Efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo in ATTEST: a phase III, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate

Mycobacterial Infections Potentiated by Biologics

Biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases but are associated with an increased risk of serious and opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacterial disease. Despite this increased risk, the overall risk-benefit ratio remains favorable with appropriate screening and risk assessment. Further population-based studies are needed to establish the risk of tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacterial disease with the new biologics. This article highlights the incidence and drug-specific risk of tuberculous and nontuberculous mycobacterial infection in the setting of biologics, screening and prevention, and treatment of latent tuberculosis in this setting.

Joint Statement (DZK, DGRh, DDG) on the Tuberculosis Risk with Treatment Using Novel Non-TNF-Alpha Biologicals

BACKGROUND

 While the risk of tuberculosis (TB) reactivation is adequately documented in relation to TNF-alpha inhibitors (TNFi), the question of what the tuberculosis risk is for newer, non-TNF biologics (non-TNFi) has not been thoroughly addressed.

METHODS

 We conducted a systematic review of randomized phase 2 and phase 3 studies, and long-term extensions of same, published through March 2019. Of interest was information pertaining to screening and treating of latent tuberculosis (LTBI) in association with the use of 12 particular non-TNFi. Only rituximab was excluded. We searched MEDLINE and the ClinicalTrial.gov database for any and all candidate studies meeting these criteria.

RESULTS

 677 citations were retrieved; 127 studies comprising a total of 34,293 patients who received non-TNFi were eligible for evaluation. Only 80 out of the 127 studies, or 63 %, captured active TB (or at least opportunistic diseases) as potential outcomes and 25 TB cases were reported. More than two thirds of publications (86/127, 68 %) mentioned LTBI screening prior to inclusion of study participants in the respective trial, whereas in only 4 studies LTBI screening was explicitly considered redundant. In 21 studies, patients with LTBI were generally excluded from the trials and in 42 out of the 127 trials, or 33 %, latently infected patients were reported to receive preventive therapy (PT) at least 3 weeks prior to non-TNFi treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

 The lack of information in many non-TNFi studies on the number of patients with LTBI who were either excluded prior to participating or had been offered PT hampers assessment of the actual TB risk when applying the novel biologics. Therefore, in case of insufficient information about drugs or drug classes, the existing recommendations of the German Central Committee against Tuberculosis should be applied in the same way as is done prior to administering TNFi. Well designed, long-term "real world" register studies on TB progression risk in relation to individual substances for IGRA-positive cases without prior or concomitant PT may help to reduce selection bias and to achieve valid conclusions in the future.

Haploinsufficiency of immune checkpoint receptor CTLA4 induces a distinct neuroinflammatory disorder

BACKGROUNDCytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4) is essential for immune homeostasis. Genetic mutations causing haploinsufficiency (CTLA4h) lead to a phenotypically heterogenous, immune-mediated disease that can include neuroinflammation. The neurological manifestations of CTLA4h are poorly characterized.METHODSWe performed an observational natural history study of 50 patients with CTLA4h who were followed at the NIH. We analyzed clinical, radiological, immunological, and histopathological data.RESULTSEvidence for neuroinflammation was observed in 32% (n = 16 of 50) of patients in this cohort by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and/or by cerebrospinal fluid analysis. Clinical symptoms were commonly absent or mild in severity, with headaches as the leading complaint (n = 13 of 16). The most striking findings were relapsing, large, contrast-enhancing focal lesions in the brain and spinal cord observed on MRI. We detected inflammation in the cerebrospinal fluid and leptomeninges before the parenchyma. Brain biopsies of inflammatory lesions from 10 patients showed perivascular and intraparenchymal mixed cellular infiltrates with little accompanying demyelination or neuronal injury.CONCLUSIONSNeuroinflammation due to CTLA4h is mediated primarily by an infiltrative process with a distinct and striking dissociation between clinical symptoms and radiological findings in the majority of patients.FUNDINGNIAID, NIH, Division of Intramural Research, NINDS, NIH, Division of Intramural Research, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society-American Brain Foundation.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT00001355.

Biologic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Context of Biosimilars, Genetics, Epigenetics and COVID-19 Treatment

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects around 1.2% of the adult population. RA is one of the main reasons for work disability and premature retirement, thus substantially increasing social and economic burden. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were shown to be an effective therapy especially in those rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, who did not adequately respond to conventional synthetic DMARD therapy. However, despite the proven efficacy, the high cost of the therapy resulted in limitation of the widespread use and unequal access to the care. The introduction of biosimilars, which are much cheaper relative to original drugs, may facilitate the achievement of the therapy by a much broader spectrum of patients. In this review we present the properties of original biologic agents based on cytokine-targeted (blockers of TNF, IL-6, IL-1, GM-CSF) and cell-targeted therapies (aimed to inhibit T cells and B cells properties) as well as biosimilars used in rheumatology. We also analyze the latest update of bDMARDs' possible influence on DNA methylation, miRNA expression and histone modification in RA patients, what might be the important factors toward precise and personalized RA treatment. In addition, during the COVID-19 outbreak, we discuss the usage of biologicals in context of effective and safe COVID-19 treatment. Therefore, early diagnosing along with therapeutic intervention based on personalized drugs targeting disease-specific genes is still needed to relieve symptoms and to improve the quality of life of RA patients.

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Tofacitinib With Continuing Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs for Active Rheumatoid Arthritis in South Korea

Introduction

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of initiating treatment with tofacitinib and subsequently incorporating it into a conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) treatment sequence and to compare the cost-effectiveness of this sequence with that of continuing csDMARDs alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

A cohort-based Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two tofacitinib treatment sequences compared with that of continuing the csDMARD treatment sequence over a lifetime. Of the two tofacitinib sequences, the first consisted of initial tofacitinib treatment followed by biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and the second consisted of csDMARD treatments followed by tofacitinib. A third treatment sequence, continuing the csDMARD treatment sequence before starting bDMARDs, was used as a comparator. Efficacy was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates (ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70) after 6 months, which were converted to changes in the health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI) score. Utility was estimated by mapping from the HAQ-DI score, costs were analyzed from a Korean societal perspective, and outcomes were considered in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios over a lifetime for starting with tofacitinib and incorporating tofacitinib into the csDMARD treatment sequence versus continuing csDMARDs only were US$14,537 per QALY and US$7,086 per QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these results.

Conclusion

Starting with tofacitinib and incorporating it into a csDMARDs treatment sequence is cost-effective compared to continuing csDMARDs alone in patients with RA.

Risk of opportunistic infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating abatacept: cumulative clinical trial data

BACKGROUND

To evaluate incidence of opportunistic infections (OIs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept in clinical trials.

METHODS

This pooled analysis of 16 randomized, double-blind/open-label trials, with ≥ 1 abatacept (intravenous or subcutaneous) arm, and with/without placebo control covered cumulative (controlled short-term and open-label long-term) abatacept exposure periods. OIs were analyzed separately in controlled (abatacept and placebo individually) and cumulative periods. OIs were identified using a prespecified list; events were independently adjudicated. Unadjusted incidence rates (IRs; per 100 patient-years) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

In cumulative periods, 7044 patients received abatacept, with a mean (standard deviation) duration of exposure of 36.9 (26.2) months (21,274 patient-years of exposure). IRs (95% CIs) of OIs were 0.17 (0.05-0.43) for abatacept and 0.56 (0.22-1.15) for placebo during the controlled periods and 0.21 (0.15-0.28) for abatacept during the cumulative periods. There was 1 case of tuberculosis in both the abatacept (IR [95% CI] 0.04 [0.00-0.24]) and placebo (IR [95% CI] 0.08 [0.00-0.44]) groups during the controlled periods; 13 verified tuberculosis cases (IR [95% CI] 0.06 [0.03-0.10]) were reported in the cumulative period. Herpes zoster was reported numerically more often with abatacept (IR 1.9 [1.4-2.5]), versus placebo (1.7 [1.1-2.6]) in the controlled periods; within the cumulative period, herpes zoster IR (95% CI) was 1.53 (1.36-1.71) for abatacept-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

In controlled periods of the clinical trials, abatacept-treated patients had similarly low rates of OIs compared with placebo-treated patients. Overall, OI rates were similar among abatacept-treated patients in the controlled and cumulative periods and consistent with the ranges reported in the literature.

Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.

DESIGN

Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study.

SETTING

Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms.

RESULTS

812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms.

CONCLUSIONS

All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tofacitinib for Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in China

BACKGROUND

Patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis have a heavy financial burden. The cost-effectiveness of introducing tofacitinib to the current treatment sequence for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis who have inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs-IR) in China remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of introducing tofacitinib into the current treatment sequence in China for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis who have csDMARDs-IR.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system to compare treatment sequences with and without first-line tofacitinib for patients with rheumatoid arthritis with csDMARDs-IR. The treatment sequence without tofacitinib included adalimumab, etanercept, recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor-Fc fusion protein, infliximab, and tocilizumab. Costs were derived from publicly available sources. Clinical trials, network meta-analysis, and real-world data were used to generate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), transition probabilities, and the incidence of adverse events. Mortality probabilities were estimated from rheumatoid arthritis-based, Chinese all-cause mortality data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the model. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of adding tofacitinib as second- and third-line treatment options was evaluated in our analyses. Costs and effects were discounted at 5% per anum.

RESULTS

Compared to the current treatment sequence, adding tofacitinib as first-line treatment led to a cost-saving of $US880.11 (2018 values) and incremental QALYs of 1.34. Sensitivity analyses showed the results to be robust. Adding tofacitinib at second-line therapy was also a cost-saving option with a cost saving of $US653.65 and incremental QALYs of 1.34, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of adding tofacitinib at third-line therapy was $US5588.14 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the WHO-recommended ICER acceptability threshold of ≤ 1-time per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP), our analysis suggests that the introduction of tofacitinib into the current treatment sequence for moderate-to-severe RA patients with csDMARDs-IR in China was a cost saving option as first- and second-line treatment, and cost-effective as a third-line treatment option. Of note, use of tofacitinib as first- and second-line treatment post-csDMARDs-IR appeared to be cost saving.

Trial of Upadacitinib or Abatacept in Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Upadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as compared with abatacept, a T-cell costimulation modulator, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are unclear.

METHODS

In this 24-week, phase 3, double-blind, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral upadacitinib (15 mg once daily) or intravenous abatacept, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the composite Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP; range, 0 to 9.4, with higher scores indicating more disease activity) at week 12, assessed for noninferiority. Key secondary end points at week 12 were the superiority of upadacitinib over abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the percentage of patients having clinical remission according to a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6.

RESULTS

A total of 303 patients received upadacitinib, and 309 patients received abatacept. From baseline DAS28-CRP values of 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group, the mean change at week 12 was -2.52 and -2.00, respectively (difference, -0.52 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.69 to -0.35; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P<0.001 for superiority). The percentage of patients having remission was 30.0% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P<0.001 for superiority). During the treatment period, one death, one nonfatal stroke, and two venous thromboembolic events occurred in the upadacitinib group, and more patients in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group had elevated hepatic aminotransferase levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic DMARDs, upadacitinib was superior to abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the achievement of remission at week 12 but was associated with more serious adverse events. Longer and larger trials are required in order to determine the effect and safety of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Funded by AbbVie; SELECT-CHOICE Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03086343.).

Challenges for biosimilars: focus on rheumatoid arthritis

Healthcare systems worldwide are struggling to find ways to fund the cost of innovative treatments such as gene therapies, regenerative medicine, and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). As the world's best known mAbs are close to facing patent expirations, the biosimilars market is poised to grow with the hope of bringing prices down for cancer treatment and autoimmune disorders, however, this has yet to be realized. The development costs of biosimilars are significantly higher than their generic equivalents due to therapeutic equivalence trials and higher manufacturing costs. It is imperative that academics and relevant companies understand the costs and stages associated with biologics processing. This article brings these costs to the forefront with a focus on biosimilars being developed for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). mAbs have remarkably changed the treatment landscape, establishing their superior efficacy over traditional small chemicals. Five blockbuster TNFα mAbs, considered as first line biologics against RA, are either at the end of their patent life or have already expired and manufacturers are seeking to capture a significant portion of that market. Although in principle, market-share should be available, withstanding that the challenges regarding the compliance and regulations are being resolved, particularly with regards to variation in the glycosylation patterns and challenges associated with manufacturing. Glycan variants can significantly affect the quality attributes requiring characterization throughout production. Successful penetration of biologics can drive down prices and this will be a welcome change for patients and the healthcare providers. Herein we review the biologic TNFα inhibitors, which are on the market, in development, and the challenges being faced by biosimilar manufacturers.

Response to abatacept is associated with the inhibition of proteasome β1i expression in T cells of patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

Abatacept is a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and modulates the costimulatory signal by cluster of differentiation (CD)28:CD80/CD86 interaction required for T cell activation. Since CD28-mediated signalling regulates many T cell functions including cytokine production of, for example, interferons (IFNs), it is of interest to clarify, whether response to abatacept has an effect on the IFN inducible immunoproteasome, as a central regulator of the immune response.

Methods

Effects of abatacept on the proteasome were investigated in 39 patients with RA over a period of 24 weeks. Using real-time PCR, transcript levels of constitutive and corresponding immunoproteasome catalytic subunits were investigated at baseline (T0), week 16 (T16) and week 24 (T24) in sorted blood cells. Proteasomal activity and induction of apoptosis after proteasome inhibition were also evaluated.

Results

Abatacept achieved remission or low disease activity in 55% of patients at T16 and in 70% of patients at T24. By two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), a significant reduction of proteasome immunosubunit β1i was shown only in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells of sustained responders at both T16 and T24. One-way ANOVA analysis for each response group confirmed the results and showed a significant reduction at T24 in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells of the same group. Abatacept did not influence chymotrypsin-like activity of proteasome and had no effect on induction of apoptosis under exposure to a proteasome inhibitor in vitro.

Conclusion

The reduction of proteasome immunosubunit β1i in T cells of patients with RA with sustained response to abatacept suggests association of the immunoproteasome of T cells with RA disease activity.

Medicare expenditures for conventional and biologic disease modifying agents commonly used for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease modifying agents (bDMARDs) are an integral part of rheumatoid arthritis treatment guidelines but are associated with significant cost in the US. We present the trends in total spending and unit cost of conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) as compared to bDMARDs in Medicare program.

