Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Heterogeneity in Comparisons of Discontinuation of Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists in Rheumatoid Arthritis - A Meta-Analysis

  • Anat Fisher ,

    anat.fisher@ti.ubc.ca

    Affiliation Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    ⨯
  • Ken Bassett,

    Affiliations Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    ⨯
  • Gautam Goel,

    Affiliation Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    ⨯
  • Dana Stanely,

    Affiliation Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    ⨯
  • M. Alan Brookhart,

    Affiliation Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Hugh R. Freeman,

    Affiliation Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    ⨯
  • James M. Wright,

    Affiliations Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    ⨯
  • Colin R. Dormuth

    Affiliation Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    ⨯

Correction

15 Feb 2017: Fisher A, Bassett K, Goel G, Stanely D, Brookhart MA, et al. (2017) Correction: Heterogeneity in Comparisons of Discontinuation of Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists in Rheumatoid Arthritis—A Meta-Analysis. PLOS ONE 12(2): e0172646. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172646 View correction

Abstract

Objective

We did a systematic review of studies comparing discontinuation of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, pooled hazard ratios and assessed clinical and methodological heterogeneity.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE until June 2015 for pairwise hazard ratios for discontinuing infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab from cohorts of RA patients. Hazard ratios were pooled using inverse variance weighting and random effects estimates of the combined hazard ratio were obtained. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity was assessed using the between-subgroup I-square statistics and meta-regression.

Results

Twenty-four unique studies were eligible and large heterogeneity (I-square statistics > 50%) was observed in all comparisons. Type of data, location, and order of treatment (first or second line) modified the magnitude and direction of discontinuation comparing infliximab with either adalimumab or etanercept; however, some heterogeneity remained. No effect modifier was identified when adalimumab and etanercept were compared.

Conclusion

Heterogeneity in studies comparing discontinuation of TNF antagonists in RA is partially explained by type of data, location, and order of treatment. Pooling hazard ratios for discontinuing TNF antagonists is inappropriate because largely unexplained heterogeneity was demonstrated when random effect estimates were calculated.

Citation: Fisher A, Bassett K, Goel G, Stanely D, Brookhart MA, Freeman HR, et al. (2016) Heterogeneity in Comparisons of Discontinuation of Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists in Rheumatoid Arthritis - A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 11(12): e0168005. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168005

Editor: Rachel Louise Allen, Saint George's University, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: May 3, 2016; Accepted: November 23, 2016; Published: December 8, 2016

Copyright: © 2016 Fisher et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files]. All studies included in this systematic review have been previously published, and data are available from these publications. The reference list of his revision included doi (if available) for all published studies (included and excluded due to high risk of bias).

Funding: The study was supported by the University of British Columbia Graduate Fellowship.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Co-author Dr James M. Wright is a PLOS ONE Editorial Board member. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE Editorial policies and criteria.

Introduction

The tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) antagonists target a cytokine that regulates inflammation in multiple diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [1]. Evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of these medications is indirect and incomplete because no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) directly compare two or more TNF antagonists in RA patients [2]. Lack of efficacy and adverse effects are the most common reasons for discontinuing TNF antagonists [3–9], and therefore discontinuation risk is a good measure of the benefit-harm balance of these medications [10]. Hence, comparison of discontinuation risk of different TNF antagonists can help in treatment decisions, especially selection of an individual medication.

Since their introduction in the late 1990s, multiple observational studies have compared discontinuation of TNF antagonists, but the results were inconsistent [11–15] due to methodological and clinical heterogeneity. Methodological heterogeneity, defined as “variability in study design and risk of bias” [16], may be caused, for example, by differences in data collection. Clinical heterogeneity, defined as “variability in the participants, interventions and outcomes” [16], could be caused by differences in location and dates, or frequency of dose adjustments. A previous systematic review summarized hazard ratios for discontinuing TNF antagonists but failed to identify predictors of methodological or clinical heterogeneity [15]. The objective of this study is to investigate methodological and clinical heterogeneity in hazard ratios for discontinuing TNF antagonists in RA patients.

Methods

Systematic literature search

Electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) to June 2015 were searched using the following strategy: (1) adalimumab.mp. (2) infliximab.mp (3) etanercept.mp. (4) tumour necrosis factor antagonists.mp. or Receptors, Tumour Necrosis Factor/ (5) 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 (6) (patient compliance or adherence or persistence or discontinuation or switching or treatment duration).mp. [mp = ti, ab, sh, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, ps, rs, nm, ui] (7) rheumatoid arthritis.mp. or rheumatoid arthritis/ (8) 5 and 6 and 7. Additional studies were identified by reviewing reference lists of publications meeting the inclusion criteria and other published reviews.

Selection criteria for studies

We included studies of RA patients treated with infliximab, adalimumab, or etanercept that met the following criteria:

Study design.

Cohort studies with multiple TNF antagonists. RCTs were excluded due to differences between RA patients in RCTs and those treated in routine clinical practice [17–20]. Studies were selected regardless of the language and the type of publication (full articles, abstracts, or conference proceedings).

Participants.

RA patients, based on either the American College of Rheumatology diagnosis criteria [21,22] or the clinical judgment of the care-providing physicians. Studies of multiple diseases were included only if the outcomes of interest were presented separately for RA.

Types of interventions.

First or second line treatments with infliximab, adalimumab, or etanercept selected by the care-providing physician and/or the patient. Studies of the newer TNF antagonists, such as certolizumab pegol or golimumab, were excluded due to shorter availability and fewer studies [15].

Duration of follow-up.

At least one year from treatment initiation.

Outcome of interest.

Pairwise hazard ratios for discontinuation: infliximab vs. etanercept, infliximab vs. adalimumab, and adalimumab vs. etanercept.

Data extraction

Two reviewers (AF and GG/DS) independently selected studies and extracted data. In case of a discrepancy, a decision was reached by consensus. Authors of published studies were contacted when reports were incomplete, confusing, or difficult to interpret. The reviewers extracted as-reported hazard ratios, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) or p-value. If the hazard ratio for a specific comparison was missing, we attempted to calculate it using indirect comparison methodology [23] or synthesis of estimates from subgroups. To prevent the use of duplicate or overlapping data from the same source, we selected a single hazard ratio from a fully-published manuscript with the largest population for each comparison and data source.

Risk of bias

We identify two specific sources of bias in studies of discontinuation and included only studies with low risk of bias, defined as:

  1. The study outcome was discontinuing the individual medication or switching to a second biologic anti-rheumatic medication. Patients remaining on treatment at the end of the study period were censored.
  2. Discontinuation was not associated with the likelihood to be included in the study; i.e., new-user design without mandatory minimum treatment duration. In prevalent-user design, patients who started treatment before the study period are included only if they are still treated at the beginning of the study; hence, patients with longer use are overrepresented.

Statistical analysis

Hazard ratios for discontinuation with 95% CI were combined using an inverse variance approach, and data were recorded on the natural logarithm scale [24]. We calculated random effect estimates [25] because substantial heterogeneity has previously been observed [11,15].

In the absence of a definitive statistical test to assess whether a factor causes heterogeneity, we identified effect modifiers. We tested for the association between the effect size and clinical factors: continent, order of treatment, age, sex, and Disease Activity Score (DAS-28) as well as methodological factors: type of data and duration of follow-up. Categorical factors consisted of continent (Europe, Asia, or America), order of treatment (first or second line), and type of data (clinical charts, disease or drug registries, or administrative claim data). For these factors, we conducted between-subgroup I-square statistics, and estimated the significance using chi-squared test [26]. For continuous factors, i.e., age, sex, baseline DAS-28, and duration of follow-up, we conducted meta-regression [27] with a fixed effect model and weights based on the inverse of the variance of the logarithm of the hazard ratio. For factors that were reported as the average or the median of populations, we stratified the regression model by type of central measure. A significant association between a factor and the effect size was defined as a two-tailed p-value <0.05 for both categorical and continuous variables. Analyses were conducted using the Review Manager (RevMan) statistical software (Version 5.3, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Denmark) and SAS software package (Version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

Results

A total of 2,409 unique citations were identified and screened (Fig 1), and 24 unique studies were eligible for inclusion (Table 1). Forty studies reported hazard ratios for discontinuing TNF antagonists but were excluded, most commonly because the study drugs were not compared (S1 Table in the on-line supporting information). Two of the studies were excluded due to high risk of bias [28,29]. Three studies reported outcomes from the SSTAG/ARTIS Swedish registry [5,30,31], two studies from the Spanish BIOBADASER 2.0 registry or hospitals contributing to it [6,32], two studies from the Italian Monitornet registry [33,34], two studies from the American claim database MarketScan [35,36], and three studies from the national insurance claim data or hospitals in South Korea [37,38] (Table 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Characteristics of eligible studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.t001

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. QUOROM flow chart.

1 SSATG is part of ARTIS, data were overlapping with Neovius 2015. 2 Carlos Haya hospital is included in BIOBADASER 2.0, data were overlapping with Gomez-Reino 2012. 3 Data from South Korea NIH, also known as Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, were included in Lee 2014. 4 Data from MonitorNet were included in Scire 2013. 5 Data from MarketScan were included in Johnstone 2015.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.g001

Fifteen studies (20,796 patients) from unique data sources compared infliximab and adalimumab with the overall pooled hazard ratio of 1.08 (95% C] 0.92–1.27) (S1 Fig). Fifteen studies (23,671 patients) from unique data sources compared infliximab and etanercept with the overall pooled hazard ratio of 1.22 (1.00–1.49) (S2 Fig). Seventeen studies (27,799 patients) from different data sources showed higher risk of discontinuing adalimumab compared with etanercept and the overall pooled hazard ratio was 1.17 (1.08–1.27) (S3 Fig). There was significant heterogeneity between studies for all three comparisons, with I square statistics of 86%, 92%, and 56%, respectively.

Assessment of methodological and clinical heterogeneity is presented in Table 2. In analysis of categorical factors, effect modifications of the type of data (Fig 2), location (Fig 3), and order of treatment (Fig 4) was observed in comparisons of infliximab with adalimumab or etanercept, but not comparing adalimumab with etanercept. This effect modification was expressed as I squared statistics of 69.1–92.7%, with p-value <0.05 in Chi squared test. These percentages could be interested as following: 69.1–92.7% of variation across subgroups in each comparison is due to heterogeneity rather than chance. We also noticed that in all comparisons, not all subgroup hazard ratios reach statistical significance level and in most cases a residual within subgroup heterogeneity was observed. For example, in analysis of type of data (Fig 2), when comparing infliximab with etanercept, we observed significant heterogeneity between the three subgroups compared: studies based on clinical charts, those conducted on registries and analyses of claim data (I square statistics of 69.1%). Only studies conducted on registries had a significant pooled hazard ratio of 1.49 (95% CI 1.23–1.81), but they also consisted the largest subgroup. A reversed direction of hazard ratio was estimated in two studies based on clinical charts and three analyses of claim data, i.e., lower risk of discontinuing infliximab, but these polled estimates did not reach significance level. We noticed residual heterogeneity within each subgroup: clinical chart, registries, and claim data.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Assessment of heterogeneity: association between study design and patient characteristics and effect sizes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.t002

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Assessment of methodological heterogeneity: subgroup analysis for type of data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.g002

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Assessment of clinical heterogeneity: subgroup analysis for location.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.g003

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Assessment of clinical heterogeneity: subgroup analysis for order of treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.g004

In analysis of continuous factors (Table 2), the proportion of female patients using infliximab modified the hazard ratio in comparison of infliximab with etanercept. However, in the presence of multiple comparisons and in the absence of similar effect of the proportion of female patients using etanercept we discarded this finding. Finally, duration of follow up, age, and baseline DAS-28 did not modify the hazard ratios (Table 2).

Discussion

This review explored sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity in studies comparing discontinuation of TNF antagonists in RA patients. The type of data (i.e. charts, registries, or claims) modified the effect size in comparisons of infliximab with etanercept or adalimumab. However, this factor was not responsible for all the heterogeneity. Different types of data are susceptible to different types of biases. Registries are susceptible to selection bias caused by the volunteer enrollment and data collection [56]. Administrative data are susceptible to confounding due to the absence of clinical variables and exposure ascertainment bias because of the uncertainty whether patients who refilled the medication actually used it. Type of data also determines how the outcome, discontinuation, is defined. In analysis of registries or medical charts, discontinuation is recorded by physicians, either during a routine visit or in real-time. In analysis of administrative data, discontinuation is usually ascertained using prescription-refill analysis and applying grace periods [57]. Comparisons of discontinuing TNF antagonists are especially sensitive to these differences in outcome definition because of the intermittent dosing schedules and different lengths of dose interval for different medications. Comparisons of infliximab were more sensitive to the data source probably because it has a significantly longer dose interval than adalimumab and etanercept.

A second hazard modifier is location. In European countries, the risk of discontinuing etanercept and adalimumab is lower compared to infliximab, but in America, patients on infliximab had lower discontinuation risk compared to adalimumab and similar risk as patients treated with etanercept. In a previous review reported similar proportions of patients from European and non-European countries who discontinued any TNF antagonists [15], but the results were not presented separately for each individual medication. Souto et al [15] failed to determine whether these findings are constant across different medications.

Hazard ratio estimates were also modified by the order of treatment (first or second line) in comparisons of infliximab with adalimumab or etanercept. However, in these comparisons the only two studies that reported hazard ratios for second line treatment were American studies Therefore, we cannot rule out that the modification observed is related to location and not to order of treatment.

Age, sex, baseline disease activity score (DAS), and duration of follow-up did not modify the hazard ratios. The absence of modification by baseline DAS opposes the hypothesis by Greenberg 2014 [58] that the difference in estimates between American and European studies is caused by differences in disease severity.

The results of this review question the reliability of hazard ratios for discontinuing TNF antagonists. Specifically, the residual heterogeneity within subgroups may indicate that stable results cannot be duplicated by different researchers nor can conclusive scientific findings be obtained. Alternately, researchers may not be measuring the same outcome because different types of data, and possibly different definitions of discontinuation, modified the hazard ratios. Standardization of methodological approaches may help achieving the requisite reliability.

There are several limitations to our study. First, we were unable to adequately assess risk of bias in the absence of a specific evaluation tool for discontinuation studies. Available tools for observational studies, such as Newcastle-Ottawa scale [59], do not assess relevant items such as new-user design and ascertainment of discontinuation. The other tools, e.g., STROBE statement [60], assess the quality of reporting and not the risk of bias. Second, in the absence of a statistical test to determine causes of heterogeneity between studies, we could only assess effect modification. Last, we found significant residual heterogeneity within many of the subgroups and therefore pooled estimates were impossible to interpret.

This review had several strengths including the wide scope: no temporal or linguistic constraints. Second, to minimize bias, this review included only studies reporting adjusted hazard ratios for discontinuation. Earlier systematic reviews summarized proportions of discontinuation for each TNF antagonist individually [14,15]. Because these proportions were crude estimates from observational data, comparisons between medications were most likely confounded. Last, we identified two major risks of bias in discontinuation studies and applied them in study selection.

Conclusions

Substantial heterogeneity was found in studies estimating head-to-head hazard ratios for discontinuing TNF antagonists in RA patients due to differences in type of data, location, and order of treatment. The heterogeneity observed shows that stable results have not been duplicated by different researchers and conclusive scientific findings cannot be obtained by pooling results.

