
==== Front
BMJ Open
BMJ Open
bmjopen
bmjopen
BMJ Open
2044-6055
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39260856
10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087872
bmjopen-2024-087872
Protocol
Rheumatology
1732
1506
Rotation or change of biotherapy after TNF blocker treatment failure for axial spondyloarthritis: the ROC-SpA study, a randomised controlled study protocol
Dalix Elisa 1elisa.m.dalix@gmail.com

Marcelli Christian 2marcelli-c@chu-caen.fr

Bejan-Angoulvant Theodora 3theodora.angoulvant@univ-tours.fr

Finckh Axel 4axel.finckh@hug.ch

Rancon Florence 5florence.rancon@chu-st-etienne.fr

Akrour Madjid 5madjid.akrour@chu-st-etienne.fr

De Araujo Liliane 5Liliane.DeAraujo@chu-st-etienne.fr

Presles Emilie 5emilie.presles@chu-st-etienne.fr

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1177-9497
Marotte Hubert 6hubert.marotte@chu-st-etienne.fr

ROC-SpA study groupBaillet Athan
Breban Maxime
Brocq Olivier
Claudepierre Pascal
Constantin Arnaud
Cormier Gregoire
Dernis Emmanuelle
Devauchelle Valérie
Felten Renaud
Gervais Elisabeth
Gossec Laure
Goupille Philippe
Goff Benoit Le
Bouvard Béatrice
Lequerré Thierry
Lespessailles Eric
Lukas Cédric
Miceli Corinne
Pavy Stephan
Jorgensen Christian
Roux Christian H
Schaeverbeke Thierry
Salmon Jean-Hugues
Sellam Jérémie
Tournadre Anne
Pascart Tristan
Wendling Daniel

1 University Jean Monnet Saint-Etienne, Mines Saint-Etienne, INSERM, SAINBIOSE U1059, Saint-Etienne, France
2 Department of Rheumatology, Caen University Hospital University and INSERM, UniCaen, U1075, COMETE, PFRS, Normandie University, Caen, France
3 Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Et Faculté de Médecine, Pharmacologie Médicale, EA4245, Université de Tours, Tours, France
4 Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Geneva University Hospitals, Genev, Switzerland
5 Unité de Recherche Clinique, Centre d’Investigation Clinique 1408, CHU de Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France
6 CHU Saint-Etienne, Mines Saint-Etienne, Centre d’Investigation Clinique 1408, INSERM, SAINBIOSE U1059, University Jean Monnet Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

ED, CM, TB-A, FR, MA, LDA and EP declare no competing interests. AF has received grants or contracts (Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, Gilead and BMS), consulting fees (AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Pfizer and Gilead) and honorary payments (BMIS, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and MSD) and participated in advisory boards (Astra-Zeneca, Gilead, Novartis, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, J&J, Mylan and UCB). HM has received grants and contract (Celltrion Healthcare, Lilly, Medac, Nordic Pharma), consulting fees (AbbVie, Accord, Celltrion Healthcare, Johnson and Johnson, UCB) and honorary payments (AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer) and participated in advisory boards (Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, UCB).

DrHubertMarotte; hubert.marotte@chu-st-etienne.fr
2024
10 9 2024
14 9 e08787221 4 2024
20 8 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Abstract

Introduction

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised by inflammatory low back pain. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as a first treatment in axSpA. In case of inadequate response to NSAIDs, biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) should be introduced according to the recommendations of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology. Until 2015, only bDMARD was recommended for axSpA in case of failure to anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF). The 2022 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS)-EULAR recommendation proposed to start an alternative bDMARD but without advocating a switch in mode of action as proposed in rheumatoid arthritis. Since 2015, the inhibition of interleukin (IL)-17 has demonstrated efficacy in axSpA. Then, we designed a randomised multicentre clinical trial to identify the more effective treatment after a first anti-TNF failure in axSpA, comparing an anti-IL-17 to a second anti-TNF.

Methods and analysis

The ROC-SpA (Rotation Or Change of biotherapy after first anti-TNF treatment failure in axSpA patients) study is a prospective, randomised, multicentre, superiority open-label phase IV trial comparing an anti-IL-17 strategy (secukinumab or ixekizumab) to a second TNF blocker in a 1:1 ratio. Patients with an active axSpA (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index >4 or ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS) >3.5) with inadequate 3 months response to a first anti-TNF and with a stable dose of conventional synthetic DMARDs, oral corticosteroids and/or NSAIDs for at least 1 month are included in 31 hospital centres in France and Monaco. The primary outcome is the ASAS40 response at week 24. The secondary outcomes are ASAS40 at weeks 12 and 52, other clinical scores (ASAS20, partial remission rate, ASDAS major improvement rate) at weeks 12, 24 and 52 with the drugs and anti-drugs concentrations at baseline, weeks 12, 24 and 52. The primary analysis is performed at the end of the study according to the intent-to-treat principle.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval was obtained from the committee for the protection of persons (Comité de protection des personnes Ouest IV #12/18_1, 6 February 2018) and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and in EudraCT. Results of this study, whether positive or negative, will be presented at national and international congresses, to national axSpA patient associations and published in a peer-reviewed journal. It could also impact the international recommendation to manage patients with axSpA.

Trial registration number

NCT03445845 and EudraCT2017-004700-22.

RHEUMATOLOGY
THERAPEUTICS
Clinical Trial
Ministry of Health (Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National 2016) PHRCN-16-0642
==== Body
pmcSTRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

The ROC-SpA (Rotation Or Change of biotherapy after first anti-TNF treatment failure in axSpA patients) study is the first prospective, randomised, multicentre, superiority open-label phase IV trial comparing two strategies in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with inadequate 3 months response to a first anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF).

The primary endpoint was Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 40 at week 24 which is representative to physician expectation.

We compared anti-interleukin-17 to a second TNF blocker without other strategies as Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.

International recommendations for axSpA management will be updated based on our results.

Introduction

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised by inflammatory low back pain. Heterogeneity of its prevalence reported over the world could be due to the importance of environmental and genetic factors in this disease with the haplotype human leucocyte antigen-B27 which is the most important and the best-known factor. The clinical features of axSpA1 are inflammatory back pain often due to sacroiliitis and enthesitis. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the cornerstone of treatment but do not adequately control inflammation in all patients.

A better knowledge of axSpA pathology and the discovery of the strong involvement of two families of cytokines allowed the development of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) was the first cytokine targeted in axSpA.2 Since 2003, pharmaceutical companies investigated the efficacy of TNF blockers already used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Etanercept is a fusion protein with TNF receptor type II p75 and IgG1 Fc fragment whereas adalimumab, infliximab and golimumab are monoclonal antibodies. Certolizumab is a fusion between a fab fragment targeting TNF and a pegol fraction. All demonstrated efficacy versus placebo in a randomised double-blinded study in radiographic (r)-axSpA, previously named ankylosing spondylitis (AS),37 and non-radiographic axSpA,710 except for infliximab.

Since 2010, interleukin (IL)-23/17 pathway was suspected to play a role in axSpA physiopathology since the locus of IL-23 receptor was associated with axSpA in genome-wide studies.11 To date, two anti-IL17, secukinumab and ixekizumab, are available on the French market and demonstrated efficiency in randomised double-blinded study versus placebo in AS12 13 and nr-SpA.13 14

In clinical trials, response to therapy was assessed by Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) scores with ASAS20 and ASAS40 denoting roughly 20% and 40% of improvement, respectively. Overall, the ASAS20 response rate was around 60% for all anti-TNFs. These drugs have now been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and are currently available in France in case of inadequate response to NSAIDs.15 16 Inadequate response is defined by Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) >4 despite treatment. Given that around one-third of patients with axSpA fail to the first anti-TNF within the first 2 years,17 18 many patients with axSpA receive a second bDMARDs. Various international societies proposed some recommendations to treat axSpA. In axSpA with persistent high disease activity despite NSAIDs, anti-TNF should be started according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)19 and the American College of Rheumatology recommendations.20 In case of failure to a first anti-TNF, the 2022 ASAS-EULAR recommendation21 proposed to re-evaluate the diagnosis and to start a new bDMARDs without recommending to switch mode of action as proposed in RA.22 This is in line with the ‘Treat-to-Target’ principle which has not yet been validated in axSpA since the TICOSPA study failed to achieve its primary objective but did show efficacy in some secondary endpoints including ASAS40.23 This approach already demonstrated its benefit in RA24 or in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).25 This concept was also suggested for axSpA with low levels of evidence.26

Thus, we hypothesised that anti-IL-17 may provide a better clinical response at 24 weeks when compared with a second anti-TNF after the failure of a first anti-TNF in axSpA. In a second step, we hypothesised that anti-IL-17 compared with a second anti-TNF may provide a better clinical response after failure of a first anti-TNF in axSpA at weeks 12 and 52 and a better maintenance of the second bDMARD. We also plan to compare the tolerance, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) between the anti-IL-17 strategy and the second anti-TNF strategy. The pharmacokinetic parameters of bDMARDs are assessed to find out whether they are predictive of a clinical response at week 24 or associated with low disease.

Methods and analysis

Study design

The ROC-SpA (Rotation Or Change of biotherapy after first anti-TNF treatment failure in axSpA patients) study is a prospective, randomised, multicentre, open-label superiority phase IV trial, comparing two strategies in patients with axSpA with inadequate response to a first anti-TNF: Anti-IL-17 compared with a second anti-TNF. A total of 31 centres over France and Monaco participate in this trial. The sponsor is Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Etienne (Délégation à la Recherche Clinique et à l’Innovation). The ROC-SpA study is conducted by the CIC1408 of Saint-Etienne in collaboration with IMIDIATE-CRI (Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Disease Alliance for Translational and Clinical Research part of French Clinical Research Infrastructure Network). The trial is funded by a grant from Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique 2018 (French Ministry of Health). The study is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by an ethics committee (Comité de protection des personnes Ouest IV #12/18_1, 6 February 2018). The protocol follows the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for International Trails guidelines,27 28 and was recorded in ClinicalTrials.gov and in EudraCT. Patients are randomised to receive anti-IL-17A (secukinumab or ixekizumab (since its reimbursement in the French market on September 2020); experimental group) or a second anti-TNF (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab or infliximab; control group) for 52 weeks with no crossover design. A visit is scheduled for each patient at baseline and at 12, 24 and 52 weeks (figure 1). At each visit, the regular follow-up of patients with axSpA treated with bDMARDs includes BASDAI,29 ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS)30 31 assessments and tolerance. In addition to the daily practice, a blood sample (5 mL) is collected and the questionnaires EuroQol,32 Short Form 3633 and cost effectiveness are performed. To ensure a blinded evaluation of the main criterium ASAS40 response at week 24, the patients are contacted by phone call to fulfil the questionnaires (BASDAI, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI)34 and verbal analogue scale). Disease activity is measured by BASDAI and ASDAS. Low disease activity is defined by BASDAI <4 and ASDAS <2.1.

Figure 1 Design of ROC-SpA study in order to guarantee the blindness of the evaluation of the main judgement criterion, a telephone call was made to collect the information needed to calculate it. ASAS, Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society; axSpA, axial spondyloarthritis; ROC-SpA, Rotation Or Change of biotherapy after first anti-TNF treatment failure in axSpA patients; TNF, tumour necrosis factor.

Study participants

Patients with AxSpA are recruited during outpatient visits in each centre. The inclusion of patients is performed by a large number of clinicians involved in the IMIDIATE-CRI network. During a visit, a screening examination is performed to evaluate whether the patient is probably eligible for the study. During regular disease assessment of axSpA treated by a first anti-TNF, in case of inadequate response to the first anti-TNF, the physician checks inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Patients who fulfil inclusion criteria are informed about the trial and the protocol. If patients agree to participate, a consent form is distributed to them and an inclusion visit is planned after 7–21 days. After written informed consent, the inclusion visit is conducted by a medical doctor and includes a clinical assessment, filling questionnaires to assess the disease activity and the quality of life. Blood samples (5 mL) are collected to measure bDMARDs concentration with a biological bank.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The study includes patients aged ≥18 years with active axSpA (BASDAI >4 or ASDAS >3.5) with an inadequate response after at least 3 months to a first anti-TNF and with a stable dose of a conventional synthetic DMARDs, oral corticosteroids and/or NSAIDs for at least 1 month before inclusion. Additionally, patients must give informed written consent (online supplemental file 1) and must be affiliated with a social security scheme and able to complete questionnaires. Exclusion criteria are in table 1.

Table 1 Exclusion criteria of ROC-SpA study

Due to the biological drugs	Any contraindication to anti-TNF and/or anti-IL-17	
	Inflammatory bowel diseases	
	Existing pregnancy, lactation, or intended pregnancy within the next 15 months	
	Active tuberculosis or other severe infections such as sepsis or opportunistic infections	
	Active infections, including chronic or localised infections	
	Moderate-to-severe heart failure (NYHA classes III/IV)	
General	Impossibility to give informed consent	
	Impossibility to be followed for 12 months	
ILinterleukinNYHANew York Heart AssociationROC-SpARotation Or Change of biotherapy after first anti-TNF treatment failure in axSpA patientsTNFtumour necrosis factor

Interventions

In this study, the patients included in the control group or experimental group are treated according to the current clinical practice and national recommendations. The experimental group (anti-IL-17) is treated with secukinumab or ixekizumab in compliance with the marketing authorisation regimen. The control group is switched to a second anti-TNF (bio-originator or biosimilar), different from the first anti-TNF used before the inclusion.

Anti-TNF and anti-IL-17 are prescribed in compliance with the marketing authorisation specifications and reimbursement conditions. The treatment is provided by the French Health Insurance in the daily practice. Compliance, batch number, expiration date and the date and time of drug administration are checked by the patients on a booklet. The reasons of non-administration are documented on the electronic case report froms (eCRF).

Randomisation

The randomisation is done centrally by an interactive web response system (IWRS): The IWRS allocates a unique randomisation number to all eligible subjects. The method of sequence generation is a computerised random number generator using permuted block sizes of 2 and 4 in SAS software. Randomisation is stratified by the centre and the cause of failure to the first anti-TNF: primary non-response, secondary non-response and any side effect related to the first anti-TNF. Primary non-response is defined by no improvement during the treatment with a BASDAI over 4 and ASDAS over 2.1 at any time during the first anti-TNF whereas secondary non-response is defined by a flare-up of disease after a phase of improvement with a BASDAI over 4 and ASDAS over 2.1.

Blinding

Patients and physicians are not blinded to the group. However, to assess a blinded assessment, a clinical research assistant (CRA) contacts the patient by phone call to fulfil the questionnaires (BASDAI, BASFI and verbal analogue scale) allowing ASAS40 response determination just before the visit.

Outcomes

Primary outcome

The primary outcome is the ASAS40 response at week 24 after beginning the anti-IL-17 or the second anti-TNF. ASAS40 response is defined as a ≥40% improvement and an absolute improvement from baseline of ≥2 units (range 0–10) in ≥3 of the 4 domains (patient global assessment, spine pain, function represented by BASFI and morning stiffness) without any worsening in the remaining domain.31

Secondary outcomes

The secondary outcomes are summarised in the table 2.

Table 2 Secondary outcomes which will be compared between the IL-17 strategy versus a second anti-TNF strategy

Clinical response	ASAS40 at weeks 12 and 52	
ASAS20 at weeks 12, 24 and 52	
Partial remission rates at weeks 12, 24 and 52	
ASDAS major improvement rates at weeks 12, 24 and 52	
Maintenance rates of the TNF and IL-17 blockers at weeks 12, 24 and 52	
Tolerance of the treatment	Specific questions at each visit	
Notes on booklet by the patient	
Medical direct and indirect costs	Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)	
Health benefits	Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at baseline and every 6 months	
Short Form 36 (SF-36) at baseline and every 6 months	
Drugs and anti-drugs concentrations	TNF blockers and anti-drug antibody concentrations at the inclusion	
TNF and IL-17 blockers concentration at weeks 12, 24 and 52	
ASAS, Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society; ASDAS, ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score; bDMARD, biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugsILinterleukinTNFtumour necrosis factor

The ASAS20 response is based on the same principle than ASA40 response but with an improvement of at least 20%. Partial remission is defined by values lower than 20/100 in each four criteria (patient global assessment, spine pain, function represented by BASFI and morning stiffness). ASDAS major improvement was defined by a variation of ASDAS-C reactive protein (CRP) ≥2.

Tolerance of the treatment is collected actively (specific questions on the different expected outcomes in the eCRF) at each visit with a focus on any kind of infection. Moreover, patients note on a booklet any side effects during the treatment to reduce the bias of memorisation.

The ICER of the anti-IL-17 strategy versus the second anti-TNF strategy is defined as follows:

Δ(Costanti-IL/17 – Cost2nd TNF) / Δ(Efficacy anti-IL-17 – Efficacy2nd TNF)

in which direct and indirect costs will be elicited from the payer (national health insurance) perspective and effectiveness expressed QALY and derived from the EQ-5D-5L using French norms.35

Drugs and anti-drugs concentrations are assessed by specific Lisa Tracker kits from Theradiag (Marne-La-Vallée, France) performed in a central laboratory (Laboratoire d’Immunologie of Saint-Etienne).

Statistical power

Registry data suggest an ASAS40 response of around 30% at 12 weeks of a second anti-TNF.36 We expect in our study an ASAS40 response around 20% at 24 weeks. The ASAS40 response to 24 weeks of secukinumab after failure to a first anti-TNF was around 40%.37 At the time this study was written, no data were available for ixekizumab. However, ASAS response rates from different studies with different designs are not recommended. We therefore hypothesised that the ASAS40 response of patients treated with secukinumab would be 40% after 24 weeks compared with 20% in patients treated with a second anti-TNF. We thus used a superiority model to determine whether the ASAS40 response of patients treated with an anti-IL-17 was superior to the ASAS40 response of patients treated with a second anti-TNF. With these assumptions, it is necessary to include 119 patients with axSpA per group for an alpha risk of 5% and a statistical power of 90%. To compensate for the risk of lost to follow-up, we included 150 patients per group for a total of 300 patients with axSpA.

Data collection and management

Data are recording in an eCRF: a secured electronic system via a web navigator with a control system. The investigator is in charge of the accuracy, quality and relevancy of all collected data. A CRA appointed by the sponsor is in charge of the study, data collection in writing, data recording, data saving and reporting in accordance with the Saint-Etienne CHU Standardised Operating Procedures as well as the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the in-force legislation and laws. Patients participating in this research are informed of the right to access and rectification of data concerning them. Furthermore, only authorised personnel by the sponsor (investigator, CRA, technician research assistant) and representatives of health authorities have access to this information. People who have direct access to data, all the safety measures are taken to assure the confidentiality of information in regard to the experimental drugs, the trial, the individuals undergoing the trial, the patient’s identity and the obtained results. During the biomedical research, the collected data on the individuals undergoing the trial are anonymised. The sponsor guarantees that each individual undergoing the trial has given his/her informed consent through writing for the right to access their data for the purposes of clinical research quality control. Data are saved on the internal network of the University Hospital in a directory dedicated to the study, a directory accessible only to the statistician. At the end of the research, all documents (case report files, investigator files…) are archived and stored for 15 years in each centre. Once data processing is completed, the computer data is temporarily stored in a library to which access is restricted to only authorised personnel.

Data analysis

A statistical analysis plan will be written blinded to the data. No intermediate statistical analysis was planned. Statistical analysis will be performed on the available information after dataset freezing. The statistical analysis will be performed according to the intention to treat (ITT) principle that is to say on all the randomised patients according to the group to which they will be randomly assigned regardless of what treatment they receive. A sensitivity analysis will be performed on the modified-ITT population which comprises all randomised subjects who received at least one dose of a study medication, if more than 5% of patients do not receive at least one dose. If the rate of missing data is 2% or more, an imputation of missing data will be performed for ITT analysis, according to two methods:

The multiple imputation method,

and in the worst case scenario: a patient with missing data on his primary endpoint will be considered like non-respondent (ASAS40) at week 24 for the anti-IL-17 group and respondent the second anti-TNF group.

Qualitative data will be presented as the number and the percentage of patients in each treatment group. Quantitative data will be presented as mean and SD, range, median and IQR by treatment group. The absence of imbalance between the groups will be clinically checked on the demographic and initial variables. No statistical test will be performed, in order to avoid a multiplicity of tests, the differences to be evaluated in clinical terms. All statistical tests will be performed with the use of a two-sided type I error rate of 5%. All analyses will be performed using SAS software (SAS-Windows on computer PC) and R software.

Primary analysis

The second anti-TNF strategy will be considered as the reference strategy and the anti-IL-17 as the alternative one. The primary endpoint will be the proportion of patients with axSpA with a clinical response ASAS40 at week 24. This proportion and the corresponding 95% CI will be estimated by the treatment group. Treatment effect will be estimated by the OR and its 95% CI. For that, an adjusted analysis of the stratification factors will be performed for the primary endpoint with logistic regression (dependent variable will be the clinical response at week 24 and the treatment group and the stratification factors as independent variables). The resulting p value will be reported. In case of imbalance between groups at inclusion, an adjusted analysis on the unbalanced covariate will be performed for the primary endpoint.

Secondary analysis

For analysis of other secondary endpoints, no p value will be done except for safety outcomes, only the 95% CI of the efficacy index will be estimated.38

For qualitative secondary endpoints, treatment effect will be estimated by the OR and its 95% CI using an adjusted analysis on the stratification factors with logistic regression. For quantitative secondary endpoints, the effect of treatment will be estimated by the least-square means difference between the two groups and its 95% CI.

To determine if the first TNF blocker and anti-drug antibody concentrations at inclusion predict the clinical response at 24 weeks, a multivariate logistic regression will be made, with:

The clinical response at 24 weeks as interest event,

the first TNF blocker and anti-drug antibody concentrations at inclusion as potential predictors of clinical response at 24 weeks,

and, the study drug as adjustment factor.

A variable will be considered as an independent risk factor of clinical response when the p value is inferior to 0.05 in the multivariate model.

The same methods will be used to determine if the bDMARDS concentrations and anti-drug antibody concentrations at inclusion will be associated with the low disease activity (ie, BASDAI score strictly inferior to 4 and ASDAS-CRP strictly inferior to 2.1).

Regarding cost-effective comparison, costs will be presented in Euros currents in the form of averages (±SD) and median. The 95% CI will be determined by the bootstrap technique. A sensitivity analysis will be conducted to consider:

Differences in rates of medical or paramedical consultations by geographic location and conditions of professional practice.

Differences in valuation of indirect costs (frictional or human capital approach, considering only paid or unpaid activities). The primary cost-utility analysis was conducted using a complete-case analysis sample. We will test differences in costs and outcomes between the two strategies using parametric on non-parametric tests (χ2 test, Fisher’s Exact Test for count data, McNemar χ2 test and 2-sample Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test) as appropriate. The incremental ICER will be calculated by dividing the difference in costs by the difference in QALYs between the groups.39

A probabilistic sensitivity analysis will be performed by estimating 5000 ICERs using 5000 samples generated by bootstrap in order to plot a cost-effectiveness plane.39 Sensitivity analyses will also be performed on costs by increasing or decreasing the study drug up to 130% or down to 70% of the current cost.40 The impact of missing data on the results will be investigated for costs and outcomes.41 An imputed ICER will be estimated by means of multiple imputations by chained equations (30 datasets generated).42 43

To help deciding which strategy should be promoted, the probability of each strategy to be cost-effective for different willingness to pay thresholds will be computed.39

Patient recruitment strategies

Recruitment of patients started in June 2018 and finished in July 2023. In total, 31 French recruitment centres were involved: Rheumatologic departments in 31 academic hospitals including 7 departments of Paris Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris hospitals.

We used several communication channels to communicate about the study (French Society of Rheumatology) and publications in social network and the general media. CRI-IMIDIATE was used to communicate about the study.

Adverse events

Informations about adverse events, serious and unexpected adverse events are declared on eCRF.

The investigator reports to the sponsor immediately any serious adverse event by filling out a specific form of eCRF. The initial announcement can be followed by forwarding all relevant additional information: Within 8 days in case of a fatal or life-threatening event and within 15 days in all other cases. All unexpected serious adverse event (SAE) for which it has not been able to exclude a link with the experimental drug will be sent to (agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé) ANSM by the sponsor. The frequency of expected SAE will be followed by the vigilance of the sponsor. In case of an increase in the frequency of SAEs expected that will be reclassified as unexpected and will be a statement of new fact to the committee for the protection of persons (CPP) and ANSM. The independent data monitoring committee (iDMC) monitored the patients’ safety during the study and gave recommendations to the steering committee. Study treatment could be permanently stopped if any of the following events occur: Safety reason, pregnancy, withdrawal of consent, loss of follow-up, treatment failure, sponsor and/or steering committee following an advice on safety aspects of the study by the iDMC.

In some situations, it might be necessary to interrupt the study medication temporarily. Patients should be encouraged to restart the study drug after a short interruption (1–7 days) except when absolutely contraindicated. In the event that the administration of the study drug is temporarily or permanently discontinued, follow-up, including assessment of any clinical event, will be pursued. The reasons for premature discontinuation of study drugs will be recorded.

Patient and public involvement

There is no patient or public involvement.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval was obtained from the CPP and ANSM. A core information and informed consent form is provided to all patients. Modifications to the protocol is implemented neither by the sponsor nor the investigator without agreement by both parties. However, the investigator may implement a deviation from or a change of the protocol to eliminate an immediate hazard(s) to the trial subjects without prior ethics committee (EC)/institutional review board (IRB)/sponsor approval/favourable opinion. As soon as possible, any implemented deviation or change, reasons for it and if appropriate the proposed protocol amendment should be submitted to the EC/IRB/Bayer. Any deviations from the protocol must be fully explained and documented by the investigator. Any change to the study should be written and filed as an amendment to this protocol. Results of this study, whether positive or negative, will be presented at national and international congresses, to national axSpA patient associations and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Discussion

This is the first randomised study evaluating the efficacy of an anti-IL-17 compared with a second anti-TNF after a failure of a first anti-TNF in axSpA. The present objective is to investigate whether one of these strategies might be more effective in a pragmatic trial, in a current practice setting. Current trials in axSpA performed by pharmaceutical companies generally aim to extend the indications of a particular drug. We chose a subset of patients with an inadequate response to a first anti-TNF. We expect that anti-IL-17 will provide a better clinical response at 24 weeks when compared with a second anti-TNF, after failure of a first anti-TNF in axSpA.

We did not include in our trial anti-IL-23 and JAK inhibitor. At the time of the design of the study, we expected a putative efficacy of ustekinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the subunit p40 sharing by IL-12 and IL-23. This bDMARDs was first developed and approved by EMA for PsA.44 45 In a post hoc analysis including only patients with inflammatory back pain observed an efficacy assessed by BASDAI 50 response at 30% with ustekinumab versus 11% with placebo.46 Despite this result, three randomised control studies failed to demonstrate the efficacy of ustekinumab in axSpA.47 Recently, guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the subunit p19 IL-23 showed an improvement in axial symptoms of PsA.48 A specific clinical trial is ongoing to assess the guselkumab efficacy in active PsA axial disease by assessing reduction in axial symptoms and inflammation (NCT04929210).49 In another hand, efficacy of upadacitinib, a JAK inhibitor, was demonstrated since 201950 51 with the approbation of the drug in 2023.

Limited data exist on secukinumab efficacy in case of anti-TNF failure but a trend for a lower efficacy has been observed (ASAS20 response at 68% vs 50% at 16 weeks).12 To date, few studies compared the efficacy between secukinumab and an anti-TNF. A randomised head-to-head study showed no efficacy difference between secukinumab and an anti-TNF inhibitor in naïve patients with AS.52 But no randomised study has been conducted in patients with axSpA after a first anti-TNF failure. A comparative study has reported a comparable efficacy between secukinumab and an anti-TNF after a first anti-TNF failure in patients with axSpA.53 Another study first showed no difference of efficacy between secukinumab and an anti-TNF after a first anti-TNF failure.54 However, when dividing patients into two groups with primary and secondary non-responders to anti-TNF, the second anti-TNF showed a better efficacy than secukinumab in secondary non-responders.55 But these studies are observational, limited by confounding factors, selection biases and missing data. For this reason, a randomised trial is needed to determine whether there is a difference in efficacy between secukinumab and an anti-TNF after first anti-TNF failure.

In 2005, EMA proposed to use ASAS40 response criteria at 12 or 24 weeks in clinical trials. Accordingly, clinical trials assess short efficacy of new drugs focused mainly on ASAS20 response at 12 or 14 weeks. In the daily practice, physicians expect to have a durable clinically significant response. In our study, response to the ASAS40 (primary objective) is assessed at week 24 to be more representative of patient and physician expectations, especially as there is no placebo group.

Analysis of efficiency from registries needs to be interpreted carefully due to many biases inherent in this kind of study. Interpretation of efficacy by indirect comparison of randomised phase III studies is also difficult due to different population at inclusion with some bias. In our study, all drugs are self-injected subcutaneously in order to avoid the bias based on treatment adherence. To reduce the assessment bias due to the open label, a blinded nurse expert in axSpA assessment contacts by call 2 weeks before the primary outcome measurement to assess perform questionnaires allowing ASAS criteria calculation. Concentration of bDMARDs and anti-drugs antibody performed in a central laboratory (Laboratoire d’Immunologie, CHU Saint-Etienne) in a blinded manner excepted for the treatment to assess. To reduce confusion bias, stratification is performed according to the centre and the reason to stop the first anti-TNF (primary or secondary failure, side effect). To reduce the memorisation bias, all patients note every infection to a booklet. To stay in a pragmatic approach, the second anti-TNF in the control group or the anti-IL-17 in the experimental group was chosen by the investigator who decided on the best suitable treatment for the patient after discussing with him or her.

As all new therapies or strategies, the balance risk-benefit to the patient needs to be evaluated. With an anti-TNF, serious side effects can occur including serious infections with pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis, pulmonary sepsis (including Legionella), skin and joints infections as well as excess of some cancers (in particular skin cancers).5658 With an anti-IL-17, data on longstanding safety are limited. During phase III study, some candida infections without systemic form were reported.12

This pragmatic study will therefore offer opportunity to identify the best strategy in patients with axSpA in failure to a first anti-TNF.

Trial status

The recruitment started in June 2018 and ended in July 2023. The trial will end in July 2024, 52 weeks after the last inclusion.

supplementary material

10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087872 online supplemental file 1

Review Process File
10 09 2024

Funding: This is an academic study sponsored by the CHU de Saint-Etienne. This study was funded by the Ministry of Health (Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National in 2016-0642).

Prepub: Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087872).

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Collaborators: ROC-SpA study group: Athan Baillet; Maxime Breban; Olivier Brocq; Pascal Claudepierre; Arnaud Constantin; Gregoire Cormier; Emmanuelle Dernis; Valérie Devauchelle; Renaud Felten; Elisabeth Gervais; Laure Gossec; Philippe Goupille; Benoit Le Goff; Béatrice Bouvard; Thierry Lequerré; Eric Lespessailles; Cédric Lukas; Corinne Miceli; Stephan Pavy; Christian Jorgensen; Christian H Roux; Thierry Schaeverbeke; Jean-Hugues Salmon; Jérémie Sellam; Anne Tournadre; Tristan Pascart; Daniel Wendling.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
==== Refs
References

