Clinical efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors

A Bayesian mixed treatment comparison of efficacy of biologics and small molecules in early rheumatoid arthritis

The current paradigm in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is to treat patients in the early stage of the disease (ERA). Previous meta-analysis-based mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs), aimed to identify the most effective drugs in ERA, are biased by the wide "window" of early definition, ranging from 6 months to 2 years. The aim of this study was to estimate through a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis which biologics or small molecules are more likely to achieve a 1-year good clinical response in ERA patients with disease duration < 1 year. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biologic agents and small molecules in combination with MTX to treat patients affected with ERA lasting < 1 year were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov between 1990 and September 2017. The outcome of interest was the achievement of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 and ACR 70 response at 1 year. WinBUGS 1.4 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) was used to perform the analyses, using a fixed effect model. Fourteen studies were included in the analysis. Tofacitinib (64.83%) followed by Etanercept (23.26%) were the drugs with the highest probability of achieving ACR50 response. Rituximab showed the highest probability of inducing ACR70 response (52.81%) followed by Etanercept (26.85%). This is the first MTC involving only RCTs on ERA patients with disease duration < 1 year. Tofacitinib and rituximab were the drugs ranked first in inducing 1-year ACR50 and ACR70 response, respectively.

Accelerated Progression of Hepatocellular Carcinoma during Immunosuppressive Therapy with Abatacept for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Abatacept, a cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 immunoglobulin recombinant fusion protein, is an immunosuppressive agent indicated for rheumatoid arthritis. Although no significant increase in malignancy has been reported in abatacept-treated patients, whether or not abatacept accelerates tumor progression in specific cancer types remains unclear. We herein report a 66-year-old woman who showed unusually rapid progression of hepatocellular carcinoma following abatacept therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Abatacept was speculated to have accelerated her hepatocellular carcinoma progression in the setting of her preexisting risk factors: autoimmune hepatitis and long-term methotrexate use. We propose close tumor surveillance be performed during abatacept therapy, especially for high-risk patients.

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.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis: effect of biologics on radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis

AIM

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of biologics in inhibiting radiographic progression among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Bayesian network meta-analysis of published trials investigating the USA FDA approved biologics treatment in RA patients, using methotrexate (MTX) as the reference comparator.

RESULTS

Nine trials met the inclusion criteria for base case analysis. Compared with MTX, most biologics (except golimumab) + MTX had significantly lower rates of radiographic progression at 1 year. Mean difference in radiographic progression rates between MTX monotherapy and biologics + MTX was highest for adalimumab + MTX (-3.8) and lowest for tocilizumab + MTX (-0.7). Inhibition of radiographic progression was sustained.

CONCLUSION

Biologics inhibit radiographic progression in patients with RA at 1 year; however, published evidence beyond 1 year is limited.

CD28 blockade controls T cell activation to prevent graft-versus-host disease in primates

Controlling graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains a major unmet need in stem cell transplantation, and new, targeted therapies are being actively developed. CD28-CD80/86 costimulation blockade represents a promising strategy, but targeting CD80/CD86 with CTLA4-Ig may be associated with undesired blockade of coinhibitory pathways. In contrast, targeted blockade of CD28 exclusively inhibits T cell costimulation and may more potently prevent GVHD. Here, we investigated FR104, an antagonistic CD28-specific pegylated-Fab', in the nonhuman primate (NHP) GVHD model and completed a multiparameter interrogation comparing it with CTLA4-Ig, with and without sirolimus, including clinical, histopathologic, flow cytometric, and transcriptomic analyses. We document that FR104 monoprophylaxis and combined prophylaxis with FR104/sirolimus led to enhanced control of effector T cell proliferation and activation compared with the use of CTLA4-Ig or CTLA4-Ig/sirolimus. Importantly, FR104/sirolimus did not lead to a beneficial impact on Treg reconstitution or homeostasis, consistent with control of conventional T cell activation and IL-2 production needed to support Tregs. While FR104/sirolimus had a salutary effect on GVHD-free survival, overall survival was not improved, due to death in the absence of GVHD in several FR104/sirolimus recipients in the setting of sepsis and a paralyzed INF-γ response. These results therefore suggest that effectively deploying CD28 in the clinic will require close scrutiny of both the benefits and risks of extensively abrogating conventional T cell activation after transplant.

Current treatment options for psoriatic arthritis: spotlight on abatacept

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease of joints, tendon sheaths, and entheses affecting patients with established skin psoriasis, or, less frequently, patients without a personal history of psoriasis with a positive familial history. Many treatment options are now available to deal with the different aspects of the disease, including traditional and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and the recently released targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. However, ~40% of patients still fail to achieve a meaningful clinical response to first-line biologic therapy advocating the development of novel medications. It is now well accepted that T-cells participate in the immunopathogenesis of several autoimmune diseases. For this reason, the potential intervention on T-cells represented an attractive therapeutic target for a long time, becoming a clinical reality with the development of abatacept. Abatacept is a biologic agent selectively targeting the T-cell costimulatory signal delivered through the CD80/86-CD28 pathway and was approved in December 2005 by the US Food and Drug Administration and in May 2007 by European Medicines Agency for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in combination with methotrexate. Based on the relevant role of T-cells in PsA pathogenesis and following the positive results obtained in a phase III clinical trial, abatacept recently received approval for treatment of patients with PsA. In this review, we will focus on the current knowledge about the emerging role of abatacept in treatment of PsA.

