ArticleArthritis research & therapy2025
Retention rate of TNF inhibitors versus IL-17 inhibitors in ankylosing spondylitis patients with prior biologics experience.
Article in Arthritis research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Persistence of IL-17 and TNF inhibitors following initial TNF inhibitor use in axial spondyloarthritis: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Article
- Research Advances on the Mechanism and Diagnosis of Bone Bridging in Ankylosing Spondylitis.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who experience inefficacy or adverse events with biologics, no recommendations exist regarding the preference for class cycling or switching as a second- or higher-line biologics. Previous studies on the drug retention of TNF and IL-17 inhibitors in AS patients with prior biologics exposure have limitations, including relatively short follow-up periods, exclusion of patients with extra-articular manifestations, and a primary focus on second-line treatment. This study aimed to compare the retention rates of TNF and IL-17 inhibitors in AS patients with prior biologics experience, over a relatively longer follow-up period in real clinical practice.
methodsA total of 148 AS cases receiving either a TNF or IL-17 inhibitor as a second- or higher-line biologic were retrospectively analyzed after propensity score matching. Patient characteristics at the time of cycling or switching and drug retention were compared between the two groups. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the reasons for drug discontinuation. Cox regression analyses were used to identify the factors associated with drug discontinuation.
resultsThe median follow-up period was 31.4 months, and drug survival tended to be lower for IL-17 inhibitors than for TNF inhibitors in the Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.134). The lower retention of IL-17 inhibitors was more pronounced when discontinuations unrelated to treatment failure were censored (P = 0.034) or when used for reasons other than psoriasis aggravation (P = 0.028). However, in multivariable Cox regression, the number of previous biologics (HR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.17-2.23, P = 0.003) and BASDAI (HR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.03-1.65, P = 0.030) were significantly associated with drug discontinuation, whereas the class of biologics did not reach statistical significance (HR: 2.11, 95% CI: 0.96-4.63, P = 0.064).
conclusionIn patients with AS who had prior experience with biologics, the drug retention of TNF inhibitors tended to be higher compared to IL-17 inhibitors in real-world clinical practice. However, the factors significantly associated with higher drug survival were a lower number of previously exposed biologics and a lower BASDAI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.