Comparative effectiveness of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in a pan-European collaboration of registries

dc.contributor.affiliationUniversidade de Santiago de Compostela. Departamento de Psiquiatría, Radioloxía, Saúde Pública, Enfermaría e Medicinagl
dc.contributor.authorLaupen, Kim
dc.contributor.authorMongin, Denis
dc.contributor.authorIannone, Florenzo
dc.contributor.authorKristianslund, Eirik Klami
dc.contributor.authorKvien, Tore K.
dc.contributor.authorNordström, Dan
dc.contributor.authorPavelka, Karel
dc.contributor.authorPombo Suárez, Manuel Enrique
dc.contributor.authorRotar, Ziga
dc.contributor.authorSantos, María José
dc.contributor.authorCodreanu, Catalin
dc.contributor.authorLukina, Galina
dc.contributor.authorCourvoisier, Delphine S.
dc.contributor.authorGabay, Cem
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-15T08:29:12Z
dc.date.available2020-05-15T08:29:12Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.description.abstractObjective To compare the real-word effectiveness of subcutaneous tocilizumab (TCZ-SC) and intravenous tocilizumab (TCZ-IV) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Patients with RA with TCZ from eight European registries were included. Drug retention was compared using unadjusted Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusted for baseline patient, disease and treatment characteristics, using a strata term for year of treatment initiation and country of registry. The proportions of patients achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission and low disease activity (LDA) at 1 year were compared using samples matched on the same covariates and corrected for attrition using LUNDEX. Results 3448 patients were retrieved, 2414 with TCZ-IV and 1034 with TCZ-SC. Crude median retention was 3.52 years (95% CI 3.22 to 3.85) for TCZ-IV and 2.12 years for TCZ-SC (95% CI 1.88 to 2.38). In a country-stratified and year of treatment initiation–stratified, covariate-adjusted analysis, hazards of discontinuation were similar between TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV treated patients (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09). The average adjusted CDAI change at 1 year was similar in both groups (−6.08). After matching, with 560 patients in each group, CDAI remission corrected for attrition at 1 year was also similar between TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV (10.4% in TCZ-IV vs 12.8% in TCZ-SC (difference: 2.4%, bootstrap 95% CI −2.1% to 7.6%)), but CDAI LDA was lower in TCZ-IV patients: 41.0% in TCZ-IV versus 49.1% in TCZ-SC (difference: 8.0 %; bootstrap 95% CI 2.4% to 12.4%). Conclusion With similar retention and effectiveness, TCZ-SC is an adequate alternative to TCZ-IV for RA. When possible, considering the costs of the TCZ-IV route, TCZ-SC should be the preferred mode of administrationgl
dc.description.peerreviewedSIgl
dc.description.sponsorshipThe TOCERRA collaboration is funded by Roche. Clinical work in Czech Republic was partially supported by the project from the Ministry of Health for conceptual development of research organization MZ00023728 (Institute of Rheumatology). ROB-FIN is funded by AbbVie, Hospira, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. NOR-DMARD was previously supported with research funding to Diakonhjemmet Hospital from AbbVie, BMS, MSD/Schering-Plough, Pfizer/Wyeth, Roche and UCB. Reuma.pt is supported by unrestricted grants from Abbvie, Biogen, Celgene, MSD, Roche, Sanofi and Pfizer. BioRx.si has received funding for clinical research paid to Društvo za razvoj revmatologije from AbbVie, Roche, Medis, MSD and Pfizer. BIOBADASER has received funding from Fundacion Española de Reumatología, the Spanish Medicines and Health Products Agency (Agencia Española del Medicamento y Productos Sanitarios) and equal grants from pharmaceutical companies (AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Schering‐Plough and BMS). Swiss Clinical Quality Management in Rheumatic Diseases (SCQM) database is sponsored by public and industrial support (http://scqm.ch/en/sponsoren/)gl
dc.identifier.citationLauper K, Mongin D, Iannone F, et al. Comparative effectiveness of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in a pan-European collaboration of registries RMD Open 2018;4:e000809gl
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000809
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000809corr1
dc.identifier.issn2056-5933
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10347/22323
dc.language.isoenggl
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupgl
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000809gl
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/gl
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accessgl
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.titleComparative effectiveness of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in a pan-European collaboration of registriesgl
dc.typejournal articlegl
dc.type.hasVersionVoRgl
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2018_rmdopen_lauper_comparative.pdf
Size:
538.59 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2018_rmdpone_lauper_comparative_correction.pdf
Size:
103.07 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: