effectiveness. In this review, we aimed to critically analyze all the potential therapeutic options for the treatment of first-line bDMARD failures in order to provide a comprehensive overview of available strategies to be applied in clinical practice.
生物制剂的引入极大地改变了类风湿关节炎(RA)的治疗模式。然而,在实际情况下,大约 30-40%接受生物制剂治疗的患者因疗效不佳或不良反应而停药。根据国际建议,迄今为止,尚未确定管理一线生物制剂失败的最佳策略,现有数据(尤其是关于 TNF 抑制剂 [TNFis])似乎倾向于针对个体患者采取个体化方法。一些 TNF 抑制剂部分应答者可能受益于甲氨蝶呤联合治疗的优化,或转换为另一种不同的联合缓解病情抗风湿药(csDMARD),如来氟米特。相反,除英夫利昔单抗外,与其他策略相比,TNF 抑制剂剂量升级在疗效和成本效益方面似乎较差。尽管有违直觉,但在第一种 TNF 抑制剂失败后使用第二种 TNF 抑制剂(循环策略)得到了明确证据的支持,并在 2000 年代随着生物制剂以外的作用机制的出现而得到广泛应用,这些药物除了 TNF 抑制剂之外,还包括其他作用机制的生物制剂。如今,阿巴西普、利妥昔单抗、托珠单抗或 JAK 抑制剂作为二线药物(转换策略)的使用得到了 RCT 和真实世界经验的强烈支持。由于缺乏直接比较这两种策略的头对头试验,对单独 RCT 进行的荟萃分析未能发现一种策略优于另一种策略的显著差异。然而,大多数观察性研究的结果,包括精心设计的前瞻性实用随机分析,表明转换策略优于循环策略,而只有少数研究报告了类似的效果。在这篇综述中,我们旨在批判性地分析治疗一线生物制剂失败的所有潜在治疗选择,以便全面了解可在临床实践中应用的策略。