METHODS

We used the Medicare drug spending data for the year 2012-2017 covering all part B (fee-for-service) and part D drugs. Total spending was calculated by summing spending across various drug formulations and unit drug cost by dividing total spending by number of doses dispensed. We present the 6-year trends in total spending, total beneficiary count and unit costs of each of the commonly used cDMARDs and bDMARDs.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2017, the total spending on the cDMARDs increased 5-folds from $98 million to $579 million; this was fraction of total spending on bDMARDs which increased from $4.3 to $10.0 billion. This increase was driven largely by unit costs of drug rather than number of beneficiaries. There was a 6-fold increase in the unit cost of generic hydroxychloroquine followed by methotrexate and leflunomide. Amongst bDMARDs, adalimumab and etanercept unit cost increased by 2-folds. The increase was less pronounced for office-administered products.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the availability of several generic cDMARDs over decades, there were steep increases in the unit cost of these agents to "keep pace" with the increases in bDMARDs. As the number of elderly rheumatoid arthritis patients increases, policy interventions might be required to reduce the spending on both biologics and conventional DMARDs.

New Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatments for 'Old' Patients: Results of a Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

In the last 20 years, biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have become available for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and a treat-to-target strategy has been introduced. We hypothesise that these advances should have resulted in changes to the characteristics of patients with RA participating in clinical trials of the newest therapies. This study determined whether the baseline characteristics of patients with RA enrolled in clinical trials have changed in the past decade versus patients participating in earlier RA studies.

METHODS

This secondary analysis was based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified in a systematic literature review. Baseline characteristics of patients with RA with inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs were compared between RCTs published in 1999-2009 and those published in 2010-2017 using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Forty RCTs were analysed: 22 from 1999-2009 and 18 from 2010-2017. No significant difference between the two timeframes and no obvious trend over time were observed for age, gender, disease duration, rheumatoid factor status, tender and swollen joint counts, physician and patient global assessments of disease activity, and pain scores. Variability between RCTs was high. Similar results were observed for Disease Activity Scores and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores, but with low variability between RCTs.

CONCLUSION

The baseline characteristics of patients with RA participating in RCTs do not appear to have changed in the last decade despite the availability of new treatments and a different treatment approach. Further research should determine the impact of baseline patient characteristics on patients' response to RA treatments.

A critical review of the United States regulatory pathways for determining the equivalence of efficacy between CT-P13 and original infliximab (Remicade®)

We evaluated the appropriateness of various equivalence margins for CT-P13, an infliximab biosimilar, in the PLANETRA clinical trial. The 95-95% method was used to independently determine an equivalence margin by pooling the historical clinical trials with original infliximab versus placebo, identified in a systematic literature search. The constancy assumption with the PLANETRA trial was assessed for each identified historical clinical trial to decide which study was scientifically justifiable to be pooled. A sensitivity analysis was performed for each study-pooling scenario. As a result, we identified two historical clinical trials that were deemed appropriate, whereas the PLANETRA trial pooled three additional studies to determine an equivalence margin, which was accepted by the United States Food and Drug Administration. However, those extra clinical trials did not meet the constancy assumption in baseline characteristics, methotrexate dose, and efficacy assessment time. The clinically more appropriate equivalence margin was 5.7 percentage points, which was much narrower than the 12 percentage points applied in the approval of CT-P13. In conclusion, the equivalence claim for CT-P13 to original infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis did not appear to be supported when the constancy assumption was strictly assessed. The equivalence margin for biosimilars could be determined more conservatively.

Infectious Complications of Biological and Small Molecule Targeted Immunomodulatory Therapies

The past 2 decades have seen a revolution in our approach to therapeutic immunosuppression. We have moved from relying on broadly active traditional medications, such as prednisolone or methotrexate, toward more specific agents that often target a single receptor, cytokine, or cell type, using monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins, or targeted small molecules. This change has transformed the treatment of many conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, cancers, asthma, and inflammatory bowel disease, but along with the benefits have come risks. Contrary to the hope that these more specific agents would have minimal and predictable infectious sequelae, infectious complications have emerged as a major stumbling block for many of these agents. Furthermore, the growing number and complexity of available biologic agents makes it difficult for clinicians to maintain current knowledge, and most review articles focus on a particular target disease or class of agent. In this article, we review the current state of knowledge about infectious complications of biologic and small molecule immunomodulatory agents, aiming to create a single resource relevant to a broad range of clinicians and researchers. For each of 19 classes of agent, we discuss the mechanism of action, the risk and types of infectious complications, and recommendations for prevention of infection.

Risk Factors and Prevention of Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia in Patients With Autoimmune and Inflammatory Diseases

Patients with autoimmune and/or inflammatory diseases (AIIDs) are prone to serious infectious complications such as Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP). In non-HIV patients, the prognosis is poorer, and diagnostic tests are of lower sensitivity. Given the low incidence of PJP in AIIDs, with the exception of granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and the non-negligible side effects of chemoprophylaxis, routine prescription of primary prophylaxis is still debated. Absolute peripheral lymphopenia, high doses of corticosteroids, combination with other immunosuppressive agents, and concomitant lung disease are strong predictors for the development of PJP and thus should warrant primary prophylaxis. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is considered first-line therapy and is the most extensively used drug for PJP prophylaxis. Nevertheless, it may expose patients to side effects. Effective alternative drugs such as atovaquone or aerosolized pentamidine could be used when trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is not tolerated or contraindicated. No standard guidelines are available to guide PJP prophylaxis in patients with AIIDs. This review covers the epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention of pneumocystis in the context of AIIDs.

A Network Meta-Analysis to Compare Effectiveness of Baricitinib and Other Treatments in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to Methotrexate

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

This article compares the effectiveness of baricitinib (BARI) 4 mg (oral, Janus kinase [JAK] 1/2 inhibitor) versus other targeted synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, in combination with methotrexate (MTX), in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response (IR) to MTX.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the interventions of interest. Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were used to compare American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses at 24 weeks. A series of prespecified sensitivity analyses addressed the potential impact of, among others, baseline risk, treatment effect modifiers, and trial design on treatment response.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs were included in the NMA (primary analysis). For ACR20, BARI 4 mg + MTX was found to be more effective than adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg + MTX (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.33), abatacept (ABA) 10 mg + MTX (IV/4 weeks) (OR 1.45), infliximab (IFX) 3 mg + MTX (IV/8 wks) (OR 1.63), and rituximab (RTX) 1000 mg + MTX (OR 1.63). No differences were found on ACR50. For ACR70, BARI 4 mg + MTX was more effective than ADA 40 mg + MTX (OR 1.37), ABA 10 mg + MTX (OR 1.86), and RTX 1000 mg + MTX (OR 2.26). Sensitivity analysis including 10 additional RCTs with up to 20% of patients with prior biologic use showed BARI 4 mg + MTX to be more effective than tocilizumab (TCZ) 8 mg + MTX on ACR20 (OR 1.44). Results for all sensitivity analyses were consistent with the direction and magnitude of the primary results. Key limitations include the time span in which trials were conducted (1999-2017), during which patient characteristics and treatment approaches might have changed.

CONCLUSION

This NMA suggests that BARI 4 mg + MTX is an efficacious treatment option in the MTX-IR population as evidenced by the robustness of results.

Disease modifying drugs for rheumatological diseases: a brief history of everything

The rheumatological diseases are a group of chronic, painful, degenerative and debilitating conditions with an increasing prevalence across the globe. The pathogenesis of these disorders is complex, overlapping and not fully understood. As such, it is difficult and time consuming to achieve correct diagnosis and complete remission for an individual patient. In this review we describe the most common forms of inflammatory arthritis and discuss how the management and treatment options for these rheumatic diseases have developed over time. We outline the successes and the limitations of current treatment regimens and discuss the economic burden of the current options. With advancements in understanding of disease mechanisms, we discuss the importance of the biologics revolution in the context of rheumatological disease and how the development of biosimilars and small molecule inhibitors will impact current treatment options in order to alleviate some of the cost burden of biological therapies. The ideal treatment strategy for the future would involve personalized and predictive medicine where by treatments can be tailored to an individual patient's needs in order to achieve fast and successful remission with no adverse events.

CTLA-4: From mechanism to autoimmune therapy

CD28 and CTLA-4 are both important stimulatory receptors for the regulation of T cell activation. Because receptors share common ligands, B7.1 and B7.2, the expression and biological function of CTLA-4 is important for the negative regulation of T cell responses. Therefore, elimination of CTLA-4 can result in the breakdown of immune tolerance and the development of several diseases such as autoimmunity. Inhibitory signals of CTLA-4 suppress T cell responses and protect against autoimmune diseases in many ways. In this review, we summarize the structure, expression and signaling pathway of CTLA-4. We also highlight how CTLA-4 defends against potentially self-reactive T cells. Finally, we discuss how the CTLA-4 regulates a number of autoimmune diseases that indicate manipulation of this inhibitory molecule is a promise as a strategy for the immunotherapy of autoimmune diseases.

When the first visit to the rheumatologist is established rheumatoid arthritis

The outlook for people living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has improved tremendously in a generation. Major contributions to this include recognition of the importance of early treatment initiation, improved understanding of the pathobiology, the identification of therapeutic targets and their subsequent validation in clinic trials and the realisation of the importance of 'tight control' of inflammatory responses. Despite these advances, many patients meeting classification criteria present for the first time to a rheumatologist with longstanding symptoms. There is no definition as to when RA becomes 'established'. But there is evidence that a 'window of opportunity' exists over about 12-16 weeks symptom duration, during which treatment intervention gives rise to the most optimal outcomes. This review addresses issues regarding the management of patients presenting outside the window of opportunity in terms of heterogeneity of presentation, assessment, therapeutic goals and treatment options as well as the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to holistic care.

Abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis: survival on drug, clinical outcomes, and their predictors-data from a large national quality register

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding efficacy of abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outside clinical trials. Quality registers have been useful for observational studies on tumor necrosis factor inhibition in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical efficacy and tolerability of abatacept in RA, using a national register.

METHODS

RA patients that started abatacept between 2006 and 2017 and were included in the Swedish Rheumatology Quality register (N = 2716) were investigated. Survival on drug was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good response and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) response (improvement of ≥ 0.3) rates (LUNDEX corrected for drug survival) at 6 and at 12 months were assessed. Predictors of discontinuation were investigated by Cox regression analyses, and predictors of clinical response by logistic regression. Significance-based backward stepwise selection of variables was used for the final multivariate models.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in drug survival by previous biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) exposure (p < 0.001), with longer survival in bionaïve patients. Men (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.98) and methotrexate users (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.95) were less likely to discontinue abatacept, whereas a high pain score predicted discontinuation (HR 1.14 per standard deviation, 95% CI 1.07-1.20). The absence of previous bDMARD exposure, male sex, and a low HAQ score were independently associated with LUNDEX-corrected EULAR good response. The absence of previous bDMARD exposure also predicted LUNDEX-corrected HAQ response.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based study of RA, bDMARD naïve patients and male patients were more likely to remain on abatacept with a major clinical response.

Cost-utility analysis of de-escalating biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

Recent guideline updates have suggested de-escalating DMARDs when patients with rheumatoid arthritis achieve remission or low disease activity. We aim to evaluate whether it is cost-effective to de-escalate the biological form of DMARDs (bDMARDs).

Methods

Using a Markov model, we performed a cost-utility analysis for RA patients on bDMARD treatment. We compared continuing treatment (standard care) to a tapering approach (i.e., an immediate 50% dose reduction), withdrawal (i.e., an immediate 100% dose reduction) and tapering followed by withdrawal of bDMARDs. The parametrization is based on a comprehensive literature review. Results were computed for 30 years with a cycle length of three months. We applied the payer’s perspective for Germany and conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Tapering or withdrawing bDMARD treatment resulted in ICERs of €526,254 (incr. costs -78,845, incr. QALYs -0.1498) or €216,879 (incr. costs -€121,691, incr. QALYs -0.5611) compared to standard care. Tapering followed by withdrawal resulted in a loss of 0.4354 QALYs and savings of €107,969 per patient, with an ICER of €247,987. Deterministic sensitivity analysis revealed that our results remained largely unaffected by parameter changes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that tapering, withdrawal and tapering followed by withdrawal were dominant in 39.8%, 28.2% and 29.0% of 10,000 iterations.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that de-escalating bDMARDs in patients with RA may result in high cost savings but also a decrease in quality of life compared to standard care. If decision makers choose to implement de-escalation in daily practice, our results suggest the tapering approach.

The use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for inflammatory arthritis in Korea: results of a Korean Expert Consensus

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are highly effective agents for the treatment of inf lammatory arthritis; however, they also possess a potential risk for serious infection. Recently, with the rapid expansion of the bDMARDs market in Korea, reports of serious adverse events related to the agents have also increased, necessitating guidance for the use of bDMARDs. Current work entitled, "Expert consensus for the use of bDMARDs drugs for inflammatory arthritis in Korea," is the first to describe the appropriate use of bDMARDs in the management of inflammatory arthritis in Korea, with an aim to provide guidance for the local medical community to improve the quality of clinical care. Twelve consensus statements regarding the use of bDMARDs for the management of rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis were generated. In this review, we provide detailed guidance on bDMARDs use based on expert consensus, including who should prescribe, the role of education, indications for use, and monitoring strategies for safety.

Will savings from biosimilars offset increased costs related to dose escalation? A comparison of infliximab and golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction

Biosimilar infliximab has the potential for appreciable cost savings compared to its reference biologic, but dose escalation is common and increases costs. We compared frequency of dose escalation and associated Medicare-approved amount so as to determine the break-even point at which infliximab dose escalation would offset the cost savings of using a biosimilar, referent to alternatively using golimumab.

Methods

We studied Medicare enrollees with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating infliximab or golimumab. Frequency of dose escalation was summarized descriptively over 18 months, as were Medicare-approved amounts for reimbursement. Analyses were repeated conditioning on high adherence (i.e., non-discontinuation, > 10-week gap). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression and mixed models evaluated factors associated with infliximab dose escalation.

Results

A total of 5174 infliximab and 2843 golimumab initiators were observed. Dose escalation was rare for golimumab (5%) but common for infliximab (49%), and was even more common (72%) for infliximab among patients who persisted on treatment. Regardless of dose escalation, the adjusted least square mean dollar amounts were appreciably higher for golimumab ($28,146) than for infliximab ($21,216) and greater among persistent patients (cost difference $9269, favoring infliximab). Only when patients escalated infliximab to ≥ 8 mg/kg every 6 weeks was golimumab IV at break-even or less expensive. After controlling for multiple factors, physician ownership of the infusion center was associated with greater likelihood of infliximab dose escalation (odds ratio = 1.25, 95% CI 1.09–1.44).

Conclusion

Despite frequent dose escalation with infliximab that often increase its dose by threefold or more, the savings from the current price of its biosimilar substantially offsets the costs of an alternative infused TNFi biologic for which no biosimilar is available.

Correlation between frailty and disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Data from the CHIKARA study

AIM

Frailty is defined as the degradation of physical and cognitive function in older adults. The relationship between frailty and disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is unclear. Factors related to frailty in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients were investigated in a cross-sectional analysis.

METHODS

Of 100 patients who entered the prospective, observational Correlation research of sarcopenia, skeletal muscle and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (CHIKARA) study, 95 completed a frailty check list (maximal score 25), and were classified as frail (8-25 points), pre-frail (4-7 points) and normal (0-3 points). The relationship with disease activity was investigated in the frailty, pre-frailty and normal groups. Relationships between clinical variables and frailty were evaluated by univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The prevalences of frailty, pre-frailty and normal were 18.9%, 38.9% and 42.2%, respectively. The disease activity score 28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate, matrix metalloproteinase 3 and modified health assessment questionnaire were higher in the frailty group. In remission, 66.6% were normal and 6.7% had frailty, but with moderate and high disease activity, 13.3% were normal and 46.7% had frailty. On univariate analysis, factors positively related to frailty were age, locomotive syndrome, disease activity score 28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate, matrix metalloproteinase 3, use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, Steinbrocker class and modified health assessment questionnaire; and the leg muscle score and grip strength were negatively related. Matrix metalloproteinase 3 was the only independent factor on multivariate logistic analysis. In patients aged >60 years, this tendency was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty was found to be related to disease activity and physical function in rheumatoid arthritis. Control of disease activity appears important to prevent frailty. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2019; 19: 1220-1225.

Role of biological agents in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Advances in understanding of the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis with concurrent advances in protein engineering led to the development of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs which have dramatically revolutionized the treatment of this condition. This review article focuses on the role of biological agents currently employed in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as novel biological agents in development.

Effectiveness, Tolerability, and Safety of Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Retrospective Analysis of Real-World Data from the St. Gallen and Aarau Cohorts

: Introduction: Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor indicated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib have been shown in several randomized clinical trials. The study presented here aimed to assess the clinical tolerability and effectiveness of tofacitinib among RA patients in real life. Methods: Consecutive patients between January 2015 and April 2017 with RA who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2010 criteria were included in a prospectively designed analysis of retrospective data. Patients were initiated on tofacitinib 5 mg bid. The primary objective was to analyze the safety of tofacitinib in a real-life cohort. Safety was assessed by the reasons to stop tofacitinib during follow up and changes of liver enzymes, hemoglobin, and creatinine. The secondary outcome was to analyze the frequency of and time to achieve low disease activity (LDA) and remission as defined by 28 joint count disease activity score (DAS28). Results: A total of 144 patients were treated with tofacitinib. A total of 84.9% of patients were pre-exposed to at least one biological agent. The average DAS28 at the initiation of tofacitinib was 4.43. A total of 50.0% of patients were positive for rheumatoid factor and 49.0% for ACPA. The mean follow up was 1.22 years (range 10d-3.7a) after initiation of tofacitinib treatment. A total of 94 (64.4%) patients remained on tofacitinib during follow-up. The average time to stop tofacitinib was 190.0 days. Reasons to stop tofacitinib were: insufficient response (n = 23), gastrointestinal symptoms (n = 18), infection (n = 5), myalgia (n = 2), remission (n = 2), headache (n = 2), cough, blue finger syndrome, intolerance, heartburn, psoriasis, and increased liver enzymes (all n = 1). Increased alanine amino transferase (ALAT) or aspartate amino transferase (ASAT) > 2× upper limit of normal (ULN) were detected in 3.3% and 4.4% of patients, respectively. Hemoglobin decrease of >10% was detected in 15.1% of the patients and decreased lymphocytes <500/μL in 3.4%. An increase of creatinine >20% was detected in 9.4% of patients. A total of 62.9% and 50.0% of the patients achieved low disease activity (LDA) or remission after a median of 319 and 645 days, respectively. These rates were significantly higher in patients naïve to biologic agents as compared to patients pre-exposed to biologics (LDA: naïve 100% 92 d, pre-exposed 57.0% 434 d, p ≤ 0.001; remission: naïve 86.7% 132 d, pre-exposed 44.1%, 692 d, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Tofacitinib is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with RA. Tofacitinib may induce high rates of LDA and remission in patients with active disease, even after the use of one or more biologics, though the rate appeared higher in patients naïve to biologics. Tofacitinib may be a valuable option in a treat-to-target approach. Our data demonstrate that Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are safe and efficacious in real life patients.

Effect of Biological Disease-modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs on Airway and Interstitial Lung Disease in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) represent an important advance in alleviating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but their effect on rheumatic airway disease (AD) and interstitial lung disease (ILD) is still unclear. This study was performed to evaluate the association of the use of different bDMARDs with new-onset or worsening of RA-AD/ILD. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of RA patients who received bDMARDs and assessed their AD/ILD before and after drug initiation in our hospital over the past 10 years. We evaluated the serial changes in computed tomography (CT), classified patients according to AD/ILD progression, and analyzed associations between clinical characteristics and outcomes. Results We enrolled 49 patients. Thirty patients received tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), 12 received abatacept (ABT), and the remaining 7 received tocilizumab (TCZ). Seventeen patients had ILD, 10 had AD, and 6 had both AD and ILD before the initiation of bDMARDs. New emergence or exacerbation of AD/ILD was observed in 18 patients after drug initiation, while the remaining 31 remained stable or improved. Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed that pre-existing AD was an independent risk factor against the emergence or exacerbation of RA-AD/ILD, and ABT use was a protective factor against it. Conclusion Our study showed that pre-existing RA-AD is associated with future worsening of RA-AD/ILD, and ABT over other bDMARDs was associated with a better prognosis. Future studies to confirm our results are needed.

Safety of abatacept compared with other biologic and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: data from an observational study

Background

To assess the risks of malignancies, infections and autoimmune diseases in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept compared with other biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs, in a US-wide observational RA cohort

Methods

Data were reviewed from patients (≥ 18 years) with RA who were registered with FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, and who initiated abatacept, other bDMARDs or csDMARDs between 2005 and 2015. Patients who switched treatment during the study could be allocated to more than one group. The incidence rates (IRs) by treatment were calculated for malignancies, hospitalized infections and autoimmune diseases identified by six monthly questionnaires and medical records. The hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for all outcomes with abatacept compared with other bDMARDs or csDMARDs were determined using marginal structural models adjusted for clinical confounders.

Results

In the study sample, 1496 initiated abatacept, 3490 initiated another bDMARD and 1520 initiated a csDMARD. The risk of malignancies with abatacept was not statistically significant versus other bDMARDs (HR [95% CI)] 1.89 [0.93, 3.84]) or versus csDMARDs (HR [95% CI] 0.93 [0.20, 4.27]). Patients receiving abatacept versus other bDMARDs were at a lower risk of hospitalized infections (HR [95% CI] 0.37 [0.18, 0.75]); the risk versus csDMARDs was lower with wide CIs (HR [95% CI] 0.31 [0.09, 1.05]). The relative risks for psoriasis were similar between treatment groups (HR [95% CI] 1.46 [0.76, 2.81] and HR [95% CI] 2.05 [0.59, 7.16] for abatacept versus other bDMARDs and versus csDMARDS, respectively). The IR (95% CI) of severe infusion/injection reactions was lower with abatacept compared with other bDMARDs (1.57 [1.11, 2.17] vs 2.31 [1.87, 2.82] per 100 patient-years, respectively).

Conclusions

In this analysis, abatacept was well tolerated and did not result in an overall increased risk of malignancies, infections or autoimmune diseases compared with other bDMARDs or csDMARDs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-019-1921-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Persistence rates of abatacept and TNF inhibitors used as first or second biologic DMARDs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: 9 years of experience from the Rhumadata® clinical database and registry

Background

Treatment persistence is an important consideration when selecting a therapy for chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We assessed the long-term persistence of abatacept or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) following (1) inadequate response to a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (first-line biologic agent) and (2) inadequate response to a first biologic DMARD (second-line biologic agent).

Methods

Data were extracted from the Rhumadata® registry for patients with RA prescribed either abatacept or a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) who met the study selection criteria. The primary outcome was persistence to abatacept and TNFi treatment, as first- or second-line biologics. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients discontinuing therapy, reasons for discontinuation, and predictors of discontinuation. Persistence was defined as the time from initiation to discontinuation of biologic therapy. Baseline characteristics were compared using descriptive statistics; cumulative persistence rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the persistence between treatments, controlling for baseline covariates.

Results

Overall, 705 patients met the selection criteria for first-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 92; TNFi, n = 613) and 317 patients met the criteria for second-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 105; TNFi, n = 212). There were no clinically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the treatments with either first- or second-line biologics. Persistence was similar between the first-line biologic treatments (p = 0.7406) but significantly higher for abatacept compared with TNFi as a second-line biologic (p = 0.0001). Mean (SD) times on first-line biologic abatacept and TNFi use were 4.53 (0.41) and 5.35 (0.20) years, and 4.80 (0.45) and 2.82 (0.24) years, respectively, as second-line biologic agents. The proportion of patients discontinuing abatacept and TNFi in first-line was 51.1% vs. 59.5% (p = 0.1404), respectively. In second-line, it was 57.1% vs. 74.1% (p = 0.0031). The main reasons for stopping both treatments were inefficacy and adverse events.

Conclusions

Abatacept and TNFi use demonstrated similar persistence rates at 9 years as a first-line biologic agent. As a second-line biologic agent, abatacept had better persistence rates over a TNFi.

Network meta-analysis of tofacitinib versus biologic treatments in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis patients

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterized primarily by inflammation and pain in the joints. Tofacitinib is an oral drug recently approved for RA treatment; it inhibits Janus protein kinases (JAK) that reduces RA symptoms when conventional DMARDs do not trigger a response. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of biological DMARDs in monotherapy or combined with methotrexate in RA patients and compare the treatments.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature for articles published up to June 2017, evaluating the efficacy and safety of the biological DMARDs indicated for RA in patients with inadequate responses to conventional DMARDs and naïve to biological DMARDs, in similar populations, considering ACR50 as the efficacy variable. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each drug combination, and these parameters were transformed into differences in responses to assess the effectiveness of the alternative medicines. Equivalence therapeutic alternatives (ETA) were ensured to assess the possibility of considering these medications with equivalent efficacy. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using Bayesian approaches and the fixed-effects model.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met the pre-established criteria were identified. The 95% CI of biological DMARDs was higher than that of placebo without methotrexate, except for certolizumab, golimumab-m, anakinra-m and adalimumab monotherapy. These DMARDs performed significantly better than the placebo, except for etanercept, certolizumab, tofacitinib and golimumab. Certolizumab-m was better than anakinra-m and adalimumab, and tocilizumab alone or combined with methotrexate was superior to adalimumab. Etanercept-m yielded a higher difference in responses compared with the other biological DMARDs, which presented more homogeneous responses, except for adalimumab and anakinra-m, which yielded worse results. None of the biological DMARDs displayed ETA to etanercept-m; however, they displayed ETA with certolizumab-m, except for adalimumab and anakinra-m.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

All biological DMARDs used in combination with methotrexate, except for etanercept, anakinra, certolizumab and tocilizumab without methotrexate, were displayed ETA on using ACR50 at week 24 in patients naïve to biological DMARDs. Etanercept displayed a greater difference in responses, although the high uncertainty of the comparative results prevented the confirmation of the increased efficacy of this drug.

Safety of Abatacept Versus Placebo in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Integrated Data Analysis of Nine Clinical Trials

Objective

To assess the safety of abatacept treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using integrated data from multiple clinical trials.

Methods

Data from nine double‐blind, placebo‐controlled studies of abatacept treatment (seven intravenous, two subcutaneous) in patients with RA were pooled, focusing on safety events in the double‐blind treatment period of each study. Incidence rates (IRs) of adverse events (AEs) per 100 patient‐years of exposure were calculated for abatacept‐ and placebo‐treated patients. AEs in abatacept‐treated patients were combined regardless of dose and formulation.

Results

In total, 2653 patients received abatacept and 1485 received placebo, with 2357 and 1254 patient‐years of exposure, respectively. The mean (SD) durations of exposure in the abatacept and placebo groups were 10.8 (3.3) and 10.3 (3.5) months, respectively. The IRs (95% confidence interval [CI]) for serious AEs were 14.8 (13.3, 16.5) and 14.6 (12.5, 17.0) in the abatacept and placebo groups, respectively. Death occurred in 12 (0.5%) and 12 (0.8%) patients in the abatacept and placebo groups, respectively, and was most commonly caused by cardiac disorders. Malignancies were observed in 31 patients (1.2%) treated with abatacept (IR: 1.32 [95% CI: 0.90, 1.87]) versus 14 (0.9%; IR: 1.12 [0.61, 1.88]) who received placebo. Solid organ tumor was the most frequent malignancy reported in both groups (abatacept: 1.0%; IR: 1.11 [95% CI: 0.72, 1.62]; placebo: 0.8%; 0.96 [0.50, 1.67]).

Conclusion

In this integrated analysis, the IRs of safety events in the abatacept and placebo groups were similar with no new safety concerns identified.

Multicenter, observational clinical study of abatacept in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis

The aim of this study was to assess abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patient. Patients (20 men, 89 women, aged 61.9 ± 10.4 y) who responded inadequately to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug were treated with abatacept for 24-months. Disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28-CRP) was evaluated. Of 109 patients, 82 (75.2%) were on methotrexate (MTX; mean dosage 9.0 ± 2.7 mg/week); 48 (44.0%) were naive to biologics and 61 (56.0%) had failed biologics. The 1- and 2-year retention rates were 77% and 53%, respectively. At 24-months, the DAS28-CRP remission rates were 54.5% in the biologic-naïve patients, and 28.2% in the biologic-failure patients (p < .01), while the structural remission rates were 83.9% and 73.1%, respectively (p = .461). Abatacept was equally effective in RA patients who were and were not on concomitant MTX. Biologic-naïve was associated with better clinical outcome. Abatacept was effective in patients who showed decreasing anti-CCP antibody titers or serum MMP-3 levels during treatment. Infection was the most frequent adverse effect of abatacept therapy. In conclusion, abatacept is more effective in biologic-naïve than in biologic-failure RA patients with or without concomitant use of MTX. Abatacept is more effective in RA patients with than without decreasing serum MMP-3 or anti-CCP antibody titers during treatment.

Placebo Response in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

Understanding the placebo response is critical to interpreting treatment efficacy, particularly for agents with a ceiling to their therapeutic effect, where an increasing placebo response makes it harder to detect potential benefit. The objective of this study is to assess the change in placebo responses over time in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCT) for drug licensing authorization.

METHODS

The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register database was searched to identify RCT of biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in RA. Studies were excluded if patients were conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD)-naive, not receiving background csDMARD therapy, or were biologic experienced. Metaregression model was used to evaluate changes in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50, and ACR70 treatment response over time.

