The pharmacological and clinical aspects behind dose loading of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in auto-immune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs): rationale and systematic narrative review of clinical evidence

Background

Dose loading of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in auto-immune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) is performed to achieve steady state drug concentrations earlier after treatment start compared to dosing regimens without loading. Although loading inherently results in increased costs, treatment targets in terms of reduced disease activity may be achieved at an earlier state. It is an interesting topic that, surprisingly, has not received much attention in literature.

Methods

In this review, we aimed at providing a theoretical description of the pharmacodynamic / -kinetic rationale for dose loading of bDMARDs in AIRDs and to systematically review the clinical evidence on the effectiveness of dose loading on disease activity in AIRDs.

Results

Only a small number of studies (n = 5) has been published comparing the effectiveness of dose loading versus a regimen without dose loading of bDMARDs in AIRDs, addressing abatacept (n = 2), certolizumab pegol (n = 1), and secukinumab (n = 2). These studies provide insufficient evidence on superiority of dose loading in terms of disease activity compared to a dosing regimen without loading, while safety issues might be comparable.

Conclusions

Although dose loading is commonly adopted for several bDMARDs in AIRDs, scientific evidence on its effectiveness and safety is surprisingly scarce and does not suggest superiority compared to a regimen without dose loading. More research in this field, also with regard to the pharmaco-economic consequences of dose loading, is urgently needed.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab in RA: no predictive value of adalimumab serum levels and anti-adalimumab antibodies for prediction of response to the next bDMARD

BACKGROUND

After adalimumab treatment failure, tumour necrosis factor inhibition (TNFi) and non-TNFi biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are equally viable options on a group level as subsequent treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on the current best evidence synthesis. However, preliminary data suggest that anti-adalimumab antibodies (anti-drug antibodies, ADA) and adalimumab serum levels (ADL) during treatment predict response to a TNFi as subsequent treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To validate the association of presence of ADA and/or low ADL with response to a subsequent TNFi bDMARD or non-TNFi bDMARD. Sub-analyses were performed for primary and secondary non-responders.

METHODS

A diagnostic test accuracy retrospective cohort study was done in consenting RA patients who discontinued adalimumab after >3 months of treatment due to inefficacy and started another bDMARD. Inclusion criteria included the availability of (random timed) serum samples between ≥8 weeks after start and ≤2 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab, and clinical outcome measurements Disease Activity Score in 28 joints - C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) between 3 to 6 months after treatment switch. Test characteristics for EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) good response (DAS28-CRP based) after treatment with the next (non-)TNFi bDMARD were assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic and sensitivity/specificity.

RESULTS

137 patients were included. ADA presence was not predictive for response in switchers to a TNFi (sensitivity/specificity 18%/75%) or a non-TNFi (sensitivity/specificity 33%/70%). The same was true for ADL levels in patients that switched to a TNFi (sensitivity/specificity 50%/52%) and patients that switched to a non-TNFi (sensitivity/specificity 32%/69%). Predictive value of ADA and ADL were similar for both primary and secondary non-responders to adalimumab.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to earlier research, we could not find predictive value for response to a second TNFi or non-TNFi for either ADA or random timed ADL.

Comparing methotrexate monotherapy with methotrexate plus leflunomide combination therapy in psoriatic arthritis: protocol of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial (COMPLETE-PsA)

Background

Both methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) are registered and regularly prescribed as first-line treatments for the use in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and they are occasionally used in combination. However, evidence about their individual, and especially combined efficacy, in PsA is lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of MTX and LEF combination therapy to MTX monotherapy in patients with PsA.

Methods

COMPLETE-PsA is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-untreated patients (n = 78) with clinical diagnosis of active (i.e. ≥2 swollen joints) PsA will be randomized 1:1 (stratified for high disease activity, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score [PASDAS] ≥ 5.4) to the combination or monotherapy. The intervention group receives MTX 25 mg (oral or subcutaneous) once weekly plus LEF 20 mg daily, and the control group receives the same but with placebo instead of LEF daily. Primary endpoint is between-group difference in PASDAS at 16 weeks, adjusted for baseline PASDAS. Key secondary parameters include between-group comparisons in change in Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) score, skin score, enthesitis score, dactylitis score, and swollen/tender joint count, as well as the proportion of patients fulfilling minimal disease activity (MDA), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria at week 16. Furthermore, safety, function and quality of life (Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ], Psoriatic Arthritic Impact of Disease [PSAID], Short Form 12 [SF-12]) will be assessed.

Discussion

This is, to our knowledge, the first randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of MTX and LEF combination therapy in patients with PsA. The study will provide important information for treatment strategies and treatment recommendations.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register NTR7632 (3 December 2018). CMO NL66544.091.18 (19 November 2018).

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update

OBJECTIVES

To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field.

METHODS

An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items.

RESULTS

The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.

