Posted 9/26/2021 2:50 AM (GMT -7)
You just cherry-picked a quote out of context.
You should have included this in your quoting of that article:
"To help fill that void, researchers at France’s Strasbourg University Hospital recruited 292 RA patients whose disease didn’t respond to initial treatment with an anti-TNF drug. Half were randomly assigned to receive a different anti-TNF medicine, while the other half were given a non-TNF biologic. (Physicians were allowed to choose which specific drug in each category a patient would take.) One year later, 60% of the patients given a non-TNF biologic had maintained a good or moderate response to the medication, compared with 43% of those treated with a second anti-TNF drug. Moreover, patients who got a non-TNF biologic were twice as likely to achieve remission as those given an alternative anti-TNF.
“The results show a clear superiority… of changing the mechanism of action: when you fail one anti-TNF, it is better to use a drug [that doesn’t] again target TNF,” says lead author Jacques-Eric Gottenberg, MD, PhD. He adds that this study confirms observational studies and registry data."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at that first sentence again:
"To help fill that void, researchers at France’s Strasbourg University Hospital recruited 292 RA patients whose disease didn’t respond to initial treatment with an anti-TNF drug."
These are *primary non-responders" to anti-TNFs.
We (poopydoop and I) have said all along that primary non-responders to anti-TNFs should switch to another class of medication.
The links you are providing are making my case for me and contradicting what you have claimed.