Effectiveness of golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to tocilizumab. Issue 2 (4th March 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Matsuno, Hiroaki; Katayama, Kou
• Is Part Of: Modern rheumatology. Volume 27:Issue 2(2017)
• Page Start: 246
• Page End: 251
• Publication Date: 2017-03-04
• Subjects: Golimumab -- Inadequate response -- Rheumatoid arthritis -- Switching -- Tocilizumab; Rheumatology -- Periodicals; 616.723005
• DOI: 10.1080/14397595.2016.1206242
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1439-7595

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives : Several biological disease–modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are currently available for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Increasing evidence indicates that second-line bDMARDs are effective for inadequate responders to first-line bDMARDs. However, all previous studies investigated the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) as a first-line bDMARD, while investigated the efficacy of second-line bDMARDs after the use of tocilizumab (TCZ), a non-TNFi, as a first-line bDMARD. Thus, we investigated the efficacy of golimumab (GLM) as a second-line bDMARD after treatment with TCZ as a first-line bDMARD. Methods : The final study population consisted of 26 patients (inadequate responders to TCZ; TCZ group) with moderate or high disease activity (DAS28-ESR ≥3.2) at week 24 of treatment with TCZ as a first-line bDMARD or whose DAS28-ESR score worsened after starting TCZ treatment. These patients could be followed for another 52 weeks or more after the subsequent switch to GLM treatment. For comparison, 19 patients treated with TNFi as a first-line bDMARD and inadequate response to TNFi (TNFi group) were included. Results : The DAS28-ESR score at week 52 after the start of treatment with GLM improved significantly compared with baseline in the TCZ and TNFi groups. However, the TCZ group showed significantly better improvement. Patients in both groups had significantly improved treatment outcomes according to European League Against Rheumatism response criteria, but there was no statistically significant difference among them. The retention rate at week 52 after the start of treatment with GLM was significantly higher in the TCZ group than in the TNFi group (81% vs. 68%, respectively). In addition, no difference was found in the progression of bone destruction determined by the change in van der Heijde modified total Sharp scoring system scores between groups. Conclusions : GLM was an effective therapeutic option for inadequate responders to TCZ.