Infliximab in Russian clinical practice

• Main Authors: G V Lukina, Ya A Sigidin, E S Pozdnyakova, E N Aleksandrova, A A Novikov, A V Smirnov, S I Glukhova, E L Nasonov
• Format: Article
• Language: Russian
• Published: IMA-PRESS LLC 2012-09-01
• Series: Современная ревматология
• Subjects: rheumatoid arthritis; genetically engineered biological agents; infliximab; russian biological rheumatoid arthritis therapy registry
• Online Access: https://mrj.ima-press.net/mrj/article/view/429

The study of infliximab began (INF) in Russia in 2001. It was the first genetically engineered biological agent (GEBA) registered in our country to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). With the advent of infliximab, a Russian biological rheumatoid arthritis therapy registry started its work. In October 2005, it was set up on the basis of GEBA centers founded in the leading rheumatology clinics of Russia. Objective: to generalize the Russian experience in using INF (its efficacy, tolerance, and side effects) in patients with RA in real clinical practice within the framework of a multicenter observational study. Subjects and methods. The register included patients with a valid diagnosis of RA in whom INF treatment was first started. The main indication for this was previous basic therapy failure. This investigation analyzed 396 patients receiving INF therapy. Prior to INF administration, all the patients were examined to identify whether they had possible latent tuberculosis, by applying chest X-ray study and Mantoux test. The European League Against Rheumatism criteria were used to evaluate the efficiency of INF therapy. The relationship between the therapeutic effects of the drug and its cumulative dose was specially used. The trend in X-ray progression was estimated using the Sharp method modified by van der Heijde. INF was given in a dose of 3 mg/kg by the classical regimen: at 0, 2, and 6 weeks, then every 8 weeks. The main assessment periods were at 22 and 46—54 weeks. Results. Analysis of the data of real clinical practice in Russia demonstrates that the use of INF in RA patients with the inadequate effect of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is able to cause a rapid and pronounced reduction in disease activity. There is significant evidence that the IFN-treated patients with RA had also suppressed bone destruction. INF treatment for early RA gives rise to remissions more frequently in the early stage of therapy than that for extensive-stage disease. INF was shown to have a clear dose-dependent effect: in the patients receiving more than 4 infusions of the drug, bone destruction was more noticeably suppressed than in those having its fewer infusions. In most cases, suppressed destruction was accompanied by clinical improvement. A significant therapeutic effect was seen when both an annual course of INF and average (5—7 infusions per year) doses of the drug were used. The results of the analysis suggest that the probable efficiency of INF therapy increases in RF-negative patients with lower baseline RA activity and fewer HAQ scores. INF was quiet satisfactorily tolerated and caused no unusual side effects. Conclusion. The Russian experience in using INF strongly suggests that it is effective in real practice in severe RA resistant to therapy with traditional DMARDs.