1 Rudwaleit M van der Heijde D Landewé R et al The development of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part II): validation and final selection Ann Rheum Dis 2009 68 777 83 10.1136/ard.2009.108233 19297344
2 Braun J Bollow M Neure L et al Use of immunohistologic and in situ hybridization techniques in the examination of sacroiliac joint biopsy specimens from patients with ankylosing spondylitis Arthritis Rheum 1995 38 499 505 10.1002/art.1780380407 7718003
3 Davis JC Van Der Heijde D Braun J et al Recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (etanercept) for treating ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized, controlled trial Arthritis Rheum 2003 48 3230 6 10.1002/art.11325 14613288
4 van der Heijde D Dijkmans B Geusens P et al Efficacy and safety of infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: results of a randomized, placebo‐controlled trial (ASSERT) Arthritis & Rheum 2005 52 582 91 10.1002/art.20852 15692973
5 van der Heijde D Kivitz A Schiff MH et al Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial Arthritis Rheum 2006 54 2136 46 10.1002/art.21913 16802350
6 Inman RD Davis JC Heijde D van der et al Efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial Arthritis Rheum 2008 58 3402 12 10.1002/art.23969 18975305
7 Landewé R Braun J Deodhar A et al Efficacy of certolizumab pegol on signs and symptoms of axial spondyloarthritis including ankylosing spondylitis: 24-week results of a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled Phase 3 study Ann Rheum Dis 2014 73 39 47 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204231 24013647
8 Dougados M van der Heijde D Sieper J et al OP0108 Clinical and Imaging Efficacy of Etanercept in Early Non-Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis: a 12-Week, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial Ann Rheum Dis 2013 72 A87 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-eular.313
9 Sieper J van der Heijde D Dougados M et al Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: results of a randomised placebo-controlled trial (ABILITY-1) Ann Rheum Dis 2013 72 815 22 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201766 22772328
10 Sieper J van der Heijde D Dougados M et al A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sixteen-week study of subcutaneous golimumab in patients with active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis Arthritis Rheumatol 2015 67 2702 12 10.1002/art.39257 26139307
11 Thomas GP Brown MA Genetics and genomics of ankylosing spondylitis Immunol Rev 2010 233 162 80 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2009.00852.x 20192999
12 Baeten D Sieper J Braun J et al Secukinumab, an Interleukin-17A Inhibitor, in Ankylosing Spondylitis N Engl J Med 2015 373 2534 48 10.1056/NEJMoa1505066 26699169
13 Deodhar A van der Heijde D Gensler LS et al Ixekizumab for patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (COAST-X): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial Lancet 2020 395 53 64 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32971-X 31813637
14 Braun J Blanco R Marzo-Ortega H et al Secukinumab in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: subgroup analysis based on key baseline characteristics from a randomized phase III study, PREVENT Arthritis Res Ther 2021 23 231 10.1186/s13075-021-02613-9 34481517
15 Wendling D Lukas C Paccou J et al Recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) on the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis Joint Bone Spine 2014 81 6 14 10.1016/j.jbspin.2013.12.002 24412120
16 Wendling D Hecquet S Fogel O et al 2022 French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) recommendations on the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis, including psoriatic arthritis Joint Bone Spine 2022 89 105344 10.1016/j.jbspin.2022.105344 35038574
17 Zufferey P Ghosn J Becce F et al Anti-tumor necrosis factor drug survival in axial spondyloarthritis is independent of the classification criteria Rheumatol Int 2015 35 295 302 10.1007/s00296-014-3094-z 25070142
18 Lie E Kristensen LE Forsblad-d’Elia H et al The effect of comedication with conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs on TNF inhibitor drug survival in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and undifferentiated spondyloarthritis: results from a nationwide prospective study Ann Rheum Dis 2015 74 970 8 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206616 25710471
19 Braun J van den Berg R Baraliakos X et al 2010 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis Ann Rheum Dis 2011 70 896 904 10.1136/ard.2011.151027 21540199
20 Ward MM Deodhar A Akl EA et al American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network 2015 Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis Arthritis Rheumatol 2016 68 282 98 10.1002/art.39298 26401991
21 Ramiro S Nikiphorou E Sepriano A et al ASAS-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis: 2022 update Ann Rheum Dis 2023 82 19 34 10.1136/ard-2022-223296 36270658
22 Gottenberg J-E Brocq O Perdriger A et al Non-TNF-Targeted Biologic vs a Second Anti-TNF Drug to Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients With Insufficient Response to a First Anti-TNF Drug: a Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA 2016 316 1172 80 10.1001/jama.2016.13512 27654603
23 Molto A López-Medina C Van den Bosch FE et al Efficacy of a tight-control and treat-to-target strategy in axial spondyloarthritis: results of the open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised TICOSPA trial Ann Rheum Dis 2021 80 1436 44 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219585 33958325
24 Grigor C Capell H Stirling A et al Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial Lancet 2004 364 263 9 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16676-2 15262104
25 Coates LC Moverley AR McParland L et al Effect of tight control of inflammation in early psoriatic arthritis (TICOPA): a UK multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial Lancet 2015 386 2489 98 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00347-5 26433318
26 Smolen JS Braun J Dougados M et al Treating spondyloarthritis, including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, to target: recommendations of an international task force Ann Rheum Dis 2014 73 6 16 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203419 23749611
27 Moher D Schulz KF Altman DG The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials Lancet 2001 357 1191 4 11323066
28 Altman DG Schulz KF Moher D et al The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration Ann Intern Med 2001 134 663 94 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 11304107
29 Garrett S Jenkinson T Kennedy LG et al A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index J Rheumatol 1994 21 2286 91 7699630
30 van der Heijde D Lie E Kvien TK et al ASDAS, a highly discriminatory ASAS-endorsed disease activity score in patients with ankylosing spondylitis Ann Rheum Dis 2009 68 1811 8 10.1136/ard.2008.100826 19060001
31 Machado P Landewé R Lie E et al Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS): defining cut-off values for disease activity states and improvement scores Ann Rheum Dis 2011 70 47 53 10.1136/ard.2010.138594 21068095
32 Herdman M Gudex C Lloyd A et al Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res 2011 20 1727 36 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x 21479777
33 Jenkinson C Coulter A Wright L Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age BMJ 1993 306 1437 40 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1437 8518639
34 Calin A Garrett S Whitelock H et al A new approach to defining functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: the development of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index J Rheumatol 1994 21 2281 5 7699629
35 Chevalier J de Pouvourville G Valuing EQ-5D using time trade-off in France Eur J Health Econ 2013 14 57 66 10.1007/s10198-011-0351-x 21935715
36 Lie E van der Heijde D Uhlig T et al Effectiveness of switching between TNF inhibitors in ankylosing spondylitis: data from the NOR-DMARD register Ann Rheum Dis 2011 70 157 63 10.1136/ard.2010.131797 21062852
37 Sieper J Deodhar A Marzo-Ortega H et al Secukinumab efficacy in anti-TNF-naive and anti-TNF-experienced subjects with active ankylosing spondylitis: results from the MEASURE 2 Study Ann Rheum Dis 2017 76 571 92 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210023 27582421
38 Harrington D D’Agostino RB Gatsonis C et al New Guidelines for Statistical Reporting in the Journal N Engl J Med 2019 381 285 6 10.1056/NEJMe1906559 31314974
39 Drummond MF Sculpher MJ Claxton K et al Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes 4th edn Oxford, New York Oxford University Press 2015
40 Brodszky V Baji P Balogh O et al Budget impact analysis of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in six Central and Eastern European countries Eur J Health Econ 2014 15 S65 71 10.1007/s10198-014-0595-3 24832837
41 Faria R Gomes M Epstein D et al A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials Pharmacoeconomics 2014 32 1157 70 10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3 25069632
42 van Buuren S Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification Stat Methods Med Res 2007 16 219 42 10.1177/0962280206074463 17621469
43 White IR Royston P Wood AM Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice Stat Med 2011 30 377 99 10.1002/sim.4067 21225900
44 McInnes IB Kavanaugh A Gottlieb AB et al Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 1 year results of the phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled PSUMMIT 1 trial Lancet 2013 382 780 9 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60594-2 23769296
45 Ritchlin C Rahman P Kavanaugh A et al Efficacy and safety of the anti-IL-12/23 p40 monoclonal antibody, ustekinumab, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis despite conventional non-biological and biological anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy: 6-month and 1-year results of the phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised PSUMMIT 2 trial Ann Rheum Dis 2014 73 990 9 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204655 24482301
46 Kavanaugh A Puig L Gottlieb AB et al Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in psoriatic arthritis patients with peripheral arthritis and physician-reported spondylitis: post-hoc analyses from two phase III, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (PSUMMIT-1/PSUMMIT-2) Ann Rheum Dis 2016 75 1984 8 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-209068 27098404
47 Deodhar A Gensler LS Sieper J et al Three Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab in Axial Spondyloarthritis Arthritis Rheumatol 2019 71 258 70 10.1002/art.40728 30225992
48 Mease PJ Helliwell PS Gladman DD et al Efficacy of guselkumab on axial involvement in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and sacroiliitis: a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 studies Lancet Rheumatol 2021 3 e715 23 10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00105-3 38287608
49 Gladman DD Mease PJ Bird P et al Efficacy and safety of guselkumab in biologic-naïve patients with active axial psoriatic arthritis: study protocol for STAR, a phase 4, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial Trials 2022 23 743 10.1186/s13063-022-06589-y 36064592
50 van der Heijde D Song I-H Pangan AL et al Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (SELECT-AXIS 1): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial Lancet 2019 394 2108 17 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32534-6 31732180
51 Deodhar A Van den Bosch F Poddubnyy D et al Upadacitinib for the treatment of active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SELECT-AXIS 2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial Lancet 2022 400 369 79 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01212-0 35908570
52 Baraliakos X Østergaard M Gensler LS et al Comparison of the Effects of Secukinumab and Adalimumab Biosimilar on Radiographic Progression in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: design of a Randomized, Phase IIIb Study (SURPASS) Clin Drug Investig 2020 40 269 78 10.1007/s40261-020-00886-7
53 Micheroli R Tellenbach C Scherer A et al Effectiveness of secukinumab versus an alternative TNF inhibitor in patients with axial spondyloarthritis previously exposed to TNF inhibitors in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort Ann Rheum Dis 2020 79 1203 9 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215934 32581090
54 Min HK Kim H-R Lee S-H et al Retention rate and effectiveness of secukinumab vs TNF inhibitor in ankylosing spondylitis patients with prior TNF inhibitor exposure Rheumatol (Oxford) 2021 60 5743 52 10.1093/rheumatology/keab245
55 Min HK Kim H-R Lee S-H et al Clinical efficacy of alternative TNF inhibitor and secukinumab between primary non-responder and secondary non-responder of prior TNF inhibitor in ankylosing spondylitis Mod Rheumatol 2023 33 194 201 10.1093/mr/roac005 35107167
56 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 16705109
57 Tubach F Ravaud P Salmon-Céron D et al Emergence of Legionella pneumophila pneumonia in patients receiving tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonists Clin Infect Dis 2006 43 e95 100 10.1086/508538 17051484
58 Tubach F Salmon D Ravaud P et al Risk of tuberculosis is higher with anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody therapy than with soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor therapy: the three-year prospective French Research Axed on Tolerance of Biotherapies registry Arthritis Rheum 2009 60 1884 94 10.1002/art.24632 19565495
