Open-label, pilot protocol of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who switch to infliximab after an incomplete response to etanercept: the opposite study

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.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors

Advances in our understanding of the key mediators of chronic inflammation and tissue damage characteristic of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have resulted in the development of novel therapies primarily targeting pro-inflammatory cytokines. Inhibitors of tumour necrosis factor (TNF) are the most widely used of the biological therapies at present with five different agents currently available; four are based on monoclonal anti-TNF antibodies and a soluble TNF receptor-Fc fusion protein. Long-term use of these molecules has proven to be highly effective in the majority of patients; however, around one-third have a suboptimal response potentially leading to further cartilage and bone damage, furthermore these agents are expensive compared with conventional therapies such as methotrexate. Many recent studies have attempted to identify therapeutic response biomarkers of TNF inhibitors which could be used to improve therapeutic targeting. The presence of rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citullinated protein antibodies, present in around 65% of RA patients, are associated with a poorer response to anti-TNF agents. Poorer response is also associated with levels of C-reactive protein and cartilage degradation product at initiation of treatment. Intriguingly, genetic studies of variants of TNF and of genes encoding members of the Toll-like receptors, nuclear factor-kappa B and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase signalling families have been associated with response to individual anti-TNF agents. Continued advances in technologies such as ultra high throughput sequencing and proteomics should facilitate the discovery of additional biomarkers of response to anti-TNF resulting in improved disease control and quality of life for RA patients and reduced costs for healthcare funders.

Anti-TNF therapy: safety aspects of taking the risk

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy has been revolutionized in recent years following the introduction of three main anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (anti-TNF) agents, infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept. Evidence in the literature indicates that patients treated with anti-TNF agents are at increased risk for bacterial infections, but it is not clear if this is a result of the treatment or of disease severity. The treatment has been recognized as a clear risk factor for reactivation of latent TB infections. So far, observational studies have not indicated any increased overall risk of cancer in RA patients treated with anti-TNF. The overall risk of lymphoma in these patients does not appear to differ greatly from that recorded among untreated patients, but rather is associated with the degree of disease activity rather than the type of therapy. There is a consensus in the literature that the likelihood of drug survival with infliximab is inferior to both adalimumab and etanercept, mostly due to increased risk of infection or allergic reactions. Due to the lack of head to head studies, there is no agreement as to which agent has the highest rates of treatment response and disease remission.

Golimumab: a new anti-TNF-alpha agent for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory systemic disease characterized by symmetric arthritis leading to progressive erosion of cartilage and bone. Psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis are also inflammatory arthritides that belong to the spondyloarthritides. Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and biologic therapies including anti-TNF agents are used in their treatment. The TNF antagonists have shown rapid and sustained therapeutic responses. However, a substantial number of patients fail to respond to anti-TNF agents or experience side effects. Golimumab is a human monoclonal antibody to TNF-α requiring less frequent administration compared with current anti-TNF products. Various trials have shown promising results in terms of efficacy and safety in methotrexate-naive and -resistant patients with RA as well as in patients previously treated with other anti-TNF agents. The efficacy of golimumab has also been demonstrated in patients with psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview

BACKGROUND

Biologics are used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many other conditions. While the efficacy of biologics has been established, there is uncertainty regarding the adverse effects of this treatment. Since serious risks such as tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, serious infections, and lymphomas may be common to the biologics but occur in small numbers across the various indications, we planned to combine the results from biologics used in many conditions to obtain the much needed risk estimates.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the adverse effects of tumor necrosis factor blocker (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab), interleukin (IL)-1 antagonist (anakinra), IL-6 antagonist (tocilizumab), anti-CD28 (abatacept), and anti-B cell (rituximab) therapy in patients with any disease condition except human immunodeficiency disease (HIV/AIDS).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and open-label extension (OLE) studies that studied one of the nine biologics for use in any indication (with the exception of HIV/AIDS) and that reported our pre-specified adverse outcomes were considered for inclusion. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (to January 2010). Identifying search results and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. For the network meta-analysis, we performed mixed-effects logistic regression using an arm-based, random-effects model within an empirical Bayes framework.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 163 RCTs with 50,010 participants and 46 extension studies with 11,954 participants. The median duration of RCTs was six months and 13 months for OLEs. Data were limited for tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, lymphoma, and congestive heart failure. Adjusted for dose, biologics as a group were associated with a statistically significant higher rate of total adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 30, 95% CI 21 to 60) and withdrawals due to adverse events (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.64; NNTH = 37, 95% CI 19 to 190) and an increased risk of TB reactivation (OR 4.68, 95% CI 1.18 to 18.60; NNTH = 681, 95% CI 143 to 14706) compared to control.The rate of serious adverse events, serious infections, lymphoma, and congestive heart failure were not statistically significantly different between biologics and control treatment. Certolizumab pegol was associated with significantly higher risk of serious infections compared to control treatment (OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.59 to 7.79; NNTH = 17, 95% CI 7 to 68). Infliximab was associated with significantly higher risk of withdrawals due to adverse events compared to control (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.91; NNTH = 12, 95% CI 8 to 28). Indirect comparisons revealed that abatacept and anakinra were associated with a significantly lower risk of serious adverse events compared to most other biologics.  Although the overall numbers are relatively small, certolizumab pegol was associated with significantly higher odds of serious infections compared to etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, anakinra, golimumab, infliximab, and rituximab; abatacept was significantly less likely than infliximab and tocilizumab to be associated with serious infections.  Abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and golimumab were significantly less likely than infliximab to result in withdrawals due to adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, in the short term biologics were associated with significantly higher rates of total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and TB reactivation. Some biologics had a statistically higher association with certain adverse outcomes compared to control, but there was no consistency across the outcomes so caution is needed in interpreting these results.There is an urgent need for more research regarding the long-term safety of biologics and the comparative safety of different biologics. National and international registries and other types of large databases are relevant sources for providing complementary evidence regarding the short- and longer-term safety of biologics. 

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.

Observational study of switching anti-TNF agents in ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis versus rheumatoid arthritis

Anti-TNF agents like infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab are efficacious in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Lack of efficacy, side effects and loss of efficacy over time may be reasons for switching to a second anti-TNF agent and sometimes switching to a third anti-TNF agent may be useful. Effects of switching may be different in patients with AS, PsA and RA. We analysed data of 301 patients with rheumatic diseases treated with anti-TNF agents. Forty-six patients had AS, 63 PsA and 192 RA. Totally 38% of these patients received more than one anti-TNF agent. Switching to a second anti-TNF agent was necessary in 115 (38%) of our patients, in detail in 11 of our AS patients, in 21 of PsA patients and in 83 of RA patients. Patient with PsA showed the best response rate to the second anti-TNF agent. Finally, 46 patients, 5 with SPA, 3 with PsA and 38 with RA received a third anti-TNF agent. We conclude that anti-TNF switching in AS and PsA is less frequent than in RA patients. Survival of anti-TNF agents in AS (p = 0.025) and also in PsA (n.s., p = 0.215) seems to be better than in RA. Switching anti-TNF agents for loss of efficacy over time may have the best effect in patients with AS, PsA and predominantly in RA. Our data suggest that switching for lack of efficacy in RA patients cannot be recommended, but may be an alternative in patients with AS and PsA. Switching to a second anti-TNF agent for side effects may be reasonable, switching to a third anti-TNF agent again for side effects cannot be recommended.

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.

Etanercept response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after secondary loss of efficacy of infliximab

This study was carried out to determine the effectiveness of half-dose administration of etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who exhibited secondary loss of efficacy of infliximab. Seventeen patients were administered 25 mg of etanercept once weekly for at least 1 year after secondary loss of efficacy of infliximab. The mean duration of treatment with infliximab was 32.5 ± 1.3 months. The patient cohort consisted of 3 males and 14 females, with a mean age of 56.3 ± 11.4 years and mean weight of 57.2 ± 10.9 kg. The mean duration of RA was 16.2 ± 10.9 years. The mean Disease Activity Score 28 was decreased significantly, from 5.8 at the initiation of infliximab therapy to 3.6 at the end of observation. There were no withdrawals due to adverse reactions during the study period, although in 2 subjects the agent was changed to tocilizumab due to lack of effect, one after 18 months and the other after 36 months, and 1 subject withdrew after 18 months for financial reasons. A good response can be expected to a half dose of etanercept in patients with secondary loss of efficacy of infliximab. Reduction of the patient's cost burden also makes this a superior treatment.

To switch or to change class-the biologic dilemma in rheumatoid arthritis

The management of rheumatoid arthritis has greatly improved in the past decade, owing to new treatment strategies and the introduction of agents that inhibit tumor necrosis factor (TNF). Unfortunately, a substantial proportion of patients will discontinue therapy with their first TNF inhibitor for various reasons (for example, non-response, loss of efficacy, or toxicity). Until recently, treatment options for these patients were limited and most rheumatologists chose to switch to treatment with an alternative TNF inhibitor. However, biologic agents with different modes of action have now become available. Hence, the dilemma now facing rheumatologists presented with patients who fail to respond to anti-TNF therapy is whether to switch to an alternative TNF inhibitor or to change to a biologic agent of a different drug class. This article discusses the evidence relating to these two options.

Etanercept overcomes P-glycoprotein-induced drug resistance in lymphocytes of patients with intractable rheumatoid arthritis

P-glycoprotein (P-gp) on activated lymphocytes is an adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-binding cassette transporter that causes drug resistance by exclusion of intracellular drugs in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, infliximab with methotrexate (MTX) can overcome P-gp-mediated drug resistance. We encounter patients who cannot continue infliximab or MTX. Here we tested how etanercept affected P-gp-mediated drug resistance in such intractable RA patients. Peripheral lymphocytes of 11 RA patients (3 switched from infliximab and 8 who could not be treated with MTX) were analyzed for P-gp expression by flow cytometry and for drug exclusion using radioisotope-labeled dexamethasone. Activated lymphocytes of RA patients overexpressed P-gp and coexpressed CD69. Incubation of these lymphocytes with dexamethasone in vitro reduced intracellular dexamethasone levels. Two-week etanercept therapy significantly reduced P-gp expression and eliminated such P-gp- and CD69-high-expressing subgroup. The reduction in P-gp resulted in recovery of intracellular dexamethasone levels in lymphocytes and improvement of disease activity, thus allowing tapering of corticosteroids. None of the patients experienced any severe adverse effects. Etanercept is useful for overcoming P-gp-mediated treatment resistance in intractable RA patients who have to discontinue infliximab or are intolerant to MTX.

Etanercept overcomes P-glycoprotein-induced drug resistance in lymphocytes of patients with intractable rheumatoid arthritis

P-glycoprotein (P-gp) on activated lymphocytes is an adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-binding cassette transporter that causes drug resistance by exclusion of intracellular drugs in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, infliximab with methotrexate (MTX) can overcome P-gp-mediated drug resistance. We encounter patients who cannot continue infliximab or MTX. Here we tested how etanercept affected P-gp-mediated drug resistance in such intractable RA patients. Peripheral lymphocytes of 11 RA patients (3 switched from infliximab and 8 who could not be treated with MTX) were analyzed for P-gp expression by flow cytometry and for drug exclusion using radioisotope-labeled dexamethasone. Activated lymphocytes of RA patients overexpressed P-gp and coexpressed CD69. Incubation of these lymphocytes with dexamethasone in vitro reduced intracellular dexamethasone levels. Two-week etanercept therapy significantly reduced P-gp expression and eliminated such P-gp- and CD69-high-expressing subgroup. The reduction in P-gp resulted in recovery of intracellular dexamethasone levels in lymphocytes and improvement of disease activity, thus allowing tapering of corticosteroids. None of the patients experienced any severe adverse effects. Etanercept is useful for overcoming P-gp-mediated treatment resistance in intractable RA patients who have to discontinue infliximab or are intolerant to MTX.

ACR70-disease activity score remission achievement from switches between all the available biological agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of the literature

Introduction

The aim of our analysis was to compare the gaining of a major response (disease activity score [DAS] remission or American College of Rheumatology 70% improvement criteria [ACR70]) by switching between all the available biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

A systematic review was performed including studies, published before December 2008, in which a second biological agent was used and clinical outcomes were evaluated after a first biological failure.

Results

Nine articles were included. Switching from etanercept and/or infliximab to adalimumab is effective with an ACR70 response ranging from 5% to 33%. Rituximab may be slightly more effective than switching to a second anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNFα), reaching an ACR70 or DAS remission response in 12% and 9%, respectively. Clinical trials confirmed the efficacy in switching to abatacept (gain of effect 10.2%). Tocilizumab allows DAS28 (DAS using 28 joint counts) remission in 30.1% but ACR70 only in 12.4% of patients refractory to anti-TNFα.

Conclusions

The efficacy of a second biological agent, irrespective of the mode of action, in reaching an ACR70 or DAS remission after a first biologic is observed from 5% to 15% and from 9% to 15.4%, respectively (except in two studies).

DAS-28-based EULAR response and HAQ improvement in rheumatoid arthritis patients switching between TNF antagonists

Introduction

No definitive data are available regarding the value of switching to an alternative TNF antagonist in rheumatoid arthritis patients who fail to respond to the first one. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment response in a clinical setting based on HAQ improvement and EULAR response criteria in RA patients who were switched to a second or a third TNF antagonist due to failure with the first one.

Methods

This was an observational, prospective study of a cohort of 417 RA patients treated with TNF antagonists in three university hospitals in Spain between January 1999 and December 2005. A database was created at the participating centres, with well-defined operational instructions. The main outcome variables were analyzed using parametric or non-parametric tests depending on the level of measurement and distribution of each variable.

Results

Mean (± SD) DAS-28 on starting the first, second and third TNF antagonist was 5.9 (± 2.0), 5.1 (± 1.5) and 6.1 (± 1.1). At the end of follow-up, it decreased to 3.3 (± 1.6; Δ = -2.6; p > 0.0001), 4.2 (± 1.5; Δ = -1.1; p = 0.0001) and 5.4 (± 1.7; Δ = -0.7; p = 0.06). For the first TNF antagonist, DAS-28-based EULAR response level was good in 42% and moderate in 33% of patients. The second TNF antagonist yielded a good response in 20% and no response in 53% of patients, while the third one yielded a good response in 28% and no response in 72%. Mean baseline HAQ on starting the first, second and third TNF antagonist was 1.61, 1.52 and 1.87, respectively. At the end of follow-up, it decreased to 1.12 (Δ = -0.49; p < 0.0001), 1.31 (Δ = -0.21, p = 0.004) and 1.75 (Δ = -0.12; p = 0.1), respectively. Sixty four percent of patients had a clinically important improvement in HAQ (defined as ≥ -0.22) with the first TNF antagonist and 46% with the second.

Conclusion

A clinically significant effect size was seen in less than half of RA patients cycling to a second TNF antagonist.

Golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis after treatment with tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (GO-AFTER study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) inhibitors are frequently used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, but whether use of a different TNFalpha inhibitor can improve patient response is unknown. We assess the efficacy and safety of the TNFalpha inhibitor golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had previously received one or more TNFalpha inhibitors.

METHODS

461 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis from 82 sites in 10 countries were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system, stratified by study site and methotrexate use, to receive subcutaneous injections of placebo (n=155), 50 mg golimumab (n=153), or 100 mg golimumab (n=153) every 4 weeks between Feb 21, 2006, and Sept 26, 2007. Allocation was double-blind. Eligible patients had been treated with at least one dose of a TNFalpha inhibitor previously. Patients continued stable doses of methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, oral corticosteroids, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The primary endpoint was achievement at week 14 of 20% or higher improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria for assessment of rheumatoid arthritis (ACR20). At week 16, patients who had less than 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts were given rescue therapy and changed treatment from placebo to 50 mg golimumab, or from 50 mg to 100 mg golimumab. Drug efficacy was assessed by intention to treat and safety was assessed according to the study drug given. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00299546.

FINDINGS

Patients had discontinued previous TNFalpha inhibitors because of lack of effectiveness (269 [58%] patients) or reasons unrelated to effectiveness (246 [53%] patients), such as intolerance and accessibility issues. Patients had active disease, which was indicated by a median of 14.0 (IQR 9.0-22.0) swollen and 26.0 (16.0-41.0) tender joints for the whole group. 28 (18%) patients on placebo, 54 (35%) patients on 50 mg golimumab (odds ratio 2.5 [95% CI 1.5-4.2], p=0.0006), and 58 (38%) patients on 100 mg golimumab (2.8 [1.6-4.7], p=0.0001) achieved ACR20 at week 14. Two patients were never treated, and 57 patients did not complete the study because of adverse events, unsatisfactory treatment effect, loss to follow-up, death, or other reasons. 155 patients on placebo, 153 on 50 mg golimumab, and 153 on 100 mg golimumab were assessed for drug efficacy. For weeks 1-16, serious adverse events were recorded in 11 (7%) patients on placebo, 8 (5%) on 50 mg golimumab, and 4 (3%) on 100 mg golimumab. For weeks 1-24, after some patients were given rescue therapy, serious adverse events were recorded in 15 (10%) patients on placebo, 14 (5%) on 50 mg golimumab, and 8 (4%) on 100 mg golimumab.

INTERPRETATION

Golimumab reduced the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with active disease who had previously received one or more TNFalpha inhibitors.

FUNDING

Centocor Research and Development and Schering-Plough Research Institute.

Comparison of drug retention rates and causes of drug discontinuation between anti-tumor necrosis factor agents in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), yet drug discontinuation is common. The aim of this study was to compare treatment retention rates and specific causes of anti-TNF discontinuation in a population-based RA cohort.