Supporting Information

S1 Fig. Forest Plots: Hazard Ratios of included studies: Infliximab vs. Adalimumab.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.s001

(TIFF)

S2 Fig. Forest Plots: Hazard Ratios of included studies: Infliximab vs. Etanercept.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.s002

(TIFF)

S3 Fig. Forest Plots: Hazard Ratios of included studies: Adalimumab vs. Etanercept.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.s003

(TIFF)

S1 Table. Excluded studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.s004

(PDF)

S2 Table. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.s005

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The study was supported by the University of British Columbia Graduate Fellowship grant.

Author Contributions

  1. Conceptualization: AF KB JMW CRD.
  2. Data curation: AF GG DS.
  3. Formal analysis: AF KB JMW CRD.
  4. Investigation: AF KB JMW CRD.
  5. Methodology: AF KB JMW CRD MAB.
  6. Project administration: AF JMW CRD.
  7. Software: AF.
  8. Supervision: AF KB JMW MAB HRF CRD.
  9. Validation: AF KB JMW MAB HRF CRD.
  10. Visualization: AF KB JMW MAB HRF CRD.
  11. Writing – original draft: AF GG DS KB JMW MAB HRF CRD.
  12. Writing – review & editing: AF GG DS KB JMW MAB HRF CRD.

References

  1. 1. Brennan FM, McInnes IB. Evidence that cytokines play a role in rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Invest 2008 Nov;118(11):3537–3545. pmid:18982160
  2. 2. Favalli EG, Bugatti S, Biggioggero M, Caporali R. Treatment comparison in rheumatoid arthritis: Head-to-head trials and innovative study designs. BioMed Research International 2014 2014;2014.
  3. 3. Fafa BP, Louzada-Junior P, Titton DC, Zandonade E, Ranza R, Laurindo I, et al. Drug survival and causes of discontinuation of the first anti-TNF in ankylosing spondylitis compared with rheumatoid arthritis: analysis from BIOBADABRASIL. Clin Rheumatol 2015 May;34(5):921–927. pmid:25851594
  4. 4. Bolge SC, Goren A, Tandon N. Reasons for discontinuation of subcutaneous biologic therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a patient perspective. Patient Prefer Adherence 2015;9:121–131. pmid:25653505
  5. 5. Neovius M, Arkema EV, Olsson H, Eriksson JK, Kristensen LE, Simard JF, et al. Drug survival on TNF inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis comparison of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab. Ann Rheum Dis 2015 01 Feb 2015;74(2):354–360. pmid:24285495
  6. 6. Gomez-Reino JJ, Rodriguez-Lozano C, Campos-Fernandez C, Montoro M, Descalzo MA, Carmona L. Change in the discontinuation pattern of tumour necrosis factor antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis over 10 years: Data from the Spanish registry BIOBADASER 2.0. Ann Rheum Dis 2012 March 2012;71(3):382–385. pmid:21998116
  7. 7. Markenson JA, Gibofsky A, Palmer WR, Keystone EC, Schiff MH, Feng J, et al. Persistence with anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Observations from the RADIUS registry. J Rheumatol 2011 July 2011;38(7):1273–1281. pmid:21572150
  8. 8. Hyrich KL, Watson KD, Lunt M, Symmons DPM. Changes in disease characteristics and response rates among patients in the United Kingdom starting anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy for rheumatoid arthritis between 2001 and 2008. Rheumatology 2011 January 2011;50(1):117–123. pmid:20671021
  9. 9. Hetland ML, Christensen IJ, Tarp U, Dreyer L, Hansen A, Hansen IT, et al. Direct comparison of treatment responses, remission rates, and drug adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab: Results from eight years of surveillance of clinical practice in the nationwide Danish DANBIO registry. Arthritis Rheum 2010 January 2010;62(1):22–32. pmid:20039405
  10. 10. Wolfe F. The epidemiology of drug treatment failure in rheumatoid arthritis. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol 1995 Nov;9(4):619–632. pmid:8591645
  11. 11. Koncz T, Pentek M, Brodszky V, Ersek K, Orlewska E, Gulacsi L. Adherence to biologic DMARD therapies in rheumatoid arthritis. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2010 Sep;10(9):1367–1378. pmid:20681888
  12. 12. Blum MA, Koo D, Doshi JA. Measurement and rates of persistence with and adherence to biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review. Clin Ther 2011 Jul;33(7):901–913. pmid:21715007
  13. 13. Navarro-Millan I, Sattui SE, Curtis JR. Systematic review of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor discontinuation studies in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Ther 2013 November 2013;35(11):1850–1861.e1. pmid:24156821
  14. 14. Arora A, Mahajan A, Spurden D, Boyd H, Porter D. Long-term drug survival of TNF inhibitor therapy in RA patients: A systematic review of European national drug registers. International Journal of Rheumatology 2013 2013; 2013:764518. pmid:24307903
  15. 15. Souto A, Maneiro JR, Gomez-Reino JJ. Rate of discontinuation and drug survival of biologic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of drug registries and health care databases. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2016; 55(3):523–34.
  16. 16. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman D.J. on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Section 9.5: Heterogeneity. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 5.1.0 ed.: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
    • 17. Kievit W, Fransen J, Oerlemans AJ, Kuper HH, van der Laar MA, de Rooij DJ, et al. The efficacy of anti-TNF in rheumatoid arthritis, a comparison between randomised controlled trials and clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 2007 Nov;66(11):1473–1478. pmid:17426065
    • 18. Sokka T, Pincus T. Eligibility of patients in routine care for major clinical trials of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003 Feb;48(2):313–318. pmid:12571838
    • 19. Zink A, Strangfeld A, Schneider M, Herzer P, Hierse F, Stoyanova-Scholz M, et al. Effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis in an observational cohort study: Comparison of patients according to their eligibility for major randomized clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum 2006 Nov;54(11):3399–3407. pmid:17075823
    • 20. Berthelot JM, Benoist-Gerard S, le Goff B, Muller-Chevalet F, Maugars Y. Outcome and safety of TNFalpha antagonist therapy in 475 consecutive outpatients (with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthropathies) treated by a single physician according to their eligibility for clinical trials. Joint Bone Spine 2010 Dec;77(6):564–569. pmid:20621538
    • 21. Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, McShane DJ, Fries JF, Cooper NS, et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988 Mar;31(3):315–324. pmid:3358796
    • 22. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham CO 3rd, et al. 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: An American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2010 Sep;62(9):2569–2581. pmid:20872595
    • 23. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D'Amico R, et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005 Jul;9(26):1–134, iii–iv. pmid:16014203
    • 24. Parmar MKB, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med 1998 Dec;17(24):2815–2834. pmid:9921604
    • 25. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986 Sep;7(3):177–188. pmid:3802833
    • 26. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002 Jun;21(11):1539–1558. pmid:12111919
    • 27. Thompson SG, Higgins JPT. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?. Stat Med 2002 Jun;21(11):1559–1573. pmid:12111920
    • 28. Zhang J, Xie F, Delzell E, Yun H, Lewis JD, Haynes K, et al. Impact of biologic agents with and without concomitant methotrexate and at reduced doses in older rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2015 May;67(5):624–632.
    • 29. Martinez-Santana V, Gonzalez-Sarmiento E, Calleja-Hernandez M, Sanchez-Sanchez T. Comparison of drug survival rates for tumor necrosis factor antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis. Patient Preference and Adherence 2013 January 2013;7:719–727. pmid:24023512
    • 30. Kristensen LE, Saxne T, Geborek P. The LUNDEX, a new index of drug efficacy in clinical practice: Results of a five-year observational study of treatment with infliximab and etanercept among rheumatoid arthritis patients in Southern Sweden. Arthritis Rheum 2006 February 2006;54(2):600–606. pmid:16447237
    • 31. Soderlin MK, Petersson IF, Geborek P. The effect of smoking on response and drug survival in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with their first anti-TNF drug. Scand J Rheumatol 2012 Feb;41(1):1–9. pmid:22118371
    • 32. Fernandez-Nebro A, Irigoyen MV, Urena I, Belmonte-Lopez MA, Coret V, Jimenez-Nunez FG, et al. Effectiveness, predictive response factors, and safety of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies in anti-TNF-naive rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2007 Dec;34(12):2334–2342. pmid:17985409
    • 33. Caporali R, Scire CA, Todoerti M, Galeazzi M, Valesini G, Sfriso P, et al. Drug survival of the first course of anti-TNF agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthropathies. Results from the MonitorNet database. Annals of the Rheumatic Disease 2013 June 2013;71.
    • 34. Scire CA, Caporali R, Sarzi-Puttini P, Frediani B, Di Franco M, Tincani A, et al. Drug survival of the first course of anti-TNF agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and seronegative spondyloarthritis: Analysis from the MonitorNet databas. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2013 Nov/Dec 2013;31(6):857–863. pmid:23981363
    • 35. Johnston S, McMorrow D, Farr AM, Juneau P, Ogale S. Real world study of biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug persistence among patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have previously used at least one other biologic agent: A U.S. administrative claims database analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013 June 2013;72.
    • 36. Johnston S, Lobo F, McMorrow D, Fowler R, Smith D, Nadkarni A. Comparison of patient characteristics, healthcare costs, and biologic persistence between patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating first or second-line subcutaneous abatacept, adalimumab, or etanercept. Arthritis and Rheumatology 2014 October 2014;66:S40.
    • 37. Cho SK, Sung YK, Choi CB, Bae SC. Impact of comorbidities on TNF inhibitor persistence in rheumatoid arthritis patients: an analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Rheumatol Int 2012 Dec;32(12):3851–3856. pmid:22193228
    • 38. Lee J, Choi N-, Yang BR, Jin X-, Park B-. Utilization pattern of tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors among patients with rheumatologic arthritis in Korea. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2014 October 2014;23:471.
    • 39. Kristensen LE, Saxne T, Nilsson JA, Geborek P. Impact of concomitant DMARD therapy on adherence to treatment with etanercept and infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a six-year observational study in southern Sweden. Arthritis Res Ther 2006 Nov;8(6):R174. pmid:17121678
    • 40. Borah BJ, Huang X, Zarotsky V, Globe D. Trends in RA patients' adherence to subcutaneous anti-TNF therapies and costs. Curr Med Res Opin 2009 Jun;25(6):1365–1377. pmid:19425902
    • 41. Du Pan SM, Dehler S, Ciurea A, Ziswiler HR, Gabay C, Finckh A, et al. Comparison of drug retention rates and causes of drug discontinuation between anti-tumor necrosis factor agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2009 May;61(5):560–568. pmid:19405000
