Switching TNF antagonists in patients with chronic arthritis: An observational study of 488 patients over a four-year period

The objective of this work is to analyze the survival of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab in patients who have switched among tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists for the treatment of chronic arthritis. BIOBADASER is a national registry of patients with different forms of chronic arthritis who are treated with biologics. Using this registry, we have analyzed patient switching of TNF antagonists. The cumulative discontinuation rate was calculated using the actuarial method. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves, and Cox regression models were used to assess independent factors associated with discontinuing medication. Between February 2000 and September 2004, 4,706 patients were registered in BIOBADASER, of whom 68% had rheumatoid arthritis, 11% ankylosing spondylitis, 10% psoriatic arthritis, and 11% other forms of chronic arthritis. One- and two-year drug survival rates of the TNF antagonist were 0.83 and 0.75, respectively. There were 488 patients treated with more than one TNF antagonist. In this situation, survival of the second TNF antagonist decreased to 0.68 and 0.60 at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Survival was better in patients replacing the first TNF antagonist because of adverse events (hazard ratio (HR) for discontinuation 0.55 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-0.84)), and worse in patients older than 60 years (HR 1.10 (95% CI 0.97-2.49)) or who were treated with infliximab (HR 3.22 (95% CI 2.13-4.87)). In summary, in patients who require continuous therapy and have failed to respond to a TNF antagonist, replacement with a different TNF antagonist may be of use under certain situations. This issue will deserve continuous reassessment with the arrival of new medications. © 2006 Gomez-Reino and Loreto Carmona; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Pneumonia treated in the internal medicine department: Focus on healthcare-associated pneumonia

Patients with pneumonia treated in the internal medicine department (IMD) are often at risk of healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP). The importance of HCAP is controversial. We invited physicians from 72 IMDs to report on all patients with pneumonia hospitalized in their department during 2weeks (one each in January and June 2010) to compare HCAP with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP). We analysed 1002 episodes of pneumonia: 58.9% were CAP, 30.6% were HCAP and 10.4% were HAP. A comparison between CAP, HCAP and HAP showed that HCAP patients were older (77, 83 and 80.5years; p<0.001), had poorer functional status (Barthel 100, 30 and 65; p<0.001) and had more risk factors for aspiration pneumonia (18, 50 and 34%; p<0.001). The frequency of testing to establish an aetiological diagnosis was lower among HCAP patients (87, 72 and 79; p<0.001), as was adherence to the therapeutic recommendations of guidelines (70, 23 and 56%; p<0.001). In-hospital mortality increased progressively between CAP, HCAP and HAP (8, 19 and 27%; p<0.001). Streptococcus pneumoniae was the main pathogen in CAP and HCAP. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) caused 17 and 12.3% of HCAP. In patients with a confirmed aetiological diagnosis, the independent risk factors for pneumonia due do difficult-to-treat microorganisms (Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa or MRSA) were HCAP, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and higher Port Severity Index. Our data confirm the importance of maintaining high awareness of HCAP among patients treated in IMDs, because of the different aetiologies, therapy requirements and prognosis of this population. © 2011 The Authors. Clinical Microbiology and Infection © 2011 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases