Quality of life and disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis on tofacitinib and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapies

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - 2022
Vladimira Boyadzhieva1, Konstantin Tachkov2, Nikolay Stoilov1, Konstantin Mitov2, Rumen Stoilov1, Guenka Petrova2
1Department of Rheumatology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital “St. Ivan Rilski”, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
2Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria

Tóm tắt

The aim of this study was to analyze the therapeutic results of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy with different biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and the first Janus-activated kinase (JAK) inhibitor in real-life clinical settings. This is a prospective, observational, longitudinal study at the largest rheumatology clinic in Bulgaria conducted during the period 2012–2020. One hundred seventy-four patients were followed up for a period of one year. Patients naïve to biological therapy were consecutively assigned on the available at the time bDMARDs (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, rituximab, golimumab, cetrolizumab, tocilizumab) or tofacitinib. We evaluated the disease activity score (DAS28-CRP), Health assessment questionnaires (HAQ) and short form 36 (SF-36) were applied at the initiation of biological therapy, after 6, and 12 months of follow-up. We analyze the changes in the two major subgroups of SF36—physical (MCS) and mental health (PCS). The age and gender distribution were similar between the groups on bDMARDs and tsDMARD. All observed indicators for disease control and QoL improve after the initiation of the biological or JAK inhibitor therapy. We also analyze the effect of therapies on DAS28—CRP, HAQ, SF-36 (PCS, MCS). Dispersion analysis for the effect of therapy measured through DAS28 between 1st and 3rd measurement shows a statically significant difference in between the average effect of therapies (p = 0.005). According to the average change in DAS28 between the first and third measurement the most effective is the golimumab (Median difference = 2.745), followed by rituximab (median = 2.305) and etanercept (median = 2.070). According to the average change in HAQ between first and third the most effective is tofacitinib (median 0.563), followed rituximab and infliximab (median 0.500 for both). Less effective in term of HAQ changes between the first and third measurement appears to be etanercept (median difference 0.250). All differences are statistically significant (p < 0.05). Regarding the changes in the QoL measured with SF-36 MCS and PCS there is no statistically significant differences in the average effect of different therapeutic agents. Tofacitinib is non-inferior in comparison to bDMARDs and improve both—disease activity and QoL in patients with RA.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Felson DT, Smolen JS, Wells G et al (2011) American College of Rheumatology/European League against Rheumatism provisional definition of remission in rheumatoid arthritis for clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis 70:404–413. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2011.149765

Tracey D, Klareskog L, Sasso EH, Salfeld JG, Tak PP (2008) Tumor necrosis factor antagonist mechanisms of action: a comprehensive review. Pharmacol Ther 117(2):244–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2007.10.001

Wells AF, Curtis JR, Betts KA, Douglas K, Du Xiaoyan E, Ganguli A (2017) Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of tumor necrosis factor-alpha experienced rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Ther 39(8):1680-1694.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.06.013

Boyadzhieva V, Stoilov N, Ivanova M, Petrova G, Stoilov R (2018) Real world experience of disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and response to treatment with varios biologic DMARDs. Front Pharmacol 9:1303. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.01303

Boyadzieva VV, Stoilov N, Stoilov RM, Tachkov K, Kamusheva M, Mitov K, Petrova GI (2018) Quality of life and cost study of rheumatoid arthritis therapy with biological medicines. Front Pharmacol 9:794. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00794.eCollection2018

Romano C, Esposito S, Ferrara R, Cuomo G (2020) Tailoring biologic therapy for real-world rheumatoid arthritis patients. Expert Opin Biol Ther 15:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2021.1847268

Smolen J, Landewé R, Bijlsma J et al (2020) EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis 79:685–699. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216655

Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL Jr et al (2016) 2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 68:1–26

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2009) Rheumatoid arthritis: the management of rheumatoid arthritis in adults. Royal College of Physicians; National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions, London

