Effectiveness of adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with a history of TNF-antagonist therapy in clinical practice

anti-TNF agents as therapeutic choice in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: focus on adalimumab

The complex pathogenesis of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) has been extensively investigated and dysregulation of cytokines, such as tumour necrosis factor (TNF) has been shown to play a dominant role in the pathogenesis of various IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. The subsequent development of biological agents capable of blocking TNF has led to important advances in the pharmacotherapy of such diseases and confirmed the concept of a common pathophysiology among IMIDs with TNF having a predominant role. Five TNF inhibitors have currently been approved for treatment of one or more IMIDs; these include infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab and certolizumab pegol. Given the similarities in the pathogenic background of IMIDs, one could expect that anti-TNF agents be similarly effective and with comparable tolerability profiles; however, this may not be the case. Structural and pharmacological differences among the anti-TNF drugs are likely to result in differences in efficacy and tolerability among the agents in the different IMIDs, together with differences in potency, therapeutic dose ranges, dosing regimens, administration routes, and propensity for immunogenicity. Among the five TNF inhibitors approved for treatment of IMIDs, adalimumab has the widest range of indications. Data from controlled clinical trials of adalimumab, showing its excellent efficacy and tolerability in a wide range of indications, are supported by real-world long-term data from observational studies, which confirm the value of adalimumab as a suitable choice in the management of IMIDs.

Advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The intense pursuit of novel therapies in rheumatoid arthritis has provided physicians with an assorted set of biologic drugs to treat patients with moderate to severe disease activity. Nine different biologic therapies are currently available: seven inhibitors of pro-inflammatory cytokines (five targeting tumor necrosis factor [TNF], one interleukin [IL]-1 and one IL-6), as well as a T- and a B-lymphocyte targeting agent. All these drugs have roughly similar efficacy profiles and are approved as first- or second-line therapy in patients who failed to respond to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and in most cases for first line use in rheumatoid arthritis as well. Despite the irrefutable clinical and radiological benefits of biologic therapies, there are still low rates of patients achieving stable remission. Therefore, the quest for new and more effective biologic therapies continues and every year new drugs are tested. Simultaneously, optimal use of established agents is being studied in different ways. Recently, the approval of the first small molecule targeting intracellular pathways has opened a new chapter in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Other emerging treatment strategies include the activation of regulatory T cells as well as new cytokine-targeting therapies.

Comparative effectiveness of anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs on health-related quality of life among patients with inflammatory arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative effectiveness of anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) by inflammatory arthritis types.

METHODS

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had anti-TNF therapy (etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab) in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database during 2001-2011 were assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36), Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL), and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI) on a biannual basis. Linear regression was used for the analysis; the lack of independence in outcomes for multiple assessments in the same patient was taken into account using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

There were 18,119 assessments (first-time drug use n = 12,274, subsequent use n = 3,098, and no use n = 2,747) provided by 3,033 patients (2,240 RA, 507 AS, and 286 PsA patients) with the anti-TNF therapies. The effects of subsequent use versus first-time use were reduced on the SF-36 physical component summary, AQoL, and HAQ DI scores among RA patients. After adjusting for therapy order, calendar year, sex, age, smoking status, and various medication uses, the 3 anti-TNF preparations had similar effects on the HRQOL measures for patients with RA, AS, or PsA. However, differences between anti-TNF therapies were observed in the AQoL score among PsA patients (infliximab versus etanercept: -0.06 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -0.12, -0.004]) and in the SF-36 mental component summary score among RA patients (adalimumab versus etanercept: -1.17 [95% CI -1.88, -0.46]).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed similar effectiveness of etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab on the HRQOL measures among Australians with RA, AS, and PsA.

Prevalence and concordance of early and sustained remission assessed by various validated indices in the early arthritis "ESPOIR" cohort

OBJECTIVES

To assess the prevalence of remission in early arthritis, to evaluate the concordance across different criteria sets in defining this state, and to look for predictive factors for early and sustained remission.

METHODS

Patients from the ESPOIR cohort were followed-up every 6months. We analysed early remission and sustained remission in 3 groups of patients: patients having rheumatoid arthritis (RA) according to 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria, undifferentiated arthritis (UA), and the whole cohort. Remission was defined according to ACR/EULAR criteria, 28 Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28<2.6), and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI≤3.3). Agreement was evaluated by k-coefficient. Predictive factors for sustained remission at 1, 3 and 5year in RA patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and nineteen patients were included. Early remission rates in the RA/UA/ESPOIR groups were observed in respectively 29.2% (181/682), 51.4% (55/123) and 32.7% (239/813) of patients by DAS28; 15.7%, 29.1% and 18% by SDAI; and 11.2%, 29.1% and 12.8% by ACR/EULAR criteria. Agreement between classifications of remission was low for DAS28 vs. ACR/EULAR (k=0.44), high for SDAI vs. ACR/EULAR (k=0.78), and moderate for SDAI vs. DAS28 (k=0.54). Lower baseline disease activity scores, non-menopausal status and younger age were the best predictive factors for sustained remission, with consistent results across the 3 definitions of remission.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the rate of early and sustained remission in early arthritis is dependent on the definition used, with a variable degree of agreement across criteria sets, but with consistent predictive factors of favourable outcome in patients finally diagnosed with RA.

Switching of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real world setting

OBJECTIVES

This study examined total healthcare costs and rates of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switch biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy in a real world setting.

METHODS

A retrospective longitudinal analysis was conducted in patients with RA using IMS PharMetrics Plus database from 1/1/2004 to 3/31/2010. The first-line cohort included patients newly initiated on abatacept or the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (anti-TNFs) adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab, with 12 months of continuous follow-up. The second-line cohort included patients initiating a bDMARD with evidence of a different bDMARD within the previous 2 years and with 12 months of continuous follow-up. Switching was defined as a different bDMARD claim within a 200% gap in days supply from the previous bDMARD claim. Non-switchers stayed on their bDMARD in the follow-up period. Monthly total healthcare costs for switchers and non-switchers and rates of bDMARD switching were examined. Switch rates for each bDMARD were also compared.

RESULTS

First-line switchers had significantly higher monthly total healthcare costs after the switch than non-switchers ($3759 vs $2343; p < 0.05), as did second-line switchers ($3956 vs $2616; p < 0.05). First-line abatacept (2.1%) had significantly lower rates of switching compared to adalimumab (9.5%), etanercept (9.0%), and infliximab (5.5%). Second-line abatacept (8.0%) had significantly lower rates of switching compared to adalimumab (16.7%), etanercept (14.4%), and infliximab (14.3%).

LIMITATIONS

There are no clinical data available in this database and, therefore, this study did not examine the clinical drivers of healthcare costs and switch rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Monthly total healthcare costs were higher for bDMARD switchers following the switch compared to non-switchers. Patients on abatacept switched less frequently than patients on anti-TNFs. This study highlights the need to identify patients who are likely to switch in order to ensure they receive the appropriate therapy which may improve outcomes and decrease healthcare costs.

Treatment patterns following discontinuation of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab in a US managed care sample

OBJECTIVES

Because clinical guidelines do not offer clear recommendations for treatment options after discontinuing a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker, this study evaluated treatment patterns within 360 days after discontinuation of TNF-blocker treatment.

METHODS

The IMS LifeLink Health Plan Claims database was used to identify patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis who received etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab between January 1, 2005 and March 31, 2009. Discontinuation from index (first) TNF blocker was defined as switching to a different TNF blocker or a >45-day gap in therapy. Patients were categorized into mutually exclusive groups in descending order: (a) restart of index TNF blocker; (b) switch to another TNF blocker; (c) switch to a different biologic; (d) switch to nonbiologic therapy; or (e) no new treatment.

RESULTS

Among 27,704 patients who initiated TNF-blocker therapy, 14,707 (53%) patients discontinued treatment over 1-3 years of follow-up. Within 360 days of discontinuing index TNF blocker, 53.4% of patients restarted index therapy: etanercept 59.9%, adalimumab 46.5%, and infliximab 43.1% (P < 0.001 for etanercept vs. adalimumab and infliximab). The majority of therapy restarts occurred within the first 3 months after discontinuation. Other patients switched to another TNF blocker: etanercept 17.1%, adalimumab 19.1% (P = 0.010 vs. etanercept), and infliximab 15.0% (P = 0.009 vs. etanercept). Switches from index TNF blocker to non-TNF-blocker biologic therapy were low: etanercept 1.9%, adalimumab 4.1%, and infliximab 10.7% (P < 0.001 for etanercept vs. adalimumab and infliximab). Switches from index TNF blocker to nonbiologic treatments were 5.4% for etanercept, 6.5% for adalimumab, and 6.9% for infliximab.

CONCLUSIONS

Restarting of index TNF-blocker therapy occurs frequently after discontinuation, suggesting that long gaps in TNF-blocker therapy may be common. A significantly higher proportion of etanercept patients restarted their index TNF blocker within 3 months of discontinuation, compared with adalimumab and infliximab patients.

Tocilizumab in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and beyond

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic inflammatory disease characterized by joint pain, swelling, stiffness, and progressive destruction of the small joints of the hands and feet. Treatment of RA has improved over the past decade. With multiple cytokines well-known now to play a role in the pathogenesis of RA, including tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, many targeted biological treatments against these cytokines have emerged, changing the treatment of this disease. Tocilizumab (TCZ) is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against the IL-6 receptor and has been approved in many countries, including the United States, for the treatment of moderate to severe RA in patients who have not adequately responded to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or cannot tolerate other approved drug classes for RA. The aim of this review is to discuss the role of IL-6 in RA, and to provide an overview of the mode of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of TCZ. Furthermore, efficacy studies of TCZ as both monotherapy and combination therapy will be evaluated. There have been several important clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of TCZ in RA patients; this review summarizes this data from 14 key trials with emphasis on Phase III trials. Review of these trials provides strong evidence that its use, both as monotherapy and in combination with methotrexate or other DMARDs, is an effective treatment in reducing the signs and symptoms of RA. TCZ showed tolerable safety but care is required for its use since there are some important safety concerns including elevated liver enzymes, elevated low-density lipoprotein, infections, and gastrointestinal perforations. Additionally, given the efficacy of TCZ in the treatment of RA, this review discusses how TCZ may be beneficial in the treatment of other autoimmune diseases, spinal disease, cardiovascular disease, organ transplantation, and malignancies where elevated levels of IL-6 may play a role in the pathogenesis of these diseases.

Safety and effectiveness of adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over 5 years of therapy in a phase 3b and subsequent postmarketing observational study

Introduction

Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had failed at least one disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) were treated with adalimumab (ADA) in the ReAct study with the option to continue treatment for 5 years in ReAlise. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of ADA as prescribed from the first injection in ReAct to the last observation in ReAlise.

Methods

Patients received ADA alone or in combination with DMARDs according to usual clinical care practices. Adverse events (AEs) were tabulated by five time windows after the first ADA injection. Effectiveness measures included achievement of low disease activity (LDA), defined as Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤11, or remission, (REM), defined as SDAI ≤3.3.

Results

Of the 6,610 ReAct patients, 3,435 (52%) continued in ReAlise. At baseline in ReAct, mean age was 54 years, mean DAS28 was 6.0 and mean HAQ DI was 1.64. The mean treatment duration was 1,016 days, representing 18,272 patient-years (PYs) of ADA exposure. Overall incidence rates of serious AEs and serious infections were 13.8 and 2.8 events (E)/100 PYs, respectively. Serious AEs occurred most frequently in the first 6 months and deceased thereafter. Standardised mortality ratio was 0.71 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.87) and standardised incidence ratio for malignancies was 0.64 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.76). LDA was achieved by 50% and REM by 21% of patients at last observation.

Conclusions

Results of this large observational study of ADA in routine clinical practice were consistent with controlled trials, with no new safety concerns during a follow-up of more than 5 years. Effectiveness of ADA was maintained during long-term observation.

Trial registration

NCT00448383, NCT00234884

Effectiveness of TNF inhibitor switch in RA: results from the national Swedish register

BACKGROUND

Switching to a second tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) after discontinuation of a first in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common strategy. The reason for the switch from the first TNFi could potentially influence the response to therapy. Data on direct comparisons between TNFi after switching are limited.

METHODS

The national Swedish register was used. RA patients who switched to a second TNFi (infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab) after failure of a TNFi as first-ever biologic were identified. Effectiveness of treatment was compared across the three drugs according to the first TNFi used, the reason for discontinuing and the drug survival. Drug survival across TNFi used as second biologic was compared.

RESULTS

Half of all patients starting infliximab, adalimumab or etanercept during the period 2005-2012 discontinued treatment for various reasons. Of these patients, a third switched within 2 months to a second TNFi (infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab). Around 35% of all patients achieved low disease activity or remission at 6 months. Regarding the switching strategy, best results were observed among patients who switched from infliximab to etanercept because of (secondary) inefficacy. Etanercept as second TNFi was associated with longer drug survival compared with infliximab.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to a second TNFi after the failure of the first may lead to good clinical results. The inter-drug differences in drug survival on the second TNFi mirror those reported previously for the first TNFi, suggesting that these differences are not solely due to channelling bias.

Clinical efficacy of abatacept compared to adalimumab and tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients with high disease activity

Favourable clinical results in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high disease activity (HDA) are difficult to achieve. This study evaluated the clinical efficacy of abatacept according to baseline disease activity compared to adalimumab and tocilizumab. This study included all patients registered in a Japanese multicenter registry treated with abatacept (n = 214), adalimumab (n = 175), or tocilizumab (n = 143) for 24 weeks. Clinical efficacy of abatacept in patients with HDA (DAS28-CRP > 4.1) and low and moderate disease activity was compared. Clinical efficacy of abatacept, adalimumab, and tocilizumab was compared in patients with HDA at baseline. In patients treated with abatacept, multivariate logistic regression identified HDA at baseline as an independent predictor for achieving low disease activity (LDA; DAS28-CRP < 2.7) [OR 0.26, 95 % CI 0.14-0.50] or remission (DAS28-CRP < 2.3) [OR 0.26, 95 % CI 0.12-0.56] at 24 weeks. In patients with HDA at baseline, logistic regression did not identify treatment with adalimumab or tocilizumab as independent predictors of LDA or remission compared to abatacept. Retention rates based on insufficient efficacy were significantly higher in patients treated with abatacept compared to adalimumab and lower than tocilizumab. Retention rates based on adverse events in patients treated with abatacept were significantly lower compared to tocilizumab. Clinical efficacy of abatacept was affected by baseline disease activity. There were no significant differences between the three different classes of biologics regarding clinical efficacy for treating RA patients with HDA, although definitive conclusions regarding long-term efficacy will require further research.

Use of Bayesian multivariate meta-analysis to estimate the HAQ for mapping onto the EQ-5D questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

In health technology assessment, decisions about reimbursement for new health technologies are largely based on effectiveness estimates. Sometimes, however, the target effectiveness estimates are not readily available. This may be because many alternative instruments measuring these outcomes are being used (and not all always reported) or an extended follow-up time of clinical trials is needed to evaluate long-term end points, leading to the limited data on the target clinical outcome. In the areas of highest priority in health care, decisions are required to be made on a short time scale. Therefore, alternative clinical outcomes, including surrogate end points, are increasingly being considered for use in evidence synthesis as part of economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate the potential effect of reduced uncertainty around the clinical outcome on the utility when estimating it from a multivariate meta-analysis.

METHODS

Bayesian multivariate meta-analysis has been used to synthesize data on correlated outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis and to incorporate external data in the model in the form of informative prior distributions. Estimates of Health Assessment Questionnaire were then mapped onto the health-related quality-of-life measure EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, and the effect was compared with mapping the Health Assessment Questionnaire obtained from the univariate approach.

RESULTS

The use of multivariate meta-analysis can lead to reduced uncertainty around the effectiveness parameter and ultimately uncertainty around the utility.

CONCLUSIONS

By allowing all the relevant data to be incorporated in estimating clinical effectiveness outcomes, multivariate meta-analysis can improve the estimation of health utilities estimated through mapping methods. While reduced uncertainty may have an effect on decisions based on economic evaluation of new health technologies, the use of short-term surrogate end points can allow for early decisions. More research is needed to determine the circumstances under which uncertainty is reduced.

Efficacy of switching between tumor necrosis factor-alfa inhibitors in psoriasis: results from the Italian Psocare registry

BACKGROUND

Some studies have shown that switching patients from one tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alfa inhibitor to another may be beneficial when they have an inadequate response or an adverse event.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the variables predicting the efficacy of the second TNF-alfa inhibitor in patients discontinuing the first TNF-alfa inhibitor.

METHODS

Data from all 5423 consecutive patients starting TNF-alfa inhibitor therapy for psoriasis between September 2005 and September 2010 who were included in the Italian Psocare registry were analyzed.

RESULTS

In 105 patients who switched to a second TNF-alfa inhibitor who had complete follow-up data, 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area Severity Index score (PASI 75) was reached by 29% after 16 weeks and by 45.6% after 24 weeks. Patients who switched because of secondary loss of efficacy (loss of initial PASI 75 response) or adverse events/intolerance were more likely to reach PASI 75 than those who switched as a result of primary inefficacy (PASI 75 never achieved) (hazard ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.3-5.5 vs hazard ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.0-3.9 and 1, respectively).

LIMITATIONS

There was a small number of patients with complete follow-up data.

CONCLUSION

PASI 75 response in patients who switched from one anti-TNF-alfa agent to another was significantly reduced in patients who showed primary inefficacy of the first anti-TNF-alfa.

Safety and effectiveness of adalimumab in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients: postmarketing surveillance report of 7740 patients

OBJECTIVES

To confirm the safety and effectiveness of adalimumab and to evaluate the influence of the concomitant use of methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

Postmarketing surveillance of 7740 Japanese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients was performed. All patients who received adalimumab in the registration period were followed for 28 weeks after starting treatment for safety and 24 weeks for effectiveness. Effectiveness was measured by duration of morning stiffness, swollen and tender joint counts (28 joints), patient global assessment of disease activity, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and serum C-reactive protein.

RESULTS

Comparable rates of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported in this study and in the interim analysis. Age, pulmonary disease history or comorbidity, co-existing diabetes mellitus, concomitant MTX at doses of > 8 mg/week and concomitant glucocorticoids at doses of > 5 mg/day were risk factors for infections. All mean values of effectiveness measurements improved. Relatively lower disease activity at baseline, biologic-naïve, concomitant MTX use and early RA stage/low functional class were background factors contributing to the effectiveness. The combination of adalimumab with MTX improved the response to adalimumab treatment.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab, especially with concomitant use of MTX, provided significant improvement in disease activity, without any unexpected ADRs in Japanese RA patients.

Sequential use of biologics in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

A number of biologic agents, including the tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists etanercept, adalimumab and infliximab, and the interleukin (IL)-12/IL-23 antagonist ustekinumab, are available for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the U.K. Currently, the selection of the first biologic, and the choice of sequential biologics in the event of efficacy/tolerability concerns, is made using a limited evidence base. The efficacy of biologics, the potential mechanisms of primary and secondary failure and the evidence for sequencing therapy among TNF antagonists and between TNF antagonists and IL-12/IL-23 blockade are reviewed. As psoriasis biologics registers begin to produce long-term safety and efficacy data, therapy decisions in plaque psoriasis may become more objective, and it may be possible to individualize treatment based on clinical or pharmacogenetic information.

Tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis: efficacy, safety and its place in therapy

Tocilizumab is a humanized antihuman interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor monoclonal antibody. It was developed in Japan as the first biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug targeting IL-6 receptors. Many large-scale global studies have demonstrated its efficacy and safety, and in April 2008 it was approved in Japan for use in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, sooner than in other countries. In this paper, I review the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in the light of front-line clinical data and data from large-scale studies, and I consider the place of tocilizumab treatment in real clinical practice.

Genome-wide association analysis of anti-TNF drug response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Treatment strategies blocking tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) have proven very successful in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, a significant subset of patients does not respond for unknown reasons. Currently, there are no means of identifying these patients before treatment. This study was aimed at identifying genetic factors predicting anti-TNF treatment outcome in patients with RA using a genome-wide association approach.

METHODS

We conducted a multistage, genome-wide association study with a primary analysis of 2 557 253 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 882 patients with RA receiving anti-TNF therapy included through the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring (DREAM) registry and the database of Apotheekzorg. Linear regression analysis of changes in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints after 14 weeks of treatment was performed using an additive model. Markers with p<10(-3) were selected for replication in 1821 patients from three independent cohorts. Pathway analysis including all SNPs with p<10(-3) was performed using Ingenuity.

RESULTS

772 markers showed evidence of association with treatment outcome in the initial stage. Eight genetic loci showed improved p value in the overall meta-analysis compared with the first stage, three of which (rs1568885, rs1813443 and rs4411591) showed directional consistency over all four cohorts studied. We were unable to replicate markers previously reported to be associated with anti-TNF outcome. Network analysis indicated strong involvement of biological processes underlying inflammatory response and cell morphology.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a multistage strategy, we have identified eight genetic loci associated with response to anti-TNF treatment. Further studies are required to validate these findings in additional patient collections.

