Impact of treatment with biologic DMARDs on the risk of sepsis or mortality after serious infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

A Richter, J Listing, M Schneider, T Klopsch, A Kapelle, J Kaufmann, A Zink, A Strangfeld, A Richter, J Listing, M Schneider, T Klopsch, A Kapelle, J Kaufmann, A Zink, A Strangfeld

Abstract

Objective: This observational cohort study investigated the impact of biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on the outcomes of serious infections (SIs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods: We investigated outcomes of SIs observed in 947 patients enrolled in the German biologics register RABBIT(Rheumatoid arthritis: observation of biologic therapy). Outcomes were (1) recovery without complication, (2) sepsis following SI (≤30 days), and (3) death after SI without known sepsis (≤90 days). We applied a multinomial generalised estimating equation model for longitudinal data to evaluate the risks of sepsis and death simultaneously.

Results: Sepsis within 30 days after SI was reported in 135 out of 947 patients, 85 of these had a fatal outcome. Fifty-three patients died within 90 days after SI without known sepsis. The adjusted risk of developing sepsis increased with age and was higher in patients with chronic renal disease. Compared with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs, the risk was significantly lower when patients were exposed to bDMARDs at the time of SI (OR: 0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.81). Risk factors of fatal SI were higher age, use of glucocorticoids at higher doses and heart failure. Patients treated with bDMARDs and those with better physical function had a significantly lower mortality risk.

Conclusions: These results suggest a beneficial effect of bDMARDs on the risk of sepsis after SI and the risk of a fatal outcome. Successful immunosuppression may prevent an unregulated host response to SI, that is, the escalation to sepsis. Further investigation is needed to validate these results.

Keywords: DMARDs (biologic); Epidemiology; Infections; Rheumatoid Arthritis; Treatment.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Investigation of SI outcomes. Boxes in colour indicate the outcomes of interest and boxes in black indicate the reference population. Approach A examined the risks of sepsis and death after SI simultaneously; this approach accounts for possibly undetected but fatal cases of sepsis (see: objectives & methods). Approach B focuses on the mortality risk of sepsis. Overall mortality after SI was examined in approach C. All sensitivity analyses were applied in the setting of approach A. GEE, generalised estimating equations; SI, serious infection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Results of sensitivity analyses show ORs and respective confidence intervals of TNFi vs. csDMARDs and other bDMARDs vs. csDMARDs. Approach [1]: analysis in a subsample of patients with pneumonia, approach [2]: patients at csDMARD treatment were restricted to biologic naïve patients; approach [3]: 108 infections with unknown date and exposure were included, the last known DMARD exposure was ‘carried forward’ to the respective event of sepsis (n=47) or death (n=19), in approach [4] we assumed in a most conservative manner that all patients who dropped out but were previously treated with bDMARDs had a sepsis (n=29). bDMARD, biologic DMARD; csDMARD, conventional synthetic DMARD; DMARD, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; TNFi, tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors.

References

    1. Cohen J. The immunopathogenesis of sepsis. Nature 2002;420:885–91. 10.1038/nature01326
    1. Stearns-Kurosawa DJ, Osuchowski MF, Valentine C, et al. . The pathogenesis of sepsis. Annu Rev Pathol 2011;6:19- 10.1146/annurev-pathol-011110-130327
    1. Destarac LA, Ely EW. Sepsis in older patients: an emerging concern in critical care. Adv Sepsis 2001;2:15–22.
    1. Schorr CA, Zanotti S, Dellinger RP. Severe sepsis and septic shock: management and performance improvement. Virulence 2014;5:190–9. 10.4161/viru.27409
    1. Waage A, Halstensen A, Espevik T. Association between tumour necrosis factor in serum and fatal outcome in patients with meningococcal disease. Lancet 1987;329:355–7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(87)91728-4
    1. Tracey KJ, Fong Y, Hesse DG, et al. . Anti-cachectin/TNF monoclonal antibodies prevent septic shock during lethal bacteraemia. Nature 1987;330:662–4. 10.1038/330662a0
    1. Beutler B, Milsark IW, Cerami AC. Passive immunization against cachectin/tumor necrosis factor protects mice from lethal effect of endotoxin. Science 1985;229:869–71. 10.1126/science.3895437
    1. Reinhart K, Karzai W. Anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in sepsis: update on clinical trials and lessons learned. Crit Care Med 2001;29:S121–5. 10.1097/00003246-200107001-00037
    1. Charles JF, Opal SM, Dhainaut JF, et al. . Influence of an anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody on cytokine levels in patients with sepsis. Crit Care Med 1993;21:318–27. 10.1097/00003246-199303000-00006
    1. Abraham E, Anzueto A, Gutierrez G, et al. . Double-blind randomised controlled trial of monoclonal antibody to human tumour necrosis factor in treatment of septic shock. Lancet 1998;351:929–33. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)60602-2
    1. Abraham E, Laterre PF, Garbino J, et al. . Lenercept (p55 tumor necrosis factor receptor fusion protein) in severe sepsis and early septic shock: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III trial with 1,342 patients. Crit Care Med 2001;29.
    1. Remick DG. Cytokine therapeutics for the treatment of sepsis: why has nothing worked? Curr Pharm Des 2003;9:75–82. 10.2174/1381612033392567
    1. Waage A. Tumour necrosis factor and septic shock. Lancet 1998;351:603 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)78598-6
    1. Strangfeld A, Eveslage M, Schneider M, et al. . Treatment benefit or survival of the fittest: what drives the time-dependent decrease in serious infection rates under TNF inhibition and what does this imply for the individual patient? Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1914–20. 10.1136/ard.2011.151043
    1. Listing J, Gerhold K, Zink A. The risk of infections associated with rheumatoid arthritis, with its comorbidity and treatment. Rheumatology 2013;52:53–61. 10.1093/rheumatology/kes305
    1. Listing J, Strangfeld A, Kary S, et al. . Infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic agents. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3403–12. 10.1002/art.21386
    1. Dixon WG, Symmons DP, Lunt M, et al. . Serious infection following anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Lessons from interpreting data from observational studies. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56:2896–904. 10.1002/art.22808
    1. Askling J, Fored CM, Brandt L, et al. . Time-dependent increase in risk of hospitalisation with infection among Swedish RA patients treated with TNF- antagonists. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:1339–44. 10.1136/ard.2006.062760
    1. Bongartz T, Sutton AJ, Sweeting MJ, et al. . Anti-TNF antibody therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of serious infections and malignancies: systematic review and meta-analysis of rare harmful effects in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2006;295:2275–85. 10.1001/jama.295.19.2275
    1. Zink A, Listing J, Kary S, et al. . Treatment continuation in patients receiving biological agents or conventional DMARD therapy. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1274–9. 10.1136/ard.2004.031476
    1. Brown E. Using MedDRA. Drug-Safety 2004;27:591–602. 10.2165/00002018-200427080-00010
    1. Lautenschlaeger J, Mau W, Kohlmann T, et al. . [Comparative evaluation of a German version of the Health Assessment Questionnaire and the Hannover Functional Capacity Questionnaire]. Z Rheumatol 1997;56:144–55. 10.1007/s003930050030
    1. Andersen PK, Abildstrom SZ, Rosthoj S. Competing risks as a multi-state model. Stat Methods Med Res 2002;11:203–15. 10.1191/0962280202sm281ra
    1. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Modeling survival data: extending the Cox model. Springer Science & Business Media, 2000.
    1. Beyersmann J, Allignol A, Schumacher M. Competing risks and multistate models with R. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011.
    1. Touloumis A, Agresti A, Kateri M. GEE for multinomial responses using a local odds ratios parameterization. Biom 2013;69:633–40. 10.1111/biom.12054
    1. Touloumis A. R package multgee: a generalized estimating equations solver for multinomial responses. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410 5232 2014.
    1. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0 2005.
    1. Barnett AG, Batra R, Graves N, et al. . Using a longitudinal model to estimate the effect of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infection on length of stay in an intensive care unit. Am J Epidemiol 2009;170:1186–94. 10.1093/aje/kwp249
    1. Galloway JB, Hyrich KL, Mercer LK, et al. . Anti-TNF therapy is associated with an increased risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis especially in the first 6 months of treatment: updated results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register with special emphasis on risks in the elderly. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2011;50:124–31. 10.1093/rheumatology/keq242
    1. Lee SI, Kim WU. Dual effects of tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors on septic arthritis: from a “bad friend” to a “good enemy”. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015;67:11–13. 10.1002/art.38903
    1. Ali A, Zhu X, Kwiecinski J, et al. . Antibiotic-killed staphylococcus aureus induces destructive arthritis in mice. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015;67:107–16. 10.1002/art.38902

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj