Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

Science from our Sisters

Norra MacReady  |  Issue: February 2007  |  February 1, 2007

RA Patients Respond to Drug Switching

RA Patients Respond to Drug Switching

Most patients who switch from one anti–tumor necrosis factor a (anti–TNF-a) agent to a second for the treatment of RA experience good results, but those who discontinue the second drug usually do so for the same reasons they stopped the first, according to a study in Arthritis & Rheumatism (2007;56(1):13-20).

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Anti–TNF-a agents have dramatically improved the management of severe RA. Unfortunately, as many as one-third of the patients who try these drugs derive no benefit from them, due either to inefficacy or intolerable adverse effects (AEs). If the first drug doesn’t work, many patients switch to a second anti–TNF-a agent on the rationale that it might be more effective due to differences in structure and site of action. This study is the first large-scale examination of the results of such a drug swap.

For a mean of 15 months, lead author Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Manchester (England) followed a prospective cohort of 6,739 RA patients drawn from a United Kingdom national registry of new patients starting anti–TNF-a therapy. During that time, 2,360 patients discontinued the initial drug, including 1,864 who discontinued because of lack of effect (n=841; 12%) or AEs (n=1,023; 15%). Of those patients, 503 and 353, respectively, switched to a second drug.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Overall, 73% of patients who switched to a second anti–TNF-a agent were still on the new therapy by the end of follow-up. However, 13% of the patients discontinued the second drug because of inefficacy, and 14% due to an adverse event. The patients who discontinued the second drug tended to do so for the same reasons they discontinued the first, whether that was inefficacy or toxicity.

“These findings suggest that, in those patients who fail to respond to their first agent, either because of an adverse effect or inefficacy, switching to a second anti–TNF agent may be a viable next option for some,” says Dr. Hyrich, clinical lecturer in the arthritis research campaign epidemiology unit at the University of Manchester. “It is also reassuring that the rate of discontinuation for an AE on a second agent was not increased in those patients who switched for inefficacy, suggesting, at least in the short term, that consecutive use of anti–TNF-a­­ agents does not place patients at an increased risk of AEs.”

Norra MacReady is a medical journalist based in southern California.

Share: 

Filed under:ConditionsDrug UpdatesResearch RheumRheumatoid Arthritis Tagged with:anti-TNF agentDisease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)patient careResearchRheumatoid arthritis

Related Articles

    Immune-Related Adverse Events with Use of Checkpoint Inhibitors for Immunotherapy of Cancer

    March 29, 2017

    Introduction: Major advances in the past two decades have enhanced our understanding of the complex interactions between the immune system and cancer cells and their environment. Genetic and epigenetic alterations in tumor cells result in the expression of diverse antigens that can elicit an immune response, primarily mediated by T cells. Immune responses are regulated…

    Pulmonary Adverse Events with Low-Dose Methotrexate

    November 24, 2020

    In this large placebo-controlled trial, Sparks et al. examined the predictors and severity of pulmonary adverse events (AEs) in patients taking low-dose MTX. The researchers found that low-dose MTX increased the risk of pulmonary AEs, including possible pneumonitis.

    Study Says 1 Biosimilar Switch Is OK; Jury Still Out on Multiple Switches

    August 17, 2018

    AMSTERDAM—As more biosimilar drugs for rheumatic diseases make their way to market, evidence is growing that switching from the originator drug to a biosimilar tends to be effective, while the questions of switching back and forth, and switching multiple times using several different biosimilars, remain to be answered, an expert on the topic said at…

    TNF Blockade for SLE

    September 1, 2010

    Reckless approach versus missed opportunity?

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences