AB0426 Efficacy of monotherapy of the biologic dmards in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: real life data from the hong kong biologics registry
Authors: C.C. Mok, R. Wan, B. Fong
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2018)

<h3>Objectives</h3> To report the prevalence and efficacy of biologic DMARD (bDMARD) monotherapy in real life treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). <h3>Methods</h3> RA patients registered in the Hong Kong Biologics Registry who were receiving bDMARD monotherapy (without concomitant conventional synthetic DMARDs [csDMARDs] except low dose prednisolone) were identified. The efficacy (clinical response and drug retention rate) of bDMARD monotherapy was compared with bDMARD combination therapy (with csDMARDs) using statistical tests. <h3>Results</h3> From December 2007 to April 2017, 2123 courses of bDMARDs/tsDMARDs were used in 1250 RA patients (83% women, mean age at therapy 53.8±12.7 years). Among 1881 courses of therapies with complete data, 164 (8.7%) was monotherapy at baseline. Low dose prednisolone (&lt;10 mg/day) was used in 56% of these courses. In the combination group, the commonest csDMARDs used in combination with bDMARDs were methotrexate (79%), sulphasalazine (27%), hydroxychloroquine (25%) and leflunomide (21%). The bDMARDs/tsDMARDs most frequently used as monotherapy were tofacitinib (14.3%), tocilizumab (11.6%) and abatacept (11.2%). Overall, the non-TNF was more commonly used as monotherapy (11.2%) than the anti-TNF bDMARDs (7.4%). At 6 months of bMDARD/tsDMARD therapy, the DAS remission rate was non-significantly higher in the combination than monotherapy group (11% vs 5%; p=0.42). The change in DAS28 score was also non-significantly greater in the combination group (−1.95±1.26 vs −1.68±1.56; p=0.30). The difference in 6 month efficacy between the combination and monotherapy groups was greater in anti-TNF users. The overall cumulative withdrawal rate of the bDMARDs/tsDMARDs due to either inefficacy or serious adverse events (SAEs) was 0.55 at 3 years and 0.47 at 5 years. The anti-TNF biologics had a significantly higher withdrawal rate than the non-TNF biologics (hazard ratio [HR] 1.83 [1.56–3.14]; p&lt;0.001). In Cox regression models, monotherapy of the bDMARDs was not significantly associated with drug withdrawal due to inefficacy (HR 0.95 [0.53–1.71]; p=0.87) or SAEs (HR 1.27 [0.51–3.19]; p=0.61) after adjustment for age, sex, anti-TNF (vs non-TNF) biologic use, previous use of bDMARDs (vs first time use) and DAS28 at baseline. Separate analyses of the anti-TNF and non-TNF biologics again did not reveal a significant relationship between monotherapy of the biologics with the drug withdrawal due to inefficacy or SAEs after adjustment for age, sex, previous use of bDMARDs and disease activity at baseline (HR 1.002 [0.56–1.80]; p=0.99 for anti-TNF and HR 1.20 [0.47–3.08]; p=0.70 for non-TNF biologics, respectively). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Monotherapy of bDMARD/tsDMARD was used in 8.7% of our RA patients in real life practice, probably due to intolerance, inefficacy or non-compliance to the csDMARDs. Short-term efficacy tended to be better with bDMARDs/csDMARDs combination, especially in the anti-TNF biologics, but the long-term drug retention rate was similar between bDMARD monotherapy and combination therapy with the csDMARDs. <h3>Disclosure of Interest</h3> None declared