<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>1(1)</volume><submitter>Bergman MJ</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Introduction&lt;/h4>The aim of this study was to compare the response between subsequent use of anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) agents and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) with other mechanism of action (MOA) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with history of anti-TNF treatment as their first bDMARD.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>A retrospective chart review was conducted at eight community-based rheumatology practices in the United States in 2012. Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) response was measured by comparing baseline and 6-month scores. Poor response was defined as decrease &lt;1.8 points, follow-up score >12, or treatment discontinuation before 6 months. Percentages of patients with good and good or moderate RAPID3 response were compared for second and third biologics. Multivariate models controlled for potential confounders.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Of 176 patients whose charts were abstracted, 122 (69.3%) received another anti-TNF agent after they discontinued their first anti-TNF. RAPID3 scores were available for 160 patients. A patient receiving a second bDMARD with another MOA had a higher good or moderate response than a patient receiving anti-TNF (53.5 vs. 30.7%, p = 0.01). In the multivariate models, treatment with another MOA was more likely to produce a good RAPID3 response [odds ratio (OR), 2.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-5.58] or a good or moderate response (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.23-3.97) than treatment with an anti-TNF.&lt;h4>Conclusion&lt;/h4>In patients who have discontinued anti-TNF agents as their first bDMARD, RAPID3 response rates are better for those receiving agents with a different MOA rather than another anti-TNF. Physicians should consider using a bDMARD with a different MOA as the next bDMARD for RA patients whose anti-TNF agent has failed.</pubmed_abstract><journal>Rheumatology and therapy</journal><pagination>21-30</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC4883258</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Response to Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs after Discontinuation of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Agents for Rheumatoid Arthritis.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC4883258</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Elkin EP</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kamath T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bergman MJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ogale S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hamburger MI</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Response to Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs after Discontinuation of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Agents for Rheumatoid Arthritis.</name><description>&lt;h4>Introduction&lt;/h4>The aim of this study was to compare the response between subsequent use of anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) agents and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) with other mechanism of action (MOA) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with history of anti-TNF treatment as their first bDMARD.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>A retrospective chart review was conducted at eight community-based rheumatology practices in the United States in 2012. Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) response was measured by comparing baseline and 6-month scores. Poor response was defined as decrease &lt;1.8 points, follow-up score >12, or treatment discontinuation before 6 months. Percentages of patients with good and good or moderate RAPID3 response were compared for second and third biologics. Multivariate models controlled for potential confounders.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Of 176 patients whose charts were abstracted, 122 (69.3%) received another anti-TNF agent after they discontinued their first anti-TNF. RAPID3 scores were available for 160 patients. A patient receiving a second bDMARD with another MOA had a higher good or moderate response than a patient receiving anti-TNF (53.5 vs. 30.7%, p = 0.01). In the multivariate models, treatment with another MOA was more likely to produce a good RAPID3 response [odds ratio (OR), 2.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-5.58] or a good or moderate response (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.23-3.97) than treatment with an anti-TNF.&lt;h4>Conclusion&lt;/h4>In patients who have discontinued anti-TNF agents as their first bDMARD, RAPID3 response rates are better for those receiving agents with a different MOA rather than another anti-TNF. Physicians should consider using a bDMARD with a different MOA as the next bDMARD for RA patients whose anti-TNF agent has failed.</description><dates><release>2014-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2014 Dec</publication><modification>2025-04-04T09:36:29.288Z</modification><creation>2019-03-27T02:14:41Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC4883258</accession><cross_references><pubmed>27747760</pubmed><doi>10.1007/s40744-014-0002-7</doi></cross_references></HashMap>