Dose reduction and withdrawal strategy for TNF-inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis: design of a pragmatic open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are effective in the treatment of patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA), including psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). However, these drugs come with some disadvantages such as adverse events, practical burden for patients and high costs. Dose optimisation of TNFi after patients have reached low disease activity (LDA) has been shown feasible and safe in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, data on TNFi dose optimisation in PsA and axSpA are scarce, especially pragmatic, randomised strategy studies.

METHODS

We developed an investigator-driven, pragmatic, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial (DRESS-PS) to compare the effects of a disease activity-guided treat-to-target strategy with or without a tapering attempt in patients with SpA (PsA and axSpA combined), ≥ 16 years of age, who are being treated with TNFi, and have had at least 6 months of low disease activity. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients in LDA after 12 months of follow up. Patients are assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow up. Bayesian power analyses with a weakened prior based on a similar study performed in RA resulted in a sample size of 95 patients in total.

DISCUSSION

More knowledge on disease activity-guided treatment algorithms would contribute to better treatment choices and cost savings and potentially decrease the risk of side effects. In this article we elucidate some of our design choices on TNFi dose optimisation and its clinical and methodological consequences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register, NL6771. Registered on 27 November 2018 (CMO NL66181.091.18, 23 October 2018).

Long-term efficacy of low-dose radiation therapy on symptoms in patients with knee and hand osteoarthritis: follow-up results of two parallel randomised, sham-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Low-dose radiation therapy is commonly used as treatment for benign diseases, including osteoarthritis, in some countries (eg, Germany). We have previously presented our 3-month follow-up results of two randomised sham-controlled trials, in which no substantial effects of low-dose radiation therapy on clinical outcomes were seen in patients with knee and hand osteoarthritis. Here we report the 6-month and 12-month results of these studies.

METHODS

In one randomised sham-controlled trial, patients with knee osteoarthrosis were recruited, and in the other trial patients with hand osteoarthritis were recruited. All patients were recruited from the department of rheumatology of Sint Maartenskliniek (Nijmegen, The Netherlands) and the trials were undertaken in parallel. Patients were eligible if they had knee or hand osteoarthritis according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, had a pain score of 5 or more on a 0-10 scale for at least 15 of the past 30 days, and did not meet 2011 modified ACR criteria for fibromyalgia. In each study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by pain score (<8 vs ≥8) using a computer-generated randomisation list and stratified block randomisation, to low-dose radiation therapy (six fractions of 1 Gy low-dose radiation therapy in 2 weeks) or sham (six sessions with 0 Gy of radiation therapy in 2 weeks) intervention. Patients and researchers involved in patient contact or assessments were masked to group allocation, whereas the radiotherapy technologist who did the treatment was unmasked. Patients completed questionnaires (numeric rating scale of patients' global assessment and validated measures for pain and functioning) at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months after starting treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who responded according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Osteoarthritis Research Society International responder criteria at 3 months, which has been reported previously. Here we report the proportion of participants who responded at 6 months and 12 months, and other clinical outcomes of pain, functioning, and patients' global assessment of their symptoms. We used logistic and linear mixed-models analyses to assess differences in number of responders and continuous outcomes. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one fraction of low-dose radiation or sham treatment. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR4574, and is closed to accrual.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 14, 2015, and May 3, 2017, 213 patients were screened for inclusion for the knee osteoarthritis study, of whom 55 were eligible and randomly assigned to low-dose radiation therapy (n=27) or sham intervention (n=28). In parallel, for the hand osteoarthritis study, 368 patients were screened and 56 were randomly assigned low-dose radiation (n=28) or sham intervention (n=28). Some minor imbalances in baseline demographic characteristics in terms of sex and age were seen in both the knee and hand cohorts. In the knee osteoarthritis cohort, 48 patients were assessible at 6 months and 50 were assessible at 12 months, and in the hand osteoarthritis cohort 52 patients were assessible at 6 and 12 months. We found no significant differences at 6 or 12 months in the proportion of participants who had a response for both groups. In the knee osteoarthritis group, at 6 months, the number of responders was nine (41%) of 22 patients who received low-dose radiation therapy versus nine (35%) of 26 patients who received the sham intervention (difference in proportion 7% [95% CI -20 to 33]; odds ratio [OR] 1·34 [95% CI 0·41 to 4·42]); and at 12 months, 13 (52%) of 25 patients versus 11 (44%) of 25 patients responded (difference in proportion 8% [-19 to 35]; OR 1·41 [0·45 to 4·48]). In the hand osteoarthritis group, at 6 months, the number of responders was seven (28%) of 25 patients who received low-dose radiation therapy versus 11 (31%) of 27 patients who received the sham intervention (difference in proportion 12% [-38 to 13]; OR 0·57 [0·18 to 1·81]); and at 12 months, eight (31%) of 26 patients versus seven (27%) of 26 patients responded (difference in proportion 4% [-20 to 29]; OR 1·23 [0·37 to 4·12]). We did not find any difference between groups in other clinical outcomes at 6 or 12 months. Three participants with knee osteoarthritis in the sham intervention group and two participants with hand osteoarthritis in the low-dose radiation therapy group had serious adverse effects, none of which were considered to be related to the intervention.

