Dose down-titration of biological DMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over time and in daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare dosing optimisation in biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) and relapses after that, in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) during clinical practice. METHODS: Observational retrospective longitudinal study of RA patients taking bDMARDs from December 1999 to November 2013. Optimisation was defined as a 15% decrease in dose either reducing single dose or separating dose interval administration, for at least 4 times the recommended period between dosages. Relapse was defined as suspension or starting again with the recommended dose after optimisation. Incidence rates (IR) per 100 patient-years were estimated using survival techniques. Cox multivariate models were conducted to compare bDMARDs expressed in hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals [95%CI]. RESULTS: 443 patients and 752 different courses of bDMARDs treatments were included. We observed 146 optimisations with an IR of 8.1. The HR of optimisation in: a) adalimumab, etanercept and rituximab compared to infliximab was 1.56 [1.01-2.4], 1.5 [0.9-2.4] and 0.6 [0.3-1.4], respectively; b) adalimumab, etanercept compared to rituximab were 2.3 [1.2-4.5] and 2.2 [1.2-4.3]. There were no statistically significant differences between adalimumab and etanercept. Following optimisation, 36% relapsed (78% due to disease activity). The IR related to disease activity was 6.3, and was lower for adalimumab and etanercept compared to infliximab (HR: 0.42; [0.19-0.94]; HR: 0.34; [0.13-0.89], respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between etanercept and adalimumab. No patients on rituximab relapsed. CONCLUSIONS: Optimisation was similar between adalimumab and etanercept, and was lower for infliximab and rituximab. After optimisation, rituximab did not relapse, but infliximab did with the highest hazard.