    • 42. Marchesoni A, Zaccara E, Gorla R, Bazzani C, Sarzi-Puttini P, Atzeni F, et al. TNF-alpha antagonist survival rate in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients observed under conditions of standard clinical practice. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009 Sep;1173(1):837–846.
    • 43. Hetland ML, Christensen IJ, Tarp U, Dreyer L, Hansen A, Hansen IT, et al. Direct comparison of treatment responses, remission rates, and drug adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab: Results from eight years of surveillance of clinical practice in the nationwide Danish DANBIO registry. Arthritis Rheum 2010 Jan;62(1):22–32. pmid:20039405
    • 44. Greenberg JD, Reed G, Decktor D, Harrold L, Furst D, Gibofsky A, et al. A comparative effectiveness study of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab in biologically naive and switched rheumatoid arthritis patients: Results from the US CORRONA registry. Ann Rheum Dis 2012 July 2012;71(7):1134–1142. pmid:22294625
    • 45. Chen H, Chen D, Tang C, Yang Y, Fang C, Huang N. Concomitant methotrexate use and the risk of drug discontinuation for adalimumab compared with etanercept in anti-TNF-naive rheumatoid arthritis patients: A nationwide population-based cohort Study. Arthritis Rheum 2013 October 2013;65:S452.
    • 46. Hishitani Y, Ogata A, Shima Y, Hirano T, Ebina K, Kunugiza Y, et al. Retention of tocilizumab and anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 2013 2013;42(4):253–259. pmid:23470089
    • 47. Senabre-Gallego JM, Rosas J, Santos-Soler G, Santos-Ramirez C, Sanchez-Barrioluengo M, Barber X, et al. Comparison of drug retention rates between anti-tumor necrosis factor agents in rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in daily clinical practice. Annals of the Rheumatic Disease 2013 June 2013;71.
    • 48. Senabre Gallego JM, Rosas JC, Cano Pérez C, Barber Vallés X, Salas Heredia E, Llahí Vidal N, et al. Retención de los Inhibidores del Factor de Necrosis Tumoral en Artritis Reumatoide y Espondilitis Anquilosante en condiciones de práctica clínica. Revista de la SVR: Sociedad Valenciana de Reumatología 2012;4(3):5–10.
    • 49. Fisher A, Bassett K, Wright JM, Brookhart MA, Freeman H, Dormuth CR. Comparative Persistence of the TNF Antagonists in Rheumatoid Arthritis—A Population-Based Cohort Study. PLoS One 2014 Aug 20;9(8):e105193. pmid:25141123
    • 50. Flouri I, Markatseli TE, Voulgari PV, Boki KA, Papadopoulos I, Settas L, et al. Comparative effectiveness and survival of infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept for rheumatoid arthritis patients in the Hellenic Registry of Biologics: Low rates of remission and 5-year drug survival. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2014 Feb;43(4):447–457. pmid:24012040
    • 51. Frazier-Mironer A, Dougados M, Mariette X, Cantagrel A, Deschamps V, Flipo RM, et al. Retention rates of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab as first and second-line biotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in daily practice. Joint Bone Spine 2014 Jul;81(4):352–359. pmid:24721422
    • 52. Frazier-Mironer A, Cantagrel A, Combe B, Deschamps V, Dougados M, Flipo R-, et al. Retention rates of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab as first and second-line biologic therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in daily practice: The maintain study. Ann Rheum Dis 2013 June 2013;72:A221–A222.
    • 53. Kang JH, Park DJ, Lee JW, Lee KE, Wen L, Kim TJ, et al. Drug survival rates of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. J Korean Med Sci 2014 Sep;29(9):1205–1211. pmid:25246737
    • 54. Lee S, Lee K, Park D. Drug survival rates of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013 June 2013;72:A875.
    • 55. Johnston SS, McMorrow D, Farr AM, Juneau P, Ogale S. Comparison of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy persistence between biologics among rheumatoid arthritis patients switching from another biologic. Rheumatol The 2015;2(1):59–71.
    • 56. Curtis JR, Jain A, Askling J, Bridges SL Jr, Carmona L, Dixon W, et al. A comparison of patient characteristics and outcomes in selected European and U.S. rheumatoid arthritis registries. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2010 Aug;40(1):2–14.e1. pmid:20674669
    • 57. Dezii CM. Persistence with drug therapy: A practical approach using administrative claims data. Manag Care 2001 Feb;10(2):42–45. pmid:11236643
    • 58. Greenberg JD, Shan Y, Reed GW, Bitman B, Collier D. Comparison of switching to reduced dose vs continuation of standard dose etanercept for rheumatoid arthritis patients in the CORRONA registry. Ann Rheum Dis 2014 June 2014;73:241.
    • 59. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch W, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2013; http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 08/20/2013, 2013.
      • 60. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology 2007 Nov;18(6):800–804. pmid:18049194