When is switching warranted among biologic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis?

Switching among biologic therapies is common practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have an inadequate response or intolerable adverse events. Evidence from observational studies and association guidelines supports the use of sequential biologic therapy for these reasons. Owing to recent economic pressures on healthcare budgets, patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are well controlled on and tolerant of their current biologic therapy may be switched to alternative biologics, despite limited evidence supporting this practice. Clinical research and experience suggest that TNF antagonists are not interchangeable, as meaningful differences have been observed in their efficacy and safety profiles. Additional research is needed to assess the risk:benefit ratio of specific sequences of biologic therapies and the validity of switching biologic therapies for nonclinical purposes.

Tight control applied to the biological therapy of rheumatoid arthritis

In the last decade, treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have included the early use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, since prompt suppression of disease activity is associated with a reduction in radiological damage. This strategy has now been incorporated into the broader concept of "tight control", defined as a treatment strategy tailored to each patient with RA, which aims to achieve a predefined level of low disease activity or remission within a certain period of time. To pursue this goal, tight control should include careful and continuous monitoring of disease activity, and early therapeutic adjustments or switches should be considered as necessary. It is noteworthy that the key role of tight control of RA has been stressed by the recent EULAR Guidelines. This review discusses the most recent evidence concerning the role of a tight control strategy in the treatment of RA, and on how this strategy should be pursued.

Rituximab or a second anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy for rheumatoid arthritis patients who have failed their first anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy? Comparative analysis from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of rituximab (RTX) or a second anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who had failed their first anti-TNF and switched to either RTX or a second anti-TNF, in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

RA patients were registered with the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Response to treatment 6 months after switching was assessed using European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and improvements in a Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score (0.22 unit or more). Regression analyses were used to compare EULAR response and improvement in HAQ score between the 2 groups, adjusting for propensity scores.

RESULTS

In total, 1,328 patients were included in the analysis of EULAR response, and 937 patients were included in the analysis of HAQ scores. Six months after switching, 54.8% of patients who switched to RTX were EULAR responders compared to 47.3% of those who switched to a second anti-TNF. A total of 38.4% of RTX patients achieved a clinically important improvement in HAQ score compared to 29.6% in anti-TNF patients. After adjustment using propensity scores, patients who switched to RTX were significantly more likely to achieve EULAR response (odds ratio [OR] 1.31; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.02, 1.69) compared to those who switched to an alternative anti-TNF. RTX patients were also significantly more likely to achieve improvements in HAQ score (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.07, 2.08).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that switching to RTX may be of more benefit than switching to an alternative anti-TNF therapy after failing the first anti-TNF therapy in RA patients.

Multiple courses of rituximab produce sustained clinical and radiographic efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to 1 or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: 5-year data from the REFLEX study

OBJECTIVE

This 5-year observational posthoc analysis of the REFLEX study and its open-label extension assessed clinical efficacy, radiographic response, and safety of rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

METHODS

Patients in REFLEX were originally randomized to placebo (PBO) + methotrexate (MTX; PBO-randomized) or RTX + MTX (RTX-randomized). PBO-randomized patients were rescued with RTX as appropriate. Patients responding to initial RTX treatment could receive further RTX courses. For clinical efficacy and safety analyses, PBO-randomized patients were re-baselined prior to first RTX treatment and the data were pooled with RTX-randomized patient data. Efficacy outcomes 24 weeks after each course were calculated relative to first RTX pretreatment baseline. Radiographic outcomes were assessed relative to randomization baseline for both PBO-randomized and RTX-randomized groups.

RESULTS

A total of 480 patients received ≥ 1 RTX course. At 24 weeks, American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 responses were 62.0%, 30.8%, and 13.0%, respectively at course 1 (n = 400) and 70.3%, 41.8%, and 22.0% at course 5 (n = 91). European League Against Rheumatism good/moderate responses were 77.2% and 84.4% at courses 1 (n = 390) and 5 (n = 90). Rates of adverse events (AE), serious AE, and infections generally remained stable. Rate of progressive joint damage (PJD; change in mean Total Sharp Score) decreased over time in both PBO-randomized (n = 79) and RTX-randomized (n = 105) groups. Mean change from baseline in PJD over 5 years was greater in PBO-randomized versus RTX-randomized patients (5.51 vs 3.21).

CONCLUSION

RTX re-treatment over 5 years is associated with maintained or improved efficacy, continued inhibition of PJD, and a safety profile consistent with that previously reported. A delay in initiating RTX treatment may result in increased PJD.

Optimizing outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to anti-TNF treatment

A failure to respond to TNF inhibitors remains a serious concern for patients with RA. Although some patients experience a primary lack of drug efficacy in reducing their symptoms, others fail to maintain an initial response because of acquired drug resistance. While switching to another TNF inhibitor is a common practice for patients who are not responsive to a particular treatment, limited clinical trial data support this strategy. If more than one TNF inhibitor provides inadequate responses and/or similar tolerability issues, switching to a different class of agent may provide a more effective option. Currently four non-TNF inhibitors are approved for use in RA patients-the T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor abatacept, the B-cell-depleting mAb rituximab, the IL-1 receptor blocker anakinra and the IL-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab. These biologic agents have been studied in large, randomized placebo-controlled trials that demonstrate their efficacy in reducing disease activity in patients failing TNF inhibitor therapy. Results with the majority of these agents suggest that their administration may provide a greater proportion of patients with an effective, evidence-based disease-modifying approach earlier in the course of their disease than switching TNF inhibitors.

Do patients with active RA have differences in disease activity and perceptions if anti-TNF naïve versus anti-TNF experienced? Baseline results of the optimization of adalimumab trial

Background

The chance of a good response in RA is attenuated in previous anti-TNF users who start new anti-TNF therapy compared to biologic naïve patients. In active RA, those with previous anti-TNF exposure compared to anti-TNF naïve may have different baseline disease activity and patient perceptions when starting a new anti-TNF treatment that could explain the observed response differences.

Material/Methods

The aim of this study was a post hoc analysis of baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Optimization of Adalimumab study that was a treat to target vs. routine care study in patients initiating adalimumab. As per the protocol, a maximum of 20% anti-TNF experienced patients were enrolled in the 300 patient trial. Twelve (4.0%) were excluded who previously used other biologics. Baseline characteristics including age, gender, tender and swollen joint counts, disease activity (DAS28), function (HAQ-DI), patient global assessment, patient satisfaction with current treatment, and inflammatory markers (CRP, ESR), were compared between previously anti-TNF experienced [etanercept or infliximab (EXP)], and anti-TNF naïve patients (NAÏVE).

Results

The mean (SD) age was 54.8 (13.3) years; 81.0% were female, and 237 (79.0%) were anti-TNF naïve while 51 (17.0%) patients were anti-TNF experienced (29 with etanercept, 16 with infliximab, and 6 for both). The mean (SD) baseline in EXP versus NAÏVE groups respectively was: CRP=21.7(32.9) vs. 17.5(20.7); ESR=28.7(22.5) vs. 29.8(20.4); SJC=10.5(6.0) vs. 10.7(5.6); TJC=12.8(7.1) vs. 12.3(7.3); and DAS28=6.0(1.2) vs. 5.8(1.1). None of the between-group differences were statistically significant, however, the HAQ-DI in EXP was 1.7(0.6) compared to 1.5(0.7) for the NAÏVE (P=0.021). Additionally, EXP patients had a higher patient global score [71.3(26.1) vs. 61.9(26.2), P=0.021].

Conclusions

Although anti-TNF naïve and experienced patients who initiated adalimumab were similar, with respect to several baseline characteristics, significant differences in subjective measures were observed, which may indicate more severe patient measures (function and global disease activity) in anti-TNF experienced patients.

Tocilizumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to DMARDs and/or TNF inhibitors: a large, open-label study close to clinical practice

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab in clinical practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses (IR) to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or both DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFis).

Methods

Patients—categorised as TNFi-naive, TNFi-previous (washout) or TNFi-recent (no washout) —received open-label tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) every 4 weeks ± DMARDs for 24 weeks. Adverse events (AEs) and treatment discontinuations were monitored. Efficacy end points included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) and European League Against Rheumatism responses.

Results

Overall, 1681 (976 TNF-naive, 298 TNFi-previous and 407 TNFi-recent) patients were treated; 5.1% discontinued treatment because of AEs. The AE rate was numerically higher in TNFi-recent (652.6/100 patient-years (PY)) and TNFi-previous (653.6/100PY) than in TNFi-naive (551.1/100PY) patients. Serious AE rates were 18.0/100PY, 28.0/100PY and 18.6/100PY; serious infection rates were 6.0/100PY, 6.8/100PY and 4.2/100PY, respectively. At week 4, 36.5% of patients achieved ACR20 response and 14.9% DAS28 remission (<2.6); at week 24, 66.9%, 46.6%, 26.4% and 56.8% achieved ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 responses and DAS28 remission, respectively. Overall, 61.6% (TNFi-naive), 48.5% (TNFi-previous) and 50.4% (TNFi-recent) patients achieved DAS28 remission.

Conclusions

In patients with RA who were DMARD-IR/TNFi-IR, tocilizumab ± DMARDs provided rapid and sustained efficacy without unexpected safety concerns.

Predicting future response to certolizumab pegol in rheumatoid arthritis patients: features at 12 weeks associated with low disease activity at 1 year

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prognostic significance of data collected early after starting certolizumab pegol (CZP) to predict low disease activity (LDA) at week 52.

METHODS

Data from 703 CZP-treated patients in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention of Structural Damage 1 (RAPID 1) trial through week 12 were used as variables to predict LDA (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≤3.2) at week 52. We identified variables, developed prediction models using classification trees, and tested performance using training and testing data sets. Additional prediction models were constructed using the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and an alternate outcome definition (composite of LDA or American College of Rheumatology criteria for 50% improvement [ACR50]).

RESULTS

Using week 6 and 12 data and across several different prediction models, response (LDA) and nonresponse at 1 year were predicted with relatively high accuracy (70-90%) for most patients. The best performing model predicting nonresponse by 12 weeks was 90% accurate and applied to 46% of the population. Model accuracy for predicted responders (30% of the RAPID 1 population) was 74%. The area under the receiver operating curve was 0.76. Depending on the desired certainty of prediction at 12 weeks, ~12-25% of patients required >12 weeks of treatment to be accurately classified. CDAI-based models and those evaluating the composite outcome (LDA or ACR50) achieved comparable accuracy.

CONCLUSION

We could accurately predict within 12 weeks of starting CZP whether most established rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high baseline disease activity would likely achieve/not achieve LDA at 1 year. Decision trees may be useful to guide prospective management for RA patients treated with CZP and other biologics.

Cost-effectiveness modelling of sequential biologic strategies for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in Finland

Objective:

The main objective was to compare the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic options in moderate or severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when a clinical response to a first TNF-blocker, either etanercept (ETA), adalimumab (ADA), or infliximab (INF), is insufficient.

Methods:

Effectiveness criteria were defined as remission (RS), low disease activity (LDAS), and moderate to high disease activity (MHDAS). Cost-effectiveness was derived as cost per day in RS and in LDAS using simulation modelling to assess six sequential biologic strategies over 2 years. Each sequential treatment strategy was composed of three biologic agents and included a first anti-TNF agent, ETA, ADA or INF, followed by either abatacept (ABA) or rituximab (RTX) as a second therapeutic option in case of an insufficient response, followed by another anti-TNF agent in case of further insufficient response.

Results:

Over two years and taking into account biologic costs, the following estimated mean costs per day in RS and LDAS were respectively of €829 and €428 for the biologic sequence composed of ADA-ABA-ETA, €1292 and €516 for the sequence ADA-RTX-ETA, €829 and €429 for the sequence ETA-ABA-ADA, €1292 and €517 for the sequence ETARTX- ADA, €840 and €434 for the sequence INF-ABA-ETA, and €1309 and €523 for the sequence INF-RTX-ETA.

Conclusion:

The treatment sequences including ABA as the second biologic option appear more cost-effective than those including RTX in a patients with moderate to severe RA and an insufficient response to a first anti-TNF agent.

Established rheumatoid arthritis: rationale for best practice: physicians' perspective of how to realise tight control in clinical practice

Developments in the understanding of the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the introduction of targeted biologic therapies have greatly advanced the management of RA in clinical practice. The management of RA is now aimed at achieving remission, to prevent joint damage and disability. In particular, a critical period early in disease is recognised, in which early aggressive treatment with disease-modifying therapy is advocated. Although a state of remission is the ideal, this chapter discusses the difficulties which may arise in achieving this goal in patients with established disease. The evidence for best management, aimed at achieving clinical remission in established disease, is reviewed. The consequences of incomplete control of chronic inflammation in established disease, including pain, disability and co-morbidities (such as cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis), also pose a significant clinical challenge. The rationale for a multidisciplinary team approach in reducing the associated morbidity and mortality of the disease are examined.

Thresholds in disease activity for switching biologics in rheumatoid arthritis patients: experience from a large U.S. cohort

OBJECTIVE

To examine the threshold in disease activity associated with switching biologic treatment regimens in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

Using data from a prospective observational North American cohort of RA patients through December 30, 2009, patients who initiated a new anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNFα) agent with ≥6 months of followup were identified. Patients were classified as switchers or maintainers depending on whether they continued their anti-TNF treatment or switched (including discontinuation) within 12 months. Level of disease activity measured by the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) at the time of the switch (corresponding followup visit for maintainers) was examined and random-effect multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for covariates.

RESULTS

Mean age and RA duration among 1,549 eligible patients were 56.1 and 9.6 years, respectively, 80% were women, 62% were initiating their first biologic, and 30% were initiating their second biologic. At the time of the switch, the median DAS28 and CDAI score were 3.1 and 8.4 among maintainers and 4.0 and 15.2 among switchers, respectively. Maintainers also experienced a greater amount of reduction in disease activity compared with switchers (CDAI: -7.7 versus -2.3, DAS28: -1.1 versus -0.3). The threshold to switch decreased over calendar time, with the greatest amount of reduction observed among patients with moderate disease activity.

CONCLUSION

On average, physicians and patients were willing to continue biologic treatment for patients who were at or near low disease activity. The threshold to switch decreased over time, especially among partial responders.

Safety and effectiveness of adalimumab in a clinical setting that reflects Canadian standard of care for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA): results from the CanACT study

BACKGROUND

This multicenter, open-label, prospective, single cohort study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of adalimumab in a clinical setting reflecting the Canadian standard of care for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Patients ≥ 18 years of age with a history of active RA ≥ 3 months and fulfilling Canadian requirements for biological therapy received adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week for 12 weeks. Pre-study DMARD treatment regimens, corticosteroids, or NSAIDs were allowed throughout the study. The primary effectiveness outcome measure was the mean change in 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) from baseline to Week 12. Secondary measures included the proportion of patients achieving joint remission (DAS28 < 2.6) and low-disease activity (DAS28 < 3.2) at Week 12, and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR: moderate and good) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR: ACR20, 50, and 70) responses, as well as responses in ACR core components at Weeks 4, 8, and 12. Subgroup analysis included a comparison of patients naïve to biological DMARD (BDMARD) therapy versus BDMARD-experienced patients. Safety was assessed in terms of adverse and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 879 patients (mean disease duration > 12 years) were enrolled; 772 (87.9%) completed the 12-week period. Adalimumab treatment was associated with rapid and sustained improvements in the signs and symptoms of RA. Significant improvements in mean DAS28 score were observed as early as Week 4. After 12 weeks of adalimumab treatment, 15.3% and 28.9% of patients achieved clinical remission and low-disease activity, respectively. Similarly, significant improvements in ACR core components were observed as early as Week 4, with continued improvements occurring through 12 weeks. Patients naïve to BDMARD therapy demonstrated numerically greater clinical responses when compared with patients who had experienced prior BDMARD therapy, although both subgroups were associated with significant improvements from baseline. The rates and types of adverse events, as well as the results of laboratory measures, demonstrated that adalimumab was generally safe and well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that, under conditions reflective of the normal clinical practice in Canada, adalimumab is an effective and safe treatment for patients with RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00649545.

A personalized medicine approach to biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a preliminary treatment algorithm

RA is a syndrome consisting of different pathogenetic subsets in which distinct molecular mechanisms may drive common final pathways. Recent work has provided proof of principle that biomarkers may be identified predictive of the response to targeted therapy. Based on new insights, an initial treatment algorithm is presented that may be used to guide treatment decisions in patients who have failed one TNF inhibitor. Key questions in this algorithm relate to the question whether the patient is a primary vs a secondary non-responder to TNF blockade and whether the patient is RF and/or anti-citrullinated peptide antibody positive. This preliminary algorithm may contribute to more cost-effective treatment of RA, and provides the basis for more extensive algorithms when additional data become available.

The association between systemic glucocorticoid therapy and the risk of infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of glucocorticoid (GC) therapy on the risk of infection in patients with RA.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database to January 2010 to identify studies among populations of patients with RA that reported a comparison of infection incidence between patients treated with GC therapy and patients not exposed to GC therapy.

RESULTS

In total, 21 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 42 observational studies were included. In the RCTs, GC therapy was not associated with a risk of infection (relative risk (RR), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.69, 1.36)). Small numbers of events in the RCTs meant that a clinically important increased or decreased risk could not be ruled out. The observational studies generated a RR of 1.67 (1.49, 1.87), although significant heterogeneity was present. The increased risk (and heterogeneity) persisted when analyses were stratified by varying definitions of exposure, outcome, and adjustment for confounders. A positive dose-response effect was seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas observational studies suggested an increased risk of infection with GC therapy, RCTs suggested no increased risk. Inconsistent reporting of safety outcomes in the RCTs, as well as marked heterogeneity, probable residual confounding, and publication bias in the observational studies, limits the opportunity for a definitive conclusion. Clinicians should remain vigilant for infection in patients with RA treated with GC therapy.

Greater likelihood of remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated earlier in the disease course: results from the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America registry

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether disease duration is an independent predictor of achieving remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating therapy.

METHODS

RA patients in the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America registry newly prescribed a nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or anti--tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) with at least one followup visit were identified. Achievement of remission was defined using the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI; score ≤2.8) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28; score <2.6) at any followup visit within one year; sustained remission was defined as remission during any two successive visits. Likelihood of remission was examined through logistic regression based on 5-year increments of disease duration, adjusting for baseline covariates.

RESULTS

Among the 1,646 nonbiologic DMARD initiators, CDAI remission occurred in 21.3% of those with ≤5 years of disease duration, 19.6% with 6-10 years, and 13.5% with ≥11 years (P < 0.001); sustained remission occurred in 10.2%, 8.8%, and 2.5%, respectively (P < 0.001). Results were similar among the 3,179 anti-TNF initiators (CDAI remission in 22.3%, 17.7%, and 12.8%, respectively [P < 0.001]; CDAI sustained remission in 9.7%, 9.5%, and 4.2%, respectively [P < 0.001]). DAS28 results were similar in both groups. In adjusted analyses, an increase of disease duration by 5 years was associated with a reduced likelihood of CDAI remission in nonbiologic DMARD (odds ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.83-0.99) and anti-TNF initiators (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.94). A similar result was seen for sustained remission using the CDAI (nonbiologic DMARD: OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.76; anti-TNF: OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.97).

CONCLUSION

Earlier treatment was associated with a greater likelihood of remission.

Modelling cost-effectiveness of biologic treatments based on disease activity scores for the management of rheumatoid arthritis in Spain

Background. The objective of this simulation model was to assess the cost-effectiveness of different biological treatment strategies based on levels of disease activity in Spain, in patients with moderate to severe active RA and an insufficient response to at least one anti-TNF agent. Methods. Clinically meaningful effectiveness criteria were defined using DAS28 scores: remission and Low Disease Activity State (LDAS) thresholds. Monte-Carlo simulations were conducted to assess cost-effectiveness over 2 years of four biological sequential strategies composed of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, infliximab), abatacept or rituximab, in patients with moderate to severe active RA and an insufficient response to etanercept as first biological agent. Results. The sequential strategy including etanercept, abatacept and adalimumab appeared more efficacious over 2 years (102 days in LDAS) compared to the same sequence including rituximab as second biological option (82 days in LDAS). Cost-effectiveness ratios showed lower costs per day in LDAS with abatacept (427 €) compared to rituximab as second biological option (508 €). All comparisons were confirmed when using remission criteria. Conclusion. Model results suggest that in patients with an insufficient response to anti-TNF agents, the biological sequences including abatacept appear more efficacious and cost-effective than similar sequences including rituximab or cycled anti-TNF agents.

Outcomes of switching anti-TNF drugs in rheumatoid arthritis--a study based on observational data from the Finnish Register of Biological Treatment (ROB-FIN)

The aim of this study was to assess, based on observational data from the Finnish Register of Biological Treatment, the outcomes of switching an initial tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker to another in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). RA patients, who started biological therapy with a TNF blocker between May 1999 and April 2009 and who switched to another TNF blocker, were studied (n=479). The outcomes were assessed according to the reason for and type of the switch. Outcome assessments included American College of Rheumatology 50 responder index (ACR50) response at 3 months after the switch, treatment duration of the second TNF blocker, and swollen joint counts, CRP and DAS28 score at the 3 months, best and last observations of the first and second TNF blocker, respectively. In those who switched due to lack of effectiveness (LOE), the disease activity parameters fell significantly from baseline upon use of infliximab or adalimumab, but had increased prior to the switch. Switching to another TNF blocker (etanercept or adalimumab) restored the response initially achieved with the first TNF blocker. The disease activity parameters fell significantly from baseline upon use of etanercept, and were maintained but not further improved after switching to adalimumab. TNF blocker switching seemed to be most beneficial in secondary LOE (defined as loss of ACR50 response). In those who switched due to adverse events (AE) or other reasons, a similar degree of response as had been achieved with the first agent was also achieved and maintained with the second agent. The results suggest that a second TNF blocker can restore the response in cases of secondary LOE and maintain it after switching due to an AE.

When to initiate and discontinue biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis?

The introduction of biologic therapies heralded a new era in the treatment for chronic inflammatory autoimmune diseases of which rheumatoid arthritis is one of the most prevalent. From a scientific point of view, these therapies demonstrated that the targeting of individual cytokines or cell-surface markers is a very effective approach. For the physician, the appropriate selection of patients in whom these therapies should be initiated is critical, as is the even more contentious issue of whether these therapies can or should be discontinued in selected patients with excellent clinical responses. Whereas the former issue has been addressed in a large number of clinical trials and observational studies, the latter remains poorly investigated and is currently the subject of further study.

Switching to adalimumab for psoriasis patients with a suboptimal response to etanercept, methotrexate, or phototherapy: efficacy and safety results from an open-label study

BACKGROUND

Strategies for transitioning patients with psoriasis from suboptimal therapy have not been delineated.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of transitioning to adalimumab for the treatment of psoriasis in patients with suboptimal response to prior therapy with etanercept, methotrexate (MTX), or narrowband (NB)-ultraviolet (UV)B phototherapy.

METHODS

In this 16-week, open-label, phase IIIb trial, patients with chronic plaque psoriasis discontinued suboptimal therapy between 11 and 17 days (etanercept) or between 4 and 10 days (MTX and NB-UVB) before initiating adalimumab (80 mg at week 0, then 40 mg every other week from week 1). The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving a Physician Global Assessment of "clear" or "minimal" at week 16.

RESULTS

At week 16, Physician Global Assessment of "clear" or "minimal" was achieved by 52% of all enrolled patients (79 of 152) and 49%, 61%, and 48% in the etanercept, MTX, and NB-UVB subgroups, respectively. Four patients (2.6%) experienced at least 125% worsening of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score relative to screening value at any study visit. The adalimumab safety profile was consistent with results from other psoriasis clinical trials.

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by its relatively short 16-week duration, small patient enrollment, and open-label design.

CONCLUSION

Patients who had a suboptimal response to etanercept, MTX, or NB-UVB phototherapy experienced a similar, approximately 50% likelihood of achieving a clinically relevant response to adalimumab. Immediate transition to adalimumab from prior suboptimal therapy, with no dosage tapering or overlap, had a low risk of psoriasis flare.

Evaluating the efficacy of sequential biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors

Introduction

The long-term treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) most often involves a sequence of different therapies. The response to therapy, disease progression and detailed knowledge of the role of different therapies along treatment pathways are key aspects to help physicians identify the best treatment strategy. Thus, understanding the effectiveness of different therapeutic sequences is of particular importance in the evaluation of long-term RA treatment strategies. The objective of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively evaluate the relationship between the clinical response to biologic treatments and the number of previous treatments with tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors.

Methods

A systematic search was undertaken to identify published, peer-reviewed articles that reported clinical outcomes of biologic treatment among RA patients with an inadequate response to TNF-α inhibitors. Data were systematically abstracted. Efficacy rates were estimated for groups of patients who differed in the number of prior TNF-α inhibitors used. End points included American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-, European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)- and Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28)-based response criteria.

Results

The literature search identified 41 publications, of which 28 reported biologic treatment outcomes for RA patients with prior exposure to TNF-α inhibitors. Seven publications reported outcomes obtained in randomized clinical trials, while the remaining consisted of observational studies. The likelihood of responding to a subsequent biologic treatment decreased as the number of previous treatments with TNF-α inhibitors increased for six of the seven response criteria examined.

Conclusions

For patients with prior exposure to TNF-α inhibitors, the likelihood of response to subsequent treatment with biologic agents declines with the increasing number of previous treatments with TNF-α inhibitors.

Therapeutic targeting of B cells for rheumatic autoimmune diseases

Autoreactive B cells are characterized by their ability to secrete autoantibodies directed against self-peptides. During the last decade, it has become increasingly apparent that B lymphocytes not only produce autoantibodies but also exert important regulatory roles independent of their function as antibody-producing cells. This is especially relevant in the context of autoimmunity, because autoreactive B cells have been shown to possess the ability to activate pathogenic T cells, to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines, and to promote the formation of tertiary lymphoid tissue in target organs. The production of monoclonal antibodies against B-cell-surface molecules has facilitated the characterization of several distinct B lymphocyte subsets. These cell-surface molecules have not only served as useful cell differentiation markers but have also helped to unravel the important biological functions of these cells. Some of these molecules, all of which are expressed on the cell surface, have proven to be effective therapeutic targets. In both animal models and in clinical assays, the efficient elimination of B lymphocytes has been shown to be useful in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. The treatment of most rheumatic autoimmune diseases relies mainly on the use of cytotoxic immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. Although this has resulted in improved disease survival, patients may nonetheless suffer severe adverse events and, in some cases, their relapse rate remains high. The increasing need for safer and more effective drugs along with burgeoning new insights into the pathogenesis of these disorders has fueled interest in biological agents; clinical trials involving the B-cell depletion agent rituximab have been especially promising. This article reviews the current knowledge of B-cell biology and pathogenesis as well as the modern therapeutic approaches for rheumatic autoimmune diseases focusing in particular on the targeting of B-cell-specific surface molecules and on the blocking of B-cell activation and survival.

Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with psoriasis previously treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor agents: subanalysis of BELIEVE

BACKGROUND

Few large clinical studies have evaluated whether switching tumour necrosis factor antagonists (anti-TNFs) is likely to improve psoriasis in patients with prior anti-TNF treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this subanalysis of the BELIEVE study was to assess the efficacy and safety of adalimumab for psoriasis in patients with and without previous anti-TNF treatment.