Kawalec P, Sladowska K, Malinowska-Lipien I, Brzostek T, Kozka M (2017) European perspective on the management of rheumatoid arthritis: clinical utility of tofacitinib. Ther Clin Risk Manag 14:15–29. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S138677

Storage SS, Agrawal H, Furst DE (2010) Description of the efficacy and safety of three new biologics in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Korean J Intern Med 25:1. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2010.25.1.1

Smolen JS, Landewé R, Bijlsma J et al (2017) EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update. Ann Rheum Dis 76(6):960–977. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210715

FDA. Developing a framework for regulatory use of real-world evidence; Public Workshop. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-07-31/pdf/2017-16021.pdf. Accessed 08 Sep 2017

EMA. Update on real world evidence data collection. 10 March 2016. https://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/files/committee/stamp/2016-03_stamp4/4_real_world_evidence_ema_presentation.pdf. Accessed 08 Sep 2017

Prevoo ML, Van’t Hop MA, Kuper HH et al (1995) Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts. Development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 38:44–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780380107

Singh JA, Furst DE, Bharat A et al (2012) American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying anti- rheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 64:625–639. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.21641

The DAS28 score (2021) https://nras.org.uk/resource/the-das28-score/. Accessed 15 Jan 2021

Boyadzhieva V, Stoilov N, Ivanova M, Stoilov R (2019) Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: csDMARDS versus bDMARDS. Prospective study to evaluate disease activity. Revmatologiia 27(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.35465/27.1.2019

Aletaha D, Smolen J (2006) The definition and measurement of disease modification in inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 32:9–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdc.2005.09.005

Ton E, Bakker M, Verstappen M et al (2012) Look beyond the disease activity score of 28 joints (DAS28): tender points influence the DAS28 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 39(1):22–27. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.110072

Lubeck DP (2004) Patient-reported outcomes and their role in the assessment of rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 22:27–38. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422001-00004

Bruce B, Fries JF (2005) The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol 23:14–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-009-1176-0ff

Bruce B, Fries JF (2003) The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: dimensions and practical applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 1:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-20

Matcham F, Scott IC, Rayner L, Hotopf M, Kingsley GH, Norton S, Scott DL, Steer S (2014) The impact of rheumatoid arthritis on quality-of-life assessed using the SF-36: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 44(2):123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2014.05.001

Uhlig T, Loge JH, Kristiansen IS, KvienT K (2007) Quantification of reduced health-related quality-of-life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis compares to the general population. J Rheumatol 34:1241–1247

Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-itemShort-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–83

Vieira M-C, Zwillich SH, Jansen JP, Smiechowski B, Spurden D, Wallenstein GV (2016) Tofacitinib versus biologic treatments in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: results from a network meta-analysis. Clin Ther 38(12):2628-2641.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.11.004

Bergrath E, Gerber RA, Gruben D, Lukic T, Makin C, Wallenstein G (2017) Tofacitinib versus biologic treatments in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis patients who have had an inadequate response to nonbiologic DMARDs: systematic literature review and network meta-analysis. Int J Rheumatol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8417249

Tachkov K, Boyadzhieva V, Stoilov N, Mitov K, Petrova G (2021) Is there a symmetry in disease control and quality of life of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological therapy? Symmetry 13(4):538. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040538

Kanecki K, Tyszko P, Wisłowska M et al (2013) Preliminary report on a study of health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int 33:429–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-012-2421-5

Choy EH (2019) Effect of biologics and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 58(Suppl 5):v51–v55. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kez389)

Strand V, Mysler E, Moots RJ, Wallenstein GV, DeMasi R, Gruben D, Soma K, Iikuni N, Smolen JS, Fleischmann R (2019) Patient-reported outcomes for tofacitinib with and without methotrexate, or adalimumab with methotrexate, in rheumatoid arthritis: a phase IIIB/IV trial. RMD Open 5(2):001040. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001040

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Thông tin tác giả