Endo Yushiro, Kawashiri Shin-Ya, Morimoto Shimpei, Nishino Ayako, Okamoto Momoko, Tsuji Sosuke, Takatani Ayuko, Shimizu Toshimasa, Sumiyoshi Remi, Igawa Takashi, Koga Tomohiro, Iwamoto Naoki, Ichinose Kunihiro, Tamai Mami, Nakamura Hideki, Origuchi Tomoki, Ueki Yukitaka, Yoshitama Tamami, Eiraku Nobutaka, Matsuoka Naoki, Okada Akitomo, Fujikawa Keita, Hamada Hiroaki, Tsuru Tomomi, Nagano Shuji, Arinobu Yojiro, Hidaka Toshihiko, Tada Yoshifumi, Kawakami Atsushi
Department of Immunology and Rheumatology, Division of Advanced Preventive Medical Sciences, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan.
Kyushu multicenter rheumatoid arthritis ultrasound prospective observational cohort study group, Japan.
Immunol Med. 2020 Sep;43(3):115-120. doi: 10.1080/25785826.2020.1757920. Epub 2020 May 12.
To compare therapeutic efficacy of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) cyclers and non-TNFi switchers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) having inadequate response to previous TNFis (TNF-IR patients) using composite measures including imaging assessment with power Doppler ultrasonography (PDUS). Patients with RA who had inadequate response to one or more previous TNFi agents with moderate or higher disease activity were enrolled. The outcomes of 56 TNF-IR patients were analysed. Patients were divided into 19 TNFi cyclers and 37 non-TNFi switchers (16 abatacept [ABT] and 21 tocilizumab [TCZ] switchers). Retention ratio at 6 months was significantly higher in non-TNFi switchers than in TNFi cyclers ( < .05). Although there was no significant difference, non-TNFi switchers tended to have a larger decrease than TNFi cyclers in efficacy indicators based on clinical disease activity index and PDUS. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified a following independent factor associated with both EULAR good response and retention of a biologic agent: non-TNFi switch ( < .05 for both). Non-TNFi switchers were shown to have significantly higher percentage of EULAR good response and higher retention than TNFi cyclers. A non-TNFi biologic agent may hence be a preferential next-line treatment for TNF-IR patients.
使用包括功率多普勒超声(PDUS)成像评估在内的综合指标,比较肿瘤坏死因子抑制剂(TNFi)循环治疗者和非TNFi转换治疗者在对既往肿瘤坏死因子抑制剂(TNFi)反应不足的类风湿关节炎(RA)患者(TNFi反应不足患者)中的治疗效果。纳入对一种或多种既往TNFi药物反应不足且疾病活动度为中度或更高的RA患者。分析了56例TNFi反应不足患者的结果。患者分为19例TNFi循环治疗者和37例非TNFi转换治疗者(16例阿巴西普[ABT]转换者和21例托珠单抗[TCZ]转换者)。非TNFi转换治疗者6个月时的保留率显著高于TNFi循环治疗者(<0.05)。尽管差异无统计学意义,但基于临床疾病活动指数和PDUS的疗效指标方面,非TNFi转换治疗者的下降幅度往往大于TNFi循环治疗者。多因素逻辑回归分析确定了与欧洲抗风湿病联盟(EULAR)良好反应和生物制剂保留均相关的以下独立因素:非TNFi转换(两者均<0.05)。结果显示,非TNFi转换治疗者的EULAR良好反应百分比显著高于TNFi循环治疗者,且保留率更高。因此,对于TNFi反应不足患者,非TNFi生物制剂可能是更优的二线治疗选择。