RESULTS

There were 32 trials in total: anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy (n = 15), tocilizumab (n = 4), abatacept (n = 2), rituximab (n = 2), and Janus kinase inhibitors (n = 9). From 1999 to 2018, there was no significant trend in the age or sex of patients in the placebo arm. Disease duration, swollen joint count, and 28-joint count Disease Activity Score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate at baseline all significantly declined over time. There was a statistically significant increase in placebo ACR50 and ACR70 responses (ACR50 β = 0.41, 95% CI 0.09-0.74, p = 0.01; ACR70 β = 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.31, p = 0.01) that remained significant after controlling for potential confounders.

CONCLUSION

There has been a rise in the placebo response in RA clinical trials over the last 2 decades. Shifting RA phenotype, changes in trial design, and expectation bias are possible explanations for this phenomenon. This observation has important implications when evaluating newer novel agents against established therapies.

Abatacept suppresses the telomerase activity of lymphocytes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

AIM

Telomere is a component of chromosomes that protects their ends from various stresses. The telomeres shorten during cell division, and their length is maintained by telomerase. The telomerase activity of lymphocytes was shown to be upregulated on lymphocyte activation, and abatacept was found to suppress the activation of T lymphocytes involved in pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. Therefore, we investigated the effect of abatacept on lymphocyte telomerase activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHOD

This study included 11 patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis based on American College of Rheumatology 2010 criteria, who received abatacept treatment from August 2012 to August 2013. We collected their clinical data and obtained peripheral blood samples before starting abatacept, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were extracted using Ficoll density gradient centrifugation, and T and B lymphocytes were sorted by magnetic beads. The telomerase activity of lymphocytes was determined using the telomeric repeat amplification protocol.

RESULTS

The telomerase activity of T lymphocytes declined from 0.357 to 0.161 (P < 0.01) at 12 months after abatacept treatment, and that of B lymphocytes declined from 0.554 to 0.202 (P < 0.01). The telomerase activity of B lymphocytes, but not that of T lymphocytes, was also significantly downregulated 1 month after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Abatacept suppressed the telomerase activity of both T and B lymphocytes, although that of B lymphocytes was downregulated before T lymphocytes. These findings imply that the clinical efficacy of abatacept during the early phase depends on the suppression of B lymphocytes.

The economic burden of switching targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among rheumatoid arthritis patients

AIMS

To estimate real world healthcare costs and resource utilization of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients associated with targeted disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARD) switching in general and switching to abatacept specifically.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RA patients initiating a tDMARD were identified in IMS PharMetrics Plus health insurance claims data (2010-2016), and outcomes measured included monthly healthcare costs per patient (all-cause, RA-related) and resource utilization (inpatient stays, outpatient visits, emergency department [ED] visits). Generalized linear models were used to assess (i) average monthly costs per patient associated with tDMARD switching, and (ii) among switchers only, costs of switching to abatacept vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other non-TNFi. Negative binomial regressions were used to determine incident rate ratios of resource utilization associated with switching to abatacept.

RESULTS

Among 11,856 RA patients who initiated a tDMARD, 2,708 switched tDMARDs once and 814 switched twice (to a third tDMARD). Adjusted average monthly costs were higher among patients who switched to a second tDMARD vs non-switchers (all-cause: $4,785 vs $3,491, p < .001; RA-related: $3,364 vs $2,297, p < .001). Monthly RA-related costs were higher for patients switching to a third tDMARD compared to non-switchers remaining on their second tDMARD ($3,835 vs $3,383, p < .001). Switchers to abatacept had significantly lower RA-related monthly costs vs switchers to TNFi ($3,129 vs $3,436, p = .021), and numerically lower all-cause costs ($4,444 vs $4,741, p = 0.188). Switchers to TNFi relative to abatacept had more frequent inpatient stays after switch (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.85, p = .031), and numerically higher ED visits (IRR = 1.32, p = .093). Outpatient visits were less frequent for TNFi switchers (IRR = 0.83, p < .001) compared to switchers to abatacept.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Switching to another tDMARD was associated with higher healthcare costs. Switching to abatacept, however, was associated with lower RA-related costs, fewer inpatient stays, but more frequent outpatient visits compared to switching to a TNFi.

Abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a complex disease in which different mechanisms are involved. Studies suggest a key role for aberrant pathways of T-cell activation in the initiation and perpetuation of disease. Abatacept is a fusion protein composed of the Fc region of the immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) fused to the extracellular domain of cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA4). It has the ability to modulate T-cell activation by interfering with co-stimulation of these cells, a necessary step to become activated. This suggests that abatacept may play a role in the progression and/or even the initiation of RA. Areas covered: a review of the different studies carried out during clinical development of abatacept was performed. Both formulations, intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC), showed a similar and consistent efficacy and safety profile. Abatacept was effective both in RA patients not responding to methotrexate (MTX) and to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. Expert commentary: abatacept, with its unique mechanism of action, proved to be a useful therapeutic alternative in RA, also having an acceptable safety profile. Evidence points out that abatacept may be able to alter the RA disease course. Ongoing studies will clarify this issue.

Beneficio económico de los ensayos clínicos controlados patrocinados: El gasto evitable en medicamentos para el tratamiento de la artritis reumatoidea

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the following: (1) the avoidable cost of biologic (bDMARDs) and conventional synthetic Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) during controlled clinical trials (CCTs), their extension period, and for bDMARDs in post study drug programs; and (2) to evaluate the impact on health insurances.

METHODS

We analyzed 13 CCTs (233 patients) that evaluated bDMARDs. Avoidable cost was what the health insurance should have paid if the patient had not received the medication from the CCT sponsor and was estimated with a micro-costing approach (bottom-up method). Results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or percentages. Approved by the Ethics Committee.

RESULTS

Mean age was 50.62 SD 11.8 years, 84% were women, 72% (n = 166) had health insurance. The mean annual cost of bDMARDs was US$ 30 567.40 while the cost for csDMARDs was US$ 104.90 during the CCTs. The mean annual cost in extension periods and post study drug programs for bDMARDs was US$ 36 016.20 and for csDMARs during the extension period was US$ 81.70. The avoidable cost for public health insurances exceeded one million dollars per year.

CONCLUSION

This work describes for the first time in Argentina the significant economic benefit that may represent for RA patients' health insurances the participation in CCTs with bDMARDs. It shows that during the execution of the CCT, its extension periods, or post study access programs, while medication provision is guaranteed, the economic burden imposed by the treatment of the RA is relieved.

Rheumatoid arthritis treated with 6-months of first-line biologic or biosimilar therapy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of first-line biologic disease modifying drugs(boDMARDs), and their approved biosimilars (bsDMARDs), compared with conventional (csDMARD) treatment, in terms of ACR (American College of Rheumatology) and EULAR (European League against Rheumatism) responses.

METHODS

Systematic literature search, on eight databases to January 2017, sought ACR and EULAR data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of boDMARDs / bsDMARDs (in combination with csDMARDs, or monotherapy). Two adult populations: methotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients with severe active RA; and csDMARD-experienced patients with moderate-to-severe active RA. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using a random effects model with a probit link function for ordered categorical.

RESULTS

Forty-six RCTs met the eligibility criteria. In the MTX-naïve severe active RA population, no biosimilar trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. MTX plus methylprednisolone (MP) was most likely to achieve the best ACR response. There was insufficient evidence that combination boDMARDs was superior to intensive (two or more) csDMARDs. In the csDMARD-experienced, moderate-to-severe RA population, the greatest effects for ACR responses were associated with tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy, and combination therapy (plus MTX) with bsDMARD etanercept (ETN) SB4, boDMARD ETN and TCZ. These treatments also had the greatest effects on EULAR responses. No clear differences were found between the boDMARDs and their bsDMARDs.

CONCLUSIONS

In MTX-naïve patients, there was insufficient evidence that combination boDMARDs was superior to two or more csDMARDs. In csDMARD-experienced patients, boDMARDs and bsDMARDs were comparable and all combination boDMARDs / bsDMARDs were superior to single csDMARD.

Efficacy and safety of various anti-rheumatic treatments for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Biologics and traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are generally used in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Previous studies have presented abundant data and information about the efficacy of such treatments, but the results were incomplete and inconclusive. This network meta-analysis was conducted to compare and assess the efficacy and safety of 15 therapies employing biologics and DMARDs for RA patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Six outcomes (American College of Rheumatology 20% response rate (ACR20), ACR50, ACR70, remission, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs)) were used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different treatments. The node-splitting method was used to assess the inconsistency, and the rank probabilities of the therapies were estimated by surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Besides, Jadad scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of eligible studies.

RESULTS

A total of 67 randomized controlled trials with 20,898 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most of the therapies presented better performance than conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) and placebo in ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70. Conversely, the safety of cDMARDs and placebo seemed to be superior in AEs and SAEs. Also, tocilizumab (TCZ) and TCZ + methotrexate (MTX) showed better remission in pain compared to other treatments. Overall, certolizumab pegol (CZP) + MTX and TCZ + MTX had higher probability than the other treatments in efficacy outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend CZP + MTX as the optimal drug therapy because it has the highest ranking in efficacy outcomes and relatively low risk of adverse events. TCZ + MTX is recommended as an alternative. Abatacept (ABT) and cDMARDs are not recommended due to their low efficacy.

A randomized double-blind parallel-group phase III study to compare the efficacy and safety of NI-071 and infliximab reference product in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to methotrexate

Objectives: This study aimed to demonstrate the equivalence of NI-071, an infliximab biosimilar (BS), and the infliximab reference product (RP) for treating Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to methotrexate.Methods: In this multicenter two-period phase III study, patients were treated with BS or RP for 30 weeks (Period I) in a randomized double-blind manner and then with BS for the following 24 weeks (Period II). The efficacy and safety of BS and RP were compared.Results: The disease activity score in 28-joint count based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein and the American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70-based efficacy profiles of BS were similar to those of RP during Period I (30 weeks) including evaluations at week 14, a critical time point. BS efficacy was maintained throughout the 54-week study period. BS efficacy profile matched the RP profile until week 54 after the drug switch from RP to BS at week 30. The safety profiles of BS and RP were comparable and the long-term safety of BS was confirmed.Conclusion: BS demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety to RP at treatment weeks 14 and 30, and long-term safety until week 54 in Japanese RA patients.

Abatacept in combination with methotrexate in Japanese biologic-naive patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised placebo-controlled phase IV study

Objectives

To evaluate efficacy and safety of abatacept+methotrexate (MTX) in biologic-naive, anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and early erosion versus placebo+MTX.

Methods

In this phase IV, multicentre, double-blind study (NCT01758198), patients were randomised (1:1) to receive intravenous abatacept (~10 mg/kg) or placebo, plus MTX (≥6 mg/week). Primary efficacy objectives were to compare American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response rates at week 16 and mean change from baseline in van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score (vdH-mTSS) at week 24 between abatacept+MTX and placebo+MTX groups.

Results

Overall, 203 and 202 patients received abatacept+MTX and placebo+MTX, respectively. At week 16, ACR20 response rates were higher in the abatacept (75.4%) versus placebo group (27.7%; p<0.001). Mean change from baseline in vdH-mTSS at week 24 was 0.84 in the abatacept and 1.26 in the placebo group (p=0.017). Radiographic non-progression rates (change in vdH-mTSS≤smallest detectable change (1.9)) were 88.1% and 75.4% in abatacept and placebo groups, respectively. Adjusted mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score 28 (C-reactive protein) (DAS28 (CRP)) at week 16 demonstrated a numerically greater reduction in the abatacept versus placebo group. Proportions of patients with DAS28 (CRP), Simplified Disease Activity Index and Clinical Disease Activity Index remission up to week 52 were higher in the abatacept versus placebo group. The abatacept safety profile was consistent with previous observations.

Conclusions

Compared with MTX alone, abatacept+MTX improved clinical symptoms and inhibited structural damage progression in ACPA-positive, Japanese patients with RA, early erosion and inadequate response to MTX.

Intensive therapy and remissions in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

We systematically reviewed the effectiveness of intensive treatment strategies in achieving remission in patients with both early and established Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis evaluated trials and comparative studies reporting remission in RA patients treated intensively with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologics and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Analysis used RevMan 5.3 to report relative risks (RR) in random effects models with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

We identified 928 publications: 53 studies were included (48 superiority studies; 6 head-to-head trials). In the superiority studies 3013/11259 patients achieved remission with intensive treatment compared with 1211/8493 of controls. Analysis of the 53 comparisons showed a significant benefit for intensive treatment (RR 2.23; 95% CI 1.90, 2.61). Intensive treatment increased remissions in both early RA (23 comparisons; RR 1.56; 1.38, 1.76) and established RA (29 comparisons RR 4.21, 2.92, 6.07). All intensive strategies (combination DMARDs, biologics, JAK inhibitors) increased remissions. In the 6 head-to-head trials 317/787 patients achieved remission with biologics compared with 229/671 of patients receiving combination DMARD therapies and there was no difference between treatment strategies (RR 1.06; 0.93. 1.21). There were differences in the frequency of remissions between early and established RA. In early RA the frequency of remissions with active treatment was 49% compared with 34% in controls. In established RA the frequency of remissions with active treatment was 19% compared with 6% in controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive treatment with combination DMARDs, biologics or JAK inhibitors increases the frequency of remission compared to control non-intensive strategies. The benefits are seen in both early and established RA.

Matrix metalloprotease 3 is associated with sarcopenia in rheumatoid arthritis - results from the CHIKARA study

AIM

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) show lower muscle mass and a higher prevalence of sarcopenia than healthy individuals. Correlations between sarcopenia and disease activity, physical function, laboratory data and body composition at baseline were investigated in a prospective, observational study (CHIKARA study) of RA patients.

METHODS

Body composition was measured using a bioelectrical impedance analyzer. Parameters were compared between sarcopenia and non-sarcopenia groups, and correlations between sarcopenia and Disease Activity Score of 28 joints - erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR), modified health assessment questionnaire, treatment, and laboratory data, including matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP3), were investigated.

RESULTS

The participants were 100 patients with RA (women, 78%; mean age, 66.1 years). Mean disease duration was 5.5 years, DAS28-ESR was 3.55 and the prevalence of sarcopenia was 28%. Median C-reactive protein (CRP) and MMP3 were significantly higher in the sarcopenia group (0.21 mg/dL and 103.4 ng/mL) than in the non-sarcopenia group (0.11 mg/dL and 70.3 ng/mL). Sarcopenia was negatively correlated with weight, body mass index (BMI), muscle mass, body fat mass, estimated bone mass and basal metabolic rate, and positively correlated with Steinbrocker stage, CRP and MMP3 on univariate analyses. BMI, body fat mass and MMP3 were independently associated with sarcopenia on multivariate logistic regression analysis. When MMP3 was ≥ 90.7 ng/mL, the odds ratio for sarcopenia was increased 3.1-fold compared with < 90.7 ng/mL (P = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of sarcopenia was 28% in patients with RA whose disease activity was mild. Low BMI, high fat mass and high MMP3 were independently associated with sarcopenia. MMP3 might be a useful marker for sarcopenia in patients with RA.