METHODS

The BELIEVE study enrolled patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and prior failure, intolerance or contraindication to ≥2 systemic therapies. In this 16-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, patients received adalimumab (80 mg, week 0; 40 mg every other week, weeks 1-15) with either topical vehicle or topical calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate (C/B) applied once daily for 4 weeks, then as needed. The primary endpoint was ≥75% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) at week 16. This post hoc subanalysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of adalimumab, with and without topical therapy, in BELIEVE patients who had prior exposure to anti-TNFs.

RESULTS

Of 730 patients enrolled, 282 (38.6%) had prior anti-TNFs and 448 (61.4%) were anti-TNF-naïve. Combining topical vehicle and topical C/B study populations, 61.7% of patients with prior anti-TNFs achieved PASI 75 at week 16, compared with 71.7% of anti-TNF-naïve patients (P=0.095). Adalimumab resulted in clinically meaningful improvement regardless of which prior anti-TNF agent had been used, the number of prior anti-TNFs tried, or reasons for discontinuation of prior anti-TNF therapy. Adverse event incidences were similar between patients with and without prior anti-TNF therapy.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab was effective and well-tolerated in patients with psoriasis previously treated with anti-TNF therapy.

Comparison of different biologic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after failure of the first biologic therapy

Switching between different biologic agents for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has become a common practice even within similar substance groups. This longitudinal observational study was performed to follow the therapeutic management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were switched from one biologic therapy to another. We found no differences between the different biologic agents in regard to drug survival respectively efficacy, neither in the first nor in the second course of therapy. The reason to switch (side effect, lack of efficacy or loss of efficacy) did not influence the following treatment, although a lack of efficacy showed the shortest drug survival in the subsequent therapy. In conclusion, while switching between different biologic substances in rheumatoid arthritis is feasible and reasonable, the choice of substance has to be made on an individual basis.

Clinical application and evaluation of anti-TNF-alpha agents for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive autoimmune disease that dramatically impairs quality of life. A number of compounds are available to treat RA, but they vary in effectiveness. Thus, no optimal treatment strategy has been defined. Currently, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF-alpha) agents are considered the treatments of choice. For patients with inadequate responses to DMARD therapy, one recommended therapeutic alternative is anti-TNF-alpha therapy. Anti-TNF-alpha agents are effective and have rapid onset of action compared with DMARDs. Elucidating the differences in effectiveness of anti-TNF-alpha compounds has important clinical implications. By comparing the efficacy, safety and use principle of different treatment options, this review focuses on providing important information about three anti-TNF-alpha compounds (etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab) to help define optimal treatments for RA patients.

Responses to adalimumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis who have not adequately responded to prior therapy: effectiveness and safety results from an open-label study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adalimumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and an inadequate response to prior therapy.

METHODS

Patients were treated with subcutaneous injections of adalimumab 40 mg every other week in addition to their standard antirheumatic therapies in a 12-week, open-label study. Effectiveness evaluations at Week 12 included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response rates, Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC), active dactylitis, enthesitis, and target lesion assessment. Physical function was evaluated using the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI).

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients were enrolled. At Week 12, patients achieved ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rates of 78.0%, 55.9%, and 21.3%, respectively. PASI50 and PASI75 response rates were 64.7% and 47.1%. A PsARC response was experienced by 70.1% of patients. Between baseline and Week 12, clinically and statistically significant reductions occurred in the mean total plaque score of the target lesion as well as in the percentages of patients with active dactylitis and enthesitis. A mean improvement in HAQ-DI was also observed (-0.44; p < 0.001). Three serious adverse events were reported, but none was considered related to adalimumab therapy.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab-treated patients achieved significant improvements in both skin and joint manifestations of PsA, as well as in physical function. Adalimumab was well tolerated and had a safety profile similar to that observed in other clinical trials of adalimumab for the treatment of PsA. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00427362.

The effectiveness of anti-TNF-alpha therapies when used sequentially in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives. To systematically review and meta-analyse evidence on the effectiveness of the TNF-α inhibitors when used sequentially.

Methods. Systematic review of comparative and single-arm observational studies. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis. Treatment effects were estimated using four outcome measures from the included studies: European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and ACR20 response rates and mean improvement in disease activity score-28 (DAS-20) and HAQ. The effect of other factors was explored via meta-regression and sub-group analyses.

Results. Twenty studies comprising 2705 patients were included in the analysis. All studies were observational and most had no control group. Therefore, our primary analysis considered patient changes from baseline. The mean percentage of ACR20 responders was 60.8% (95% CI 53.8, 67.4), EULAR responders 70.5% (95% CI 63.7, 76.6), mean overall improvement in DAS-28 scores was 1.53 (95% CI 1.25, 1.80) and in HAQ scores was 0.25 (95% CI 0.11, 0.40). Four studies made comparisons with patients who received TNF-α inhibitors for the first time. Response rates associated with sequential TNF-α inhibitor treatment were lower than for first-time use.

Conclusions. Sequential TNF-α inhibitor use is likely to lead to treatment benefit in terms of the signs and symptoms of disease and physical function. There is also some evidence to suggest that the probability of achieving a response is lower, and the average magnitude of response is lower than the first use. Further evidence from randomized controlled trials is required to confirm and further quantify the role specific anti-TNF-α agents have when used sequentially.

Effectiveness and safety of adalimumab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis or psoriatic arthritis and history of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy

INTRODUCTION

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists reduce the signs and symptoms of spondyloarthritides, including ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adalimumab, 40 mg every other week, for patients with AS or PsA and prior treatment with infliximab (IFX) and/or etanercept (ETN).

METHODS

Both trials were 12-week, open-label studies with an optional extension period up to week 20. Patients were stratified by history of anti-TNF treatment, prior anti-TNF therapy received (IFX, ETN, or both), and reason for discontinuation of prior TNF antagonist. ETN was discontinued>or=3 weeks, and IFX was discontinued>or=2 months before the first adalimumab administration. Effectiveness at week 12 was evaluated by using observed standard-outcome measurements for AS and PsA.

RESULTS

At week 12 of adalimumab treatment, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index 50 responses were achieved by 40.8% of 326 patients with AS who had received prior anti-TNF therapy and by 63.0% of 924 patients with AS who were naive to TNF antagonist. Observed response rates were generally greater for patients who discontinued the prior anti-TNF therapy because of loss of response or intolerance than for patients who discontinued because of lack of response. Median changes in swollen-joint count and in enthesitis score were similar in patients with and without prior TNF-antagonist treatment. Modified PsA response criteria were fulfilled by 71.2% of 66 patients with PsA, with prior exposure to TNF antagonists, and by 78.8% of 376 patients with no history of anti-TNF therapy. The percentages of patients with PsA attaining a Physician's Global Assessment of psoriasis of "Clear/Almost clear" increased from 33.3% to 61.0% for patients with prior IFX and/or ETN treatment and from 34.6% to 69.7% for patients without anti-TNF therapy. The median change in the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index was -6 for both groups. In both studies, patterns of adverse events were similar for patients with and without prior anti-TNF therapy and were consistent with the known safety profile of adalimumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AS or PsA previously treated with IFX and/or ETN experienced clinically relevant improvements of their diseases after 12 weeks of adalimumab.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00478660 and NCT00235885.