METHODS

All patients treated with etanercept, infliximab, or adalimumab within the Swiss Clinical Quality Management RA cohort between 1997 and 2006 were included in the study. Causes of treatment discontinuation were broadly categorized as adverse events (AEs) or nontoxic causes, and further subdivided into specific categories. Specific causes of treatment interruption were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model and adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 2,364 anti-TNF treatment courses met the inclusion criteria. Treatment discontinuation was reported 803 times: 309 with etanercept, 249 with infliximab, and 245 with adalimumab. Drug inefficacy represented the largest single cause of treatment discontinuation (55.8% of cases). The median time of receiving anti-TNF therapy was 37 months, but discontinuation rates differed between the 3 anti-TNF agents (P < 0.001), with shorter retention rates for infliximab (hazard ratio [HR] 1.24, 99% confidence interval [99% CI] 1.01-1.51). The specific causes of treatment discontinuation revealed an increased risk of AEs with infliximab (HR 1.4, 99% CI 1.003-1.96), mostly due to an increased risk of infusion or allergic reactions (HR 2.11, 99% CI 1.23-3.62). Other discontinuation causes were equally distributed between the anti-TNF agents.

CONCLUSION

In this population, infliximab was associated with higher overall discontinuation rates compared with etanercept and adalimumab, which is mainly due to an increased risk of infusion or allergic reactions.

Which subgroup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis benefits from switching to rituximab versus alternative anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents after previous failure of an anti-TNF agent?

BACKGROUND

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to TNF antagonists (aTNFs) may switch to an alternative aTNF or start treatment from a different class of drugs, such as rituximab (RTX). It remains unclear in which clinical settings these therapeutic strategies offer most benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the effectiveness of RTX versus alternative aTNFs on RA disease activity in different subgroups of patients.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of patients with RA who discontinued at least one aTNF and subsequently received either RTX or an alternative aTNF, nested within the Swiss RA registry (SCQM-RA) was carried out. The primary outcome, longitudinal improvement in 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28), was analysed using multivariate regression models for longitudinal data and adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Of the 318 patients with RA included; 155 received RTX and 163 received an alternative aTNF. The relative benefit of RTX varied with the type of prior aTNF failure: when the motive for switching was ineffectiveness to previous aTNFs, the longitudinal improvement in DAS28 was significantly better with RTX than with an alternative aTNF (p = 0.03; at 6 months, -1.34 (95% CI -1.54 to -1.15) vs -0.93 (95% CI -1.28 to -0.59), respectively). When the motive for switching was other causes, the longitudinal improvement in DAS28 was similar for RTX and alternative aTNFs (p = 0.40). These results were not significantly modified by the number of previous aTNF failures, the type of aTNF switches, or the presence of co-treatment with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.

CONCLUSION

This observational study suggests that in patients with RA who have stopped a previous aTNF treatment because of ineffectiveness changing to RTX is more effective than switching to an alternative aTNF.

Treatment options in patients with rheumatoid arthritis failing initial TNF inhibitor therapy: a critical review

Conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate are the mainstay of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. More recently, biologic agents such as etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab, which act by inhibiting tumour necrosis factor (TNF), have become available. TNF inhibitors have proved to be very effective in patients not responding to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. However, about 20% to 40% of patients treated with a TNF inhibitor fail to achieve a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria, and more lose response over time (secondary failure or acquired therapeutic resistance) or experience adverse events following treatment with a TNF inhibitor. In this group of patients, therapeutic options were limited until recently and an established treatment approach was to switch from one TNF inhibitor to another. In recent years, therapeutic options in these patients have increased with the introduction of biologic agents with novel mechanisms of action, such as rituximab and abatacept. This review outlines the current evidence in support of the available treatment strategies in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to an initial TNF inhibitor.

Innovative treatment strategies for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review provides an update on novel treatment strategies striving for remission in patients with recent onset of rheumatoid arthritis.

RECENT FINDINGS

As early treatment is crucial to achieve optimal results, identifying patients with rheumatoid arthritis early is imperative to achieve clinical remission. Patients with early arthritis who will progress to rheumatoid arthritis can be identified, and treating these patients can postpone the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and retard the progression of structural damage. The best way to achieve remission is by adjusting treatments at regular intervals using predetermined response criteria. Specific treatments to rapidly induce remission include disease modifying antirheumatic drugs combinations, especially combined with glucocorticoids or tumor necrosis factor antagonists. The prediction of joint damage progression, or the response to specific drugs is not yet accurately possible. The early institution of tumor necrosis factor antagonists followed by discontinuation leads to sustained clinical benefit.

SUMMARY

Early treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis with strategies aiming at remission results in the best outcomes. Until the prediction of a severe disease course and treatment response becomes possible, a promising strategy would be to rapidly induce remission using an effective combination of drugs followed by tapering and discontinuation. Tumor necrosis factor antagonists have proven to be highly effective in this approach.

Rheumatoid arthritis: strategies in the management of patients showing an inadequate response to TNFalpha antagonists

The introduction of medications that target specific proinflammatory cytokines has revolutionized the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The agents that antagonize the effects of tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha -- infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab -- have consistently shown very good efficacy for controlling the clinical and radiographic manifestations of the disease. However, it has become apparent that some patients will receive no clinical benefit, gradually lose the effect over time or experience adverse effects with the TNFalpha antagonists. The management of these patients is challenging and there are no clear guidelines. The concomitant administration of a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, such as methotrexate, has been shown to improve outcomes. Optimization of the methotrexate or TNFalpha antagonist dose may lead to improved responses, as demonstrated in some dose escalation studies. Switching to another TNFalpha antagonist is a step that is supported by small, mostly uncontrolled studies. Finally, the T-cell co-stimulation antagonist abatacept, as well as the B-cell depleting agent rituximab, are also available for use in patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to the TNFalpha antagonists.Genotypic studies have identified TNF and TNF receptor polymorphisms that appear to predict independently whether a patient will respond to a TNFalpha antagonist, but genotyping is not available for routine use in clinical practice. Until such tools for predicting response are widely available, the management of patients with poor responses to TNFalpha antagonists will have to depend upon the wishes of the patient regarding medication dosage schedules and adverse effect profiles, as well as how comfortable the treating physician is with the available biological medications. In this article, we review the current data and construct an algorithm to help guide clinicians in the management of patients with inadequate responses to the TNFalpha antagonists.

Effects of switching between anti-TNF therapies on HAQ response in patients who do not respond to their first anti-TNF drug

Objectives. Small studies have shown an improvement in disease activity in patients with RA who have switched between anti-TNF therapies for reasons of inefficacy. However, it is not clear whether switching improves longer term outcomes, such as disability. This analysis compares changes in HAQ scores 1 yr following lack of response to a first anti-TNF based on subsequent treatment during that year.

Methods. Analysis was limited to RA patients with inefficacy to a first anti-TNF based on (i) clinician opinion and/or (ii) disease activity score in 28 joints and had an HAQ measured at time of non-response and 12 months later. Patients were classified into three groups based on treatment during the next 12 months: (i) continued anti-TNF despite non-response; (ii) stopped anti-TNF with no further biologics; and (iii) switched to a second anti-TNF. Mean improvement in HAQ was compared among the groups using multivariable linear regression models.

Results. As of July 2006, 868 patients met the inclusion for this analysis. Four hundred and seventy-nine patients stopped anti-TNF of whom 331 switched to a second anti-TNF. Three hundred and eighty-nine continued treatment. Patients who continued and those who switched had improvements in HAQ over the 12 months, unlike patients who discontinued all biologic therapy. The best improvement was seen in those who switched [adjusted mean improvement in HAQ 0.15 (95% CI 0.26, 0.05)].

Conclusion. There is a significant improvement in HAQ in patients who switch to a second anti-TNF, providing an effective next choice of therapy for some patients who fail to respond to their first anti-TNF.

Targeted therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most common inflammatory joint disease in adults leading to pain and disability. New drugs, called biologicals, have opened up new possibilities in the treatment of RA.

OBJECTIVE

Targeting pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) or interleukin-1 (IL-1) is well established in clinical care of RA patients. However, lack or loss of clinical response occurs in up to 25% of the patients. New strategies beyond these targets, namely blocking T cells by abatacept or B cells by rituximab (RTX), have been introduced recently.

METHODS

All relevant clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals are discussed in this article. Data from abstracts presented at congresses have not been included.

CONCLUSION

TNF blocking agents have significantly improved therapy of and outcome in RA patients and, therefore, are still the first choice biologicals for the treatment of RA. Alternatively, abatacept or RTX offer new options in case of inefficacy of or contraindications against anti-TNF therapy. Forthcoming drugs, such as tocilizumab, will extend our armamentarium to treat RA effectively.