Display options
Share it on

RMD Open. 2015 Dec 30;1(1):e000181. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2015-000181. eCollection 2015.

Comparative effectiveness of biologic monotherapy versus combination therapy for patients with psoriatic arthritis: results from the Corrona registry.

RMD open

Philip J Mease, David H Collier, Katherine C Saunders, Guo Li, Joel M Kremer, Jeffrey D Greenberg

Affiliations

  1. Department of Rheumatology , Swedish Medical Center and University of Washington , Seattle, Washington , USA.
  2. Inflammation Global Development , Amgen Inc. , Thousand Oaks, California , USA.
  3. Epidemiology and Outcomes Research, Corrona, LLC , Southborough, Massachusetts , USA.
  4. Department of Biostatistics , Axio Research LLC , Seattle, Washington , USA.
  5. Center for Rheumatology, Albany Medical College and the Center for Rheumatology , Albany, New York , USA.
  6. Epidemiology and Outcomes Research, Corrona, LLC, Southborough, Massachusetts, USA; Division of Rheumatology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.

PMID: 26819748 PMCID: PMC4716450 DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2015-000181

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the comparative effectiveness of combination therapy (a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate) and monotherapy (TNFi only) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from a large US registry.

METHODS: The analysis included adult patients with PsA who were enrolled in the Corrona database (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01402661), had initiated a TNFi, were biologic naïve, and had a follow-up visit ≥90 days after drug initiation. The endpoints of the analysis were TNFi persistence (drug survival) and time to Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission. All analyses were performed using propensity scoring, which were estimated using CDAI and patient sex, to control for channelling bias.

RESULTS: Of 519 patients meeting the inclusion criteria (318 with combination therapy and 201 with monotherapy), the analysis population was 497 for TNFi persistence and 380 for time to remission. The difference between combination therapy (TNFi+methotrexate, 91% of patients; TNFi+other csDMARD, 9%) and monotherapy was not statistically significant for TNFi persistence (32 and 31 months, p=0.73) and time to remission (21 and 25 months, p=0.56). Predictors of TNFi persistence included Hispanic ethnicity (longer persistence), PsA duration (longer persistence), history of methotrexate use (shorter persistence), body mass index (shorter persistence) and disease activity (shorter persistence).

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PsA from a large US registry experienced similar TNFi persistence on combination therapy and monotherapy. Prospective, randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of combination therapy versus monotherapy would provide much-needed clarity on treatment options for patients with PsA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01402661.

Keywords: Anti-TNF; DMARDs (biologic); Psoriatic Arthritis

References

  1. J Rheumatol. 2012 Mar;39(3):568-73 - PubMed
  2. Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Jan;54(1):26-37 - PubMed
  3. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Jan;73(1):132-7 - PubMed
  4. Arthritis Rheum. 1998 Jun;41(6):1103-10 - PubMed
  5. JAMA. 2011 Apr 13;305(14):1460-8 - PubMed
  6. Arthritis Rheum. 2009 Apr;60(4):976-86 - PubMed
  7. Arthritis Rheum. 1997 Oct;40(10):1868-72 - PubMed
  8. Arthritis Rheum. 1984 Apr;27(4):376-81 - PubMed
  9. J Rheumatol. 2015 Jan;42(1):73-8 - PubMed
  10. Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Oct;52(10):3279-89 - PubMed
  11. Arthritis Rheum. 1998 Sep;41(9):1552-63 - PubMed
  12. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2012 Aug;38(3):441-76 - PubMed
  13. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Jan;73(1):48-55 - PubMed
  14. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Aug;64(8):1150-7 - PubMed
  15. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Sep 24;13:184 - PubMed
  16. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Mar;70 Suppl 1:i77-84 - PubMed
  17. J Rheumatol. 2013 Feb;40(2):127-36 - PubMed
  18. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Dec;70(12):2152-4 - PubMed
  19. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 May;58(5):851-64 - PubMed
  20. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 Jan;69(1):48-53 - PubMed
  21. Lancet. 2004 Feb 28;363(9410):675-81 - PubMed
  22. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014 Mar;70(3):512-6 - PubMed
  23. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012 Aug;51(8):1368-77 - PubMed
  24. Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Feb;63(2):382-90 - PubMed
  25. Joint Bone Spine. 2012 Mar;79(2):149-55 - PubMed
  26. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 Jun;72(6):908-10 - PubMed
  27. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 Jan;65(1):141-7 - PubMed
  28. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 Mar;69(3):624-5 - PubMed
  29. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 Mar;67(3):364-9 - PubMed
  30. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2013;71 Suppl 1:S41-5 - PubMed
  31. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Dec;73(12):2178-82 - PubMed
  32. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2004 Jul;75(1):45-9 - PubMed
  33. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Mar;74(3):513-8 - PubMed
  34. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2013 Mar;9(3):164-72 - PubMed
  35. Arthritis Rheum. 2004 Jul;50(7):2264-72 - PubMed
  36. Arthritis Res Ther. 2005;7(3):R569-80 - PubMed
  37. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2014 Nov;53(11):2100-9 - PubMed
  38. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2012 May 02;8(5):251-2 - PubMed
  39. Dermatol Ther. 2009 Jan-Feb;22(1):40-55 - PubMed
  40. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Nov;69(5):729-35 - PubMed
  41. Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Aug;54(8):2665-73 - PubMed
  42. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Oct;53(4):573 - PubMed
  43. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2013 Oct;27(10):1262-8 - PubMed

Publication Types