English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objective  Comparative effectiveness research can inform treatment decisions regarding the choice of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non‐TNFis (nTNFis) in real‐world patients with RA and past TNFi experience.    Methods  Comparative Effectiveness Registry to study Therapies for Arthritis and Inflammatory Conditions (CERTAIN) was nested within the United States Corrona registry. Adult patients with RA with moderate to high disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] >10) with exposure to one or more prior TNFis who were switching to a new TNFi or nTNFi (choice of therapy per physician choice) were enrolled. The primary outcome was the achievement of low disease activity (LDA) at 12 months (CDAI ≤10; disease activity score in 28 joints based on C‐reactive protein [DAS28‐CRP] <2.67). Propensity score modeling probability of treatment with nTNFi versus TNFi adjusted for imbalanced factors. The response rate was modeled using mixed‐effect logistic regression models, adjusting for a priori and imbalanced baseline factors and accounting for the practice‐related treatment patterns.    Results  After applying inclusion criteria, 939 biologic initiations were analyzed, 505 (53.7%) nTNFis and 434 (46.3%) TNFis. Patients who started nTNFis were significantly more likely to have longer disease duration, more prior TNFi use, and higher patient fatigue scores and were more likely to have government insurance. At 12 months, 28% of nTNFi and 24% of TNFi initiators were in LDA by CDAI, and 22% of nTNFi and 19% of TNFi initiators were in LDA by DAS28‐CRP. After multivariable adjustment and controlling for the influence of site‐related confounding, there were no significant differences in the likelihood to reach LDA by CDAI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78‐1.62) or DAS28‐CRP (aOR = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.77‐1.75).    Conclusion  In this large, real‐world study enrolling patients with RA with prior TNFi exposure, switching to an nTNFi biologic was comparable in its clinical effectiveness with switching to another TNFi.

TNFi Cycling Versus Changing Mechanism of Action in TNFi‐Experienced Patients: Result of the Corrona CERTAIN Comparative Effectiveness Study