INTERPRETATION

We did not find evidence of a delayed effect of low-dose radiation therapy for patients with knee and hand osteoarthritis. Our placebo-controlled results suggest that the large effects of low-dose radiation therapy reported in clinical practice and observational studies can probably be explained by a regression to the mean effect and response to placebo.

FUNDING

Dutch Arthritis Foundation and Stichting Landelijk Katholiek Reumacentrum, Netherlands.

Ultra-low doses of rituximab for continued treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (REDO study): a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Rituximab is an effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, given as either two doses of 1000 mg (2 weeks apart) every 6 months (the dose recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency) or two doses of 500 mg (2 weeks apart) or one dose of 1000 mg (a standard low dose) every 6 months. Findings of several small uncontrolled studies suggest that doses lower than the recommended dose or standard low dose might be sufficient for maintenance treatment, potentially improving safety and reducing costs. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of ultra-low doses of rituximab (one dose of 500 mg or 200 mg) with a standard low dose of rituximab (one dose of 1000 mg) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who respond to standard doses of rituximab.

METHODS

The REDO study is a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial done at five centres in the Netherlands. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with rheumatoid arthritis responding well to rituximab were randomly allocated (1:2:2) to receive intravenous rituximab as one dose of either 1000 mg, 500 mg, or 200 mg, respectively. Volumes of all doses were equal to achieve masking. Randomisation lists were computer-generated and stratified by rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody status (positive or negative) and concomitant use of conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (yes or no). The primary analysis was a per-protocol hierarchical testing procedure comparing ultra-low doses with a standard low dose (500 mg vs 1000 mg at 3 months, followed by 500 mg vs 1000 mg at 6 months, 200 mg vs 1000 mg at 3 months, and 200 mg vs 1000 mg at 6 months), using a non-inferiority margin of 0·60 on change from baseline in the 28-joint disease activity score based on C-reactive protein levels (DAS28-CRP). The study is registered at www.trialregister.nl, NTR6117.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 15, 2016, and Sept 20, 2018, 142 patients were randomly allocated to either 1000 mg rituximab (n=29), 500 mg rituximab (n=58), or 200 mg rituximab (n=55). The 500 mg dose was non-inferior to 1000 mg at 3 months (mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP, -0·07, 95% CI -0·41 to 0·27) but not at 6 months (0·29, -0·08 to 0·65). Because of the hierarchical testing procedure, non-inferiority could not be tested for the 200 mg dose. 13 patients had serious adverse events, three (10%) in the 1000 mg group, six (10%) in the 500 mg group, and four (7%) in the 200 mg group. The most frequently reported serious adverse events were cardiovascular. No deaths occurred during the study. A significantly lower incidence of infections was seen in the ultra-low-dose groups compared with the standard dose group (1·10 infections per patient-year with the 1000 mg dose vs 0·52 per patient-year with the 500 mg dose and 0·51 per patient-year with the 200 mg dose; rate ratio 0·47, 95% CI 0·21-0·83; p=0·013 for 500 mg vs 1000 mg; 0·44, 0·22-0·88; p=0·019 for 200 mg vs 1000 mg).

INTERPRETATION

Our study did not show non-inferiority of ultra-low doses of rituximab for continued treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Nonetheless, in clinical practice, a strategy with an ultra-low dose of rituximab might be considered after evaluation of risks and benefits, although further studies are needed to establish non-inferiority. Further analyses and a 2-year observational extension are ongoing and should provide further insight into efficacy and safety.

FUNDING

Menzis and Centraal Ziekenfonds.

The effects of methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine combination therapy vs methotrexate monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis patients

Objectives

To investigate the added value of MTX-HCQ combination therapy (CTG) in early RA in a controlled cohort study. MTX monotherapy (MTG) is recommended as (part of) first choice treatment but no head-to-head comparisons are available comparing MTX-HCQ CTG with MTG.

Methods

RA patients from the Sint Maartenskliniek and Radboudumc Nijmegen who started MTX with or without concomitant HCQ from April 2010 to October 2015 were included. The primary outcome was the between-group ΔDAS28-CRP at 6 months, and secondary outcomes were ΔDAS28-CRP at 12 months, EULAR response at 6 and 12 months, and treatment intensification. Regression modelling was used to correct for confounding.

Results

We included 325 patients, with only small between-group differences at baseline. The DAS28-CRP improvement at 6 months was larger in the CTG (Δ = 0.38 (CI: 0.01, 0.76)), and the difference between groups in DAS28-CRP improvement was smaller at 12 months (Δ = 0.22 points (CI:-0.19, -0.62)). At 6 months, a higher percentage of patients had a good EULAR response in the CTG (Δ = 15% (CI: 2.7%, 27%)). This difference was reduced at 12 months (Δ = 6% (CI -6.4%, 19%)). Treatment intensification with conventional synthetic DMARDs was more likely in the MTG (Δ = 31% (CI: -43%, 19%)). The proportion of patients starting biologic DMARD treatment during the observation period was comparable (Δ = 2% (CI: -8%, 12%)).

Discussion

In contrast to indirect comparison review data, MTX-HCQ seems somewhat more effective after 6 months than MTX monotherapy in early RA patients. After 12 months, we observed no significant differences between the two strategies, probably due to treat-to-target efforts.

Steroid hormone-related polymorphisms associate with the development of bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis and help to predict disease progression: Results from the REPAIR consortium

Here, we assessed whether 41 SNPs within steroid hormone genes associated with erosive disease. The most relevant finding was the rheumatoid factor (RF)-specific effect of the CYP1B1, CYP2C9, ESR2, FcγR3A, and SHBG SNPs to modulate the risk of bone erosions (P = 0.004, 0.0007, 0.0002, 0.013 and 0.015) that was confirmed through meta-analysis of our data with those from the DREAM registry (P = 0.000081, 0.0022, 0.00074, 0.0067 and 0.0087, respectively). Mechanistically, we also found a gender-specific correlation of the CYP2C9_rs1799853T/T genotype with serum vitamin D3 levels (P = 0.00085) and a modest effect on IL1β levels after stimulation of PBMCs or blood with LPS and PHA (P = 0.0057 and P = 0.0058). An overall haplotype analysis also showed an association of 3 ESR1 haplotypes with a reduced risk of erosive arthritis (P = 0.009, P = 0.002, and P = 0.002). Furthermore, we observed that the ESR2, ESR1 and FcγR3A SNPs influenced the immune response after stimulation of PBMCs or macrophages with LPS or Pam3Cys (P = 0.002, 0.0008, 0.0011 and 1.97•10⁻⁷). Finally, we found that a model built with steroid hormone-related SNPs significantly improved the prediction of erosive disease in seropositive patients (P_RF+ = 2.46•10⁻⁸) whereas no prediction was detected in seronegative patients (P_RF− = 0.36). Although the predictive ability of the model was substantially lower in the replication population (P_RF+ = 0.014), we could confirm that CYP1B1 and CYP2C9 SNPs help to predict erosive disease in seropositive patients. These results are the first to suggest a RF-specific association of steroid hormone-related polymorphisms with erosive disease.

Down-titration and discontinuation strategies of tumour necrosis factor-blocking agents for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with low disease activity

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in treating people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but are associated with (dose-dependent) adverse effects and high costs. To prevent overtreatment, several trials have assessed the effectiveness of down-titration compared with continuation of the standard dose. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, or disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents on disease activity, functioning, costs, safety, and radiographic damage compared with usual care in people with RA and low disease activity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL (29 March 2018) and four trial registries (11 April 2018) together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We screened conference proceedings (American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism 2005-2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) to usual care/no down-titration in people with RA and low disease activity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

One previously included trial was excluded retrospectively in this update because it was not an RCT/CCT. We included eight additional trials, for a total of 14 studies (13 RCTs and one CCT, 3315 participants in total) reporting anti-TNF down-titration. Six studies (1148 participants) reported anti-TNF dose reduction compared with anti-TNF continuation. Eight studies (2111 participants) reported anti-TNF discontinuation compared with anti-TNF continuation (three studies assessed both anti-TNF discontinuation and dose reduction), and three studies assessed disease activity-guided anti-TNF dose tapering (365 participants). These studies included data on all anti-TNF agents, but primarily adalimumab and etanercept. Thirteen studies were available in full text, one was available as abstract. We assessed the included studies generally at low to moderate risk of bias; our main concerns were bias due to open-label treatment and unblinded outcome assessment. Clinical heterogeneity between the trials was high. The included studies were performed at clinical centres around the world and included people with early as well as established RA, the majority of whom were female with mean ages between 47 and 60. Study durations ranged from 6 months to 3.5 years.We found that anti-TNF dose reduction leads to little or no difference in mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 26 to 52 weeks (high-certainty evidence, mean difference (MD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.24, absolute risk difference (ARD) 1%) compared with continuation. Also, anti-TNF dose reduction does not result in an important deterioration in function after 26 to 52 weeks (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)) (high-certainty evidence, MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.19, ARD 3%). Next to this, anti-TNF dose reduction may slightly reduce the proportion of participants switched to another biologic (low-certainty evidence), but probably slightly increases the proportion of participants with minimal radiographic progression after 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence, risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.95, ARD 2% higher). Anti-TNF dose reduction may cause little or no difference in serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and proportion of participants with persistent remission (low-certainty evidence).Results show that anti-TNF discontinuation probably slightly increases the mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 28 to 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence, MD 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.25, ARD 14%), and that the RR of persistent remission lies between 0.16 and 0.77 (low-certainty evidence). Anti-TNF discontinuation increases the proportion participants with minimal radiographic progression after 52 weeks (high-certainty evidence, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.59, ARD 7%) and may lead to a slight deterioration in function (HAQ-DI) (low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether anti-TNF discontinuation influences the number of serious adverse events (due to very low-certainty evidence) and the number of withdrawals due to adverse events after 28 to 52 weeks probably increases slightly (moderate-certainty evidence, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.84, ARD 1% higher).Anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering may result in little or no difference in mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 72 to 78 weeks (low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering results in little or no difference in the proportion of participants with persistent remission after 18 months (high-certainty evidence, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06, ARD -9%) and may result in little or no difference in switching to another biologic (low-certainty evidence). Anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering may slightly increase proportion of participants with minimal radiographic progression (low-certainty evidence) and probably leads to a slight deterioration of function after 18 months (moderate-certainty evidence, MD 0.2 higher, 0.02 lower to 0.42 higher, ARD 7% higher), It is uncertain whether anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering influences the number of serious adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that fixed-dose reduction of anti-TNF, after at least three to 12 months of low disease activity, is comparable to continuation of the standard dose regarding disease activity and function, and may be comparable with regards to the proportion of participants with persistent remission. Discontinuation (also without disease activity-guided adaptation) of anti-TNF is probably inferior to continuation of treatment with respect to disease activity, the proportion of participants with persistent remission, function, and minimal radiographic damage. Disease activity-guided dose tapering of anti-TNF is comparable to continuation of treatment with respect to the proportion of participants with persistent remission and may be comparable regarding disease activity.Caveats of this review are that available data are mainly limited to etanercept and adalimumab, the heterogeneity between studies, and the use of superiority instead of non-inferiority designs.Future research should focus on the anti-TNF agents infliximab and golimumab; assessment of disease activity, function, and radiographic outcomes after longer follow-up; and assessment of long-term safety, cost-effectiveness, and predictors for successful down-titration. Also, use of a validated flare criterion, non-inferiority designs, and disease activity-guided tapering instead of fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation would allow researchers to better interpret study findings and generalise to clinical practice.

The patient perspective on biologic DMARD dose reduction in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed methods study

Objectives

The aim of this study was to identify the factors that play a role for patients with RA when considering dose reduction (i.e. gradual tapering until discontinuation) of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), and to determine their relative importance.

Methods

A mixed methods design was used in which we identified influencing factors by performing semi-structured interviews and ranked these factors using a Maximum Difference Scaling questionnaire. Also, we looked at the influence of several patient characteristics on this ranking.

Results

For sub study 1 and 2, 22 and 192 patients with RA were included, respectively, in the analyses. Thirty factors were identified from the interviews-characterized into nine themes-and appraised in the questionnaire. Most respondents had a positive attitude towards bDMARD dose reduction. The study showed that patients are concerned that dose reduction will lead to a disease flare that affects their daily life (pain, function). It is important for them to know that it is possible to increase the dose if (further) reduction fails and that the bDMARD will be effective again. Patients value the opinion of their rheumatologist, and being involved in the decision to start tapering is highly ranked as well. The most important factors were consistent between different groups of patients.

Conclusion

The results from this study facilitate implementation of bDMARD dose reduction; they inform care providers on what is important for patients and provide a basis for shared decision making.

Short-term clinical worsening is a clear predictor for worsening at 2 years in established knee and hip osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to estimate the proportion of knee and hip OA patients showing worsening at 2 years, and to examine the additional predictive value of failure of optimised non-surgical treatment during 3 months for worsening at 2 years.

METHODS

Data of patients participating in the longitudinal CONTROL-PRO study (patients fulfilling clinical ACR criteria for knee or hip OA) were used. Measurements of pain, functioning and patient global assessments were performed at baseline, 3 months and 2 years. Worsening at 2 years was defined as fulfilling the recently validated clinical worsening criteria for knee and hip OA, or total joint replacement (TJR). Logistic regression was performed with worsening at 2 years as the dependent variable.

RESULTS

The 297 included patients were predominantly women (66%) with a mean age of 55 years. At 2 years, 61% showed worsening (knee 59%; hip 71%) and 24% had undergone a TJR (knee 19%; hip 51%). Clinical worsening at 3 months appeared to be a clear independent predictor for worsening at 2 years (OR 2.8 95% CI 1.5-5.2) with a moderate discriminative ability (AUC 0.68 95% CI 0.57-0.70). Similar results were obtained when only TJR at 2 years was used as the outcome measure (OR 4.1 95% CI 2.0-8.4) with good AUC (0.82 95% CI 0.76-0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that re-assessment of symptoms after optimised non-surgical treatment could be meaningful in clinical decision making for TJR. Furthermore, this information could be used to identify subgroups of patients potentially eligible for novel and advanced treatment options.

Predictive value of ex-vivo drug-inhibited cytokine production for clinical response to biologic DMARD therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate ex-vivo drug-inhibited cytokine production before the start of a biological DMARD (bDMARD) as predictor of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

In a prospective RA cohort study [BIO-TOP], blood samples were obtained from patients before the start of a bDMARD (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, rituximab or tocilizumab). Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were pre-incubated for 1 hour with the therapeutic in-vivo concentration of the bDMARD and stimulated for 24 hours with heat-killed Candida albicans or Pam3Cys. Concentrations of IL-1β, IL-6, TNFα, IL-17 and IFNγ were determined by ELISA. EULAR response (good vs. moderate/no) was assessed at month 6. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were generated to evaluate the predictive value of baseline characteristics and ex-vivo cytokine production (including stimulated cytokine concentrations and absolute changes after inhibition by a bDMARD). Logistic prediction models were created to assess the added value of potential cytokine predictors.

RESULTS

277 RA patients were included with 330 blood samples. Good response was reached in 39% of the cases. DAS28-CRP was predictive for response to adalimumab (AUC 0.70, 95%CI 0.57-0.83), etanercept (AUC 0.68, 95%CI 0.58-0.78) and rituximab (AUC 0.76, 95%CI 0.65-0.86). ACPA was modestly predictive for response to abatacept (AUC 0.63, 95%CI 0.52-0.75). In the ex-vivo analysis, 4 of 64 (6%) tests showed some predictive value but these had no added value to clinical factors routinely measured in RA, such as DAS28-CRP.

CONCLUSIONS

Ex-vivo inhibition of cytokine production by bDMARDs is unable to help prediction of treatment response to bDMARDs in RA.

Validation of a clinical pharmacogenetic model to predict methotrexate nonresponse in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Aim: To study the performance of a clinical pharmacogenetic model for the prediction of nonresponse in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with methotrexate (MTX) in combination with other synthetic or biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs . This prediction model includes gender, smoking status, rheumatoid factor positivity and four genetic variants in AMPD1 (rs17602729), ATIC (rs2372536), ITPA (rs1127354) and MTHFD1 (rs17850560). Methods: A total of 314 RA patients from three Dutch studies were retrospectively included. Eligible patients were adults diagnosed with RA and had a treatment duration with MTX and follow-up for at least two study evaluation visits. Prediction model risk scores at the first and second evaluation were calculated and compared with the actual nonresponse (disease activity score >2.4). Regression and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses of the prediction model were performed. Also, the sensitivity, specificity and the positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were determined. Results: The receiver operating characteristic area under the curve was 75% at first and 70% after second evaluation. At the second evaluation, prediction nonresponse had a sensitivity of 67% (CI: 54–78%), specificity of 69% (CI: 60–77%), PPV of 52% (CI: 45–60%) and NPV of 80% (CI: 73–85%). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the clinical pharmacogenetic model has an inadequate performance for the prediction of nonresponse to MTX in RA patients treated with combination therapies.

Effectiveness of low-dose radiation therapy on symptoms in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomised, double-blinded, sham-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) for benign disorders such as knee osteoarthritis (OA) is widely used in some parts of the world, despite absence of controlled studies. We evaluated the effect of LDRT on symptoms and inflammation in patients with knee OA.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blinded, sham-controlled clinical trial (RCT), we recruited patients with knee OA (clinical ACR criteria) in the Netherlands, aged ≥50 years, pain score ≥5/10 and non-responding to analgesics and exercise therapy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive LDRT (1 Gray per fraction) or sham intervention six times in 2 weeks, stratified by pain (<8 versus ≥8/10). Primary outcome was the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders, 3 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes included pain, function and inflammatory signs assessed by ultrasound, MRI and serum inflammatory markers.

RESULTS

We randomly assigned 55 patients: 27 (49%) to LDRT and 28 (51%) to sham. At 3 months postintervention, 12/27 patients (44%; 95%  CI 26% to 63%) in the LDRT vs 12/28 patients (43%; 95%  CI 25% to 61%) in the sham group responded; difference 2% (95% CI 25% to 28%), OR adjusted for the stratifying variable was 1.1 (95% CI 0.4 to 3.2). Also, for clinical and any of the inflammatory signs, no differences were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no substantial beneficial effect on symptoms and inflammatory signs of LDRT in patients knee OA, compared with sham treatment. Therefore, based on this RCT and the absence of other high-quality evidence, we advise against the use of LDRT as treatment for knee OA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR4574.

