Comparative Effectiveness of Cycling Versus Swapping Strategies After Advanced Therapy Failure in Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Real-World Retrospective Study

Background/Objectives: The therapeutic arsenal for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) now includes multiple biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs). Following the failure of an advanced therapy, clinicians may either cycle (switch to another drug with the same mechanism of action) or swap (switch to a drug with a different mechanism). The optimal strategy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the real-world effectiveness of cycling versus swapping in axSpA patients. Methods: This mono-centric, retrospective observational study included axSpA patients who failed ≥1 line of b/tsDMARD therapy. Subsequent treatment courses were classified as cycling (CG) or swapping (SG). Drug retention rates were compared using Kaplan–Meier analysis. A Cox proportional hazards model identified factors associated with treatment persistence. Results: We analyzed 156 patients (59 radiographic, 97 non-radiographic), corresponding to 343 treatment courses (CG: 213; SG: 130). Retention rates at 1, 2, and 3 years were 62.7%, 49.3%, and 39.2% (CG) versus 69.8%, 47.8%, and 31.8% (SG) (HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.83–1.53; p = 0.442). In the multivariable model, only a more recent prescription year was associated with higher discontinuation risk (HR: 1.08 per year, 95% CI: 1.03–1.12; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this real-world cohort, cycling and swapping strategies demonstrated comparable treatment persistence over three years following advanced therapy failure in axSpA. The choice of subsequent therapy should be individualized, as no strategy proved superior.