Genetic variant in IL-32 is associated with the ex vivo cytokine production of anti-TNF treated PBMCs from rheumatoid arthritis patients

About 60% of RA patients don't achieve good response with biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs bDMARD treatment (including TNF inhibitors, TNFi's). Previously, a link between TNFα and interleukin (IL)-32 was reported in RA. However, the exact mechanism linking IL-32 to response to treatment as not been studied yet. Therefore, we explored the influence of a promoter single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs4786370 in IL-32 on clinical responsiveness to TNFi's in RA patients, potentially serving as new biomarker in RA. Expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines by peripheral mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from RA patients and healthy individuals were studied. Moreover, "ex vivo response" and clinical response to anti-TNFα therapy (etanercept, adalimumab) were measured and stratified for the IL-32 SNP. Higher IL-32 protein production was observed in RA patients. Additionally, patients bearing the CC genotype showed higher IL-32 protein and cytokine expression. DAS28 was independent of the promoter SNP, however, the "ex vivo" cytokine response was not. IL-32 mRNA and protein production was higher in RA patients, with a trend towards higher concentrations in patients bearing the CC genotype. Furthermore, genotype dependent IL-1 beta production might predict clinical response to etanercept/adalimumab. This indicates that IL-32 could play a role in predicting response to treatment in RA.

Open-Label, Non-Mandatory Transitioning From Originator Etanercept to Biosimilar SB4: Six-Month Results From a Controlled Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of non-mandatory transitioning from the originator biologic drug etanercept (ETN) to its biosimilar, SB4, on drug survival and effectiveness in a controlled cohort study of patients with an inflammatory rheumatic disease.

METHODS

In 2016, 642 patients were asked to transition their treatment from originator ETN to biosimilar SB4 by a structured communication strategy with opt-out option. Patients who consented to switch to SB4 were considered eligible for inclusion in the transition cohort, while patients being treated with originator ETN in 2014 were recruited as the historical cohort. Drug survival was compared between the 2 cohorts using Cox regression analyses, which were adjusted for age, sex, diagnosis, ETN treatment duration, ETN dose interval, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug usage, and C-reactive protein (CRP) level, with a robust variance estimator applied to account for repeated subjects (i.e., patients who were included in both the transition cohort and the historical cohort). Adjusted differences in the 6-month change in CRP level, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using CRP level (DAS28-CRP), and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 642 ETN-treated patients, 635 (99%) agreed to transition from originator ETN to biosimilar SB4, of whom 625 patients (433 with rheumatoid arthritis, 128 with psoriatic arthritis, and 64 with ankylosing spondylitis) were included in the transition cohort, and 600 ETN-treated patients from 2014 were included in the historical cohort. The crude treatment persistence rate for biosimilar SB4 over 6 months was 90% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 88-93%), compared to a 6-month treatment persistence rate of 92% (95% CI 90-94%) for originator ETN. Patients in the transition cohort, compared to the historical cohort, had a statistically significantly higher relative risk of treatment discontinuation (adjusted hazard ratio 1.57, 95% CI 1.05-2.36) and showed smaller decreases in the CRP level (adjusted difference 1.8, 95% CI 0.3-3.2) and DAS28-CRP (adjusted difference 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.25) over 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Non-mandatory transitioning from originator ETN to biosimilar SB4 using a specifically designed communication strategy resulted in a slightly lower 6-month treatment persistence rate and smaller decreases in disease activity in the transition cohort compared to the historical cohort, but these differences were not considered clinically relevant.

Abatacept and tocilizumab tapering in rheumatoid arthritis patients: results of SONATA-a retrospective, exploratory cohort study

Objectives

As data on disease-activity-guided dose optimization of abatacept and tocilizumab are scarce, we explored the feasibility, effectiveness and safety of dose optimization of these biological DMARDs in RA patients in daily practice.

Methods

RA patients who had been treated with abatacept or tocilizumab for ≥6 months, with DAS28 <3.2, were included. Four groups were identified: abatacept dose reduction (DR) and usual care (UC), and tocilizumab DR and UC. Successful DR and discontinuation entailed being on a lower dose than at baseline or having discontinued abatacept or tocilizumab, while maintaining disease activity score with ESR using 28 joint count (DAS28) <3.2. Proportions of patients with successful DR or discontinuation at 12 months were described. Maintenance of DR was investigated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Between-group differences in mean DAS28 and Health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI) change (Δ) over 6 and 12 months were estimated.

Results

One hundred and nineteen patients were included. DR was attempted in 13 of 28 (46%; 95% CI: 28, 66%) abatacept and 64 of 91 (70%; 95% CI: 60, 79%) tocilizumab patients. At 12 months, 3 of 11 (27%; 95% CI: 6, 61%) abatacept and 20 of 48 (42%; 95% CI: 28, 57%) tocilizumab patients were successfully tapered. One of 11 (9%; 95% CI: 0, 41%) abatacept and 5 of 48 (10%; 95% CI: 3, 23%) tocilizumab patients were successfully discontinued. Mean ΔDAS28 and ΔHAQ-DI at months 6 and 12 were not significantly different between DR and UC. For tocilizumab, DAS28 was significantly higher in the DR compared with the UC group at 6 months. Adverse events were comparable between groups.

Conclusion

Abatacept and tocilizumab DR appears to be feasible and safe in clinical practice. No benefits in terms of fewer adverse events in the DR group were observed. Furthermore, DR was suboptimal, because all patients were eligible for DR, but in a substantial number of patients no DR was attempted.

Predictive value of serum calprotectin (S100A8/A9) for clinical response after starting or tapering anti-TNF treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

Calprotectin (S100A8/A9) has been correlated with disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to investigate the predictive value of serum calprotectin for clinical response after starting and tapering anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment in RA.

Methods

Serum samples and clinical outcomes were derived from two longitudinal RA studies.

At baseline (starting or tapering of adalimumab or etanercept), calprotectin levels were determined by ELISA. In the Biologic Individual Optimised Treatment Outcome Prediction (BIO-TOP) study, treatment effect was assessed after 6 months using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria. In the Dose Reduction Strategies of Subcutaneous TNF Inhibitors (DRESS) study, patients were classified at 18 months as being successfully dose reduced, discontinued or not able to reduce the dose. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were generated to evaluate the predictive value of calprotectin and logistic prediction models were created to assess its added value.

Results

In the BIO-TOP study, calprotectin levels were higher in responders (n=50: 985 ng/mL (p25–p75: 558–1417)) compared with non-responders (n=75: 645 ng/mL (p25–p75: 415–973), p=0.04).

AUC for predicting EULAR good response was 0.61 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.71). The prediction model with calprotectin (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.85) performed similarly to the baseline model (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.82, p=0.29). In the DRESS study, calprotectin levels were similar between the three groups (n=47; n=19; n=36) and calprotectin was not predictive for clinical response after tapering.

Conclusions

Serum calprotectin has some predictive value for clinical response after starting anti-TNF treatment, although it has no added value to other clinical factors. In patients with low disease activity, serum calprotectin is not predictive for clinical response after tapering anti-TNF treatment.

Trial registration number

NTR4647 (BIO-TOP study) and NTR3216 (DRESS study); Pre-results.

Ex vivo inhibited cytokine profiling may explain inferior treatment response to golimumab after adalimumab failure in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Clinical data suggest that the response of rheumatoid arthritis patients to treatment with golimumab is much lower among those who switched from adalimumab than among those who switched from etanercept. To elucidate the mechanism behind this difference in response to sequential biologic treatment, we examined the effect of TNF inhibitors on ex vivo cytokine production profiling.

METHODS

In a prospective cohort study, blood samples were obtained from patients before the start of a biologic. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were pre-incubated for 1 hour with the therapeutic in vivo concentration of adalimumab, etanercept or golimumab and stimulated for 24 hours with heat killed Candida albicans or Pam3Cys. Cytokine concentrations of IL-1β, IL-6 and TNFα were determined by ELISA.

RESULTS

Ex vivo cytokine profiling was performed in 71 patients. Golimumab, adalimumab and etanercept significantly (p<0.01) decreased Candida albicans-induced IL-1β and IL-6 production and Pam3Cys-induced IL-6 production. In contrast to etanercept, golimumab and adalimumab decreased the concentration of TNFα below the detection limit. Absolute changes in cytokine levels after inhibition by golimumab or adalimumab were all significantly correlated (Spearman rank rs: 0.52-0.99, p<0.001). These correlations were much lower or non-significant between etanercept and either golimumab or adalimumab.

CONCLUSIONS

High similarity between ex vivo inhibited cytokine profiling by golimumab and adalimumab, compared to etanercept, may explain the previously found inferior treatment response to golimumab after adalimumab failure. This suggests that patients who are non-responsive to adalimumab should preferably not switch to golimumab and vice versa.

Rheumatologists' guideline adherence in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised controlled study on electronic decision support, education and feedback

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of education, feedback and a computerised decision support system (CDSS) versus education and feedback alone on rheumatologists' rheumatoid arthritis (RA) guideline adherence.

METHODS

A single-centre, randomised controlled pilot study was performed among clinicians (rheumatologists, residents and physician assistants; n=20) working at the study centre, with a 1:1 randomisation of included clinicians. A standardized sum score (SSS) on guideline adherence was used as the primary outcome (patient level). The SSS was calculated from 13 dichotomous indicators on quality of RA monitoring, treatment and follow-up. The randomised controlled design was combined with a before-after design in the control group to assess the effect education and feedback alone.

RESULTS

Twenty clinicians (mean age 44.3±10.9 years; 55% female) and 990 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years; 69% female; 72% rheumatoid factor and/or anti-CCP positive) were included. Addition of CDSS to education and feedback did not result in significant better quality of RA care than education and feedback alone (SSS difference 0.02; 95%-CI -0.04 to 0.08; p=0.60). However, before/after comparison showed that education and feedback alone resulted in a significant increase in the SSS from 0.58 to 0.64 (difference 0.06; 95%-CI 0.02 to 0.11; p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that CDSS did not have added value with regard to guideline adherence, whereas education and feedback can lead to a small but significant improvement of guideline adherence.