Conversion to seronegative status after abatacept treatment in patients with early and poor prognostic rheumatoid arthritis is associated with better radiographic outcomes and sustained remission: post hoc analysis of the AGREE study

Objective

To evaluate the effects of the T-cell costimulation blocker abatacept on anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and associations between changes in serological status and clinical response.

Methods

Post hoc analysis of the phase III AGREE study in methotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients with early RA and poor prognostic factors. Patients were randomised to abatacept (~10 mg/kg intravenously according to weight range) or placebo, plus MTX over 12 months followed by open-label abatacept plus MTX for 12 months. Autoantibody titres were determined by ELISA at baseline and months 6 and 12 (double-blind phase). Conversion to seronegative status and its association with clinical response were assessed at months 6 and 12.

Results

Abatacept plus MTX was associated with a greater decrease in ACPA (but not RF) titres and higher rates of both ACPA and RF conversion to seronegative status versus MTX alone. More patients converting to ACPA seronegative status receiving abatacept plus MTX achieved remission according to Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (C-reactive protein) or Clinical Disease Activity Index than patients who remained ACPA seropositive. Patients who converted to ACPA seronegative status treated with abatacept plus MTX had a greater probability of achieving sustained remission and less radiographic progression than MTX alone or patients who remained ACPA seropositive (either treatment).

Conclusions

Treatment with abatacept plus MTX was more likely to induce conversion to ACPA/RF seronegative status in patients with early, erosive RA. Conversion to ACPA seronegative status was associated with better clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Trial registration number

NCT00122382

Dynamic regulation of CD28 conformation and signaling by charged lipids and ions

CD28 provides an essential costimulatory signal for T cell activation, and its function is critical in antitumor immunity. However, the molecular mechanism of CD28 transmembrane signaling remains elusive. Here we show that the conformation and signaling of CD28 are regulated by two counteractive charged factors, acidic phospholipids and Ca²⁺ ions. NMR spectroscopy analyses showed that acidic phospholipids can sequester CD28 signaling motifs within the membrane, thereby limiting CD28 basal signaling. T cell receptor (TCR) activation induced an increase in the local Ca²⁺ concentration around CD28, and Ca²⁺ directly disrupted CD28-lipid interaction, leading to opening and signaling of CD28. We observed that the TCR, Ca²⁺, and CD28 together form a dual-positive-feedback circuit that substantially amplifies T cell signaling and thus increases antigen sensitivity. This work unravels a new regulatory mechanism for CD28 signaling and thus contributes to the understanding of the dependence of costimulation signaling on TCR signaling and the high sensitivity of T cells.

Optimal methotrexate dose is associated with better clinical outcomes than non-optimal dose in daily practice: results from the ESPOIR early arthritis cohort

Background

Although methotrexate (MTX) is the consensual first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), substantial heterogeneity remains with its prescription and dosage, which are often not optimal.

Objective

To evaluate the symptomatic and structural impact of optimal MTX dose in patients with early RA in daily clinical practice over 2 years.

Methods

Patients included in the early arthritis ESPOIR cohort who fulfilled the ACR-EULAR (American College of Rheumatology/European League against Rheumatism) criteria for RA and received MTX as a first DMARD were assessed. Optimal MTX dose was defined as ≥10 mg/week during the first 3 months, with escalation to ≥20 mg/week or 0.3 mg/kg/week at 6 months without Disease Activity Score in 28 joints remission. Symptomatic and structural efficacy with and without optimal MTX dose was assessed by generalised logistic regression with adjustment for appropriate variables.

Results

Within the first year of follow-up, 314 patients (53%) with RA received MTX as a first DMARD (mean dose 12.2±3.8 mg/week). Only 26.4% (n=76) had optimal MTX dose. After adjustment, optimal versus non-optimal MTX dose was more efficient in achieving ACR-EULAR remission at 1 year (OR 4.28 (95% CI 1.86 to 9.86)) and normal functioning (Health Assessment Questionnaire ≤0.5; OR at 1 year 4.36 (95% CI 2.03 to 9.39)), with no effect on radiological progression. Results were similar during the second year.

Conclusion

Optimal MTX dose is more efficacious than non-optimal dose for remission and function in early arthritis in daily practice, with no impact on radiological progression over 2 years.

Abatacept: A Review in Rheumatoid Arthritis

The biological DMARD (bDMARD) abatacept (Orencia^®), a recombinant fusion protein, selectively modulates a co-stimulatory signal necessary for T-cell activation. In the EU, abatacept is approved for use in patients with highly active and progressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not previously treated with methotrexate. Abatacept is also approved for the treatment of moderate to severe active RA in patients with an inadequate response to previous therapy with at least one conventional DMARD (cDMARD), including methotrexate or a TNF inhibitor. In phase III trials, beneficial effects on RA signs and symptoms, disease activity, structural damage progression and physical function were seen with intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) abatacept regimens, including abatacept plus methotrexate in methotrexate-naive patients with early RA and poor prognostic factors, and abatacept plus methotrexate or other cDMARDs in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate or TNF inhibitors. Benefits were generally maintained during longer-term follow-up. Absolute drug-free remission rates following withdrawal of all RA treatments were significantly higher with abatacept plus methotrexate than with methotrexate alone. Both IV and SC abatacept were generally well tolerated, with low rates of immunogenicity. Current evidence therefore suggests that abatacept is a useful treatment option for patients with RA.

Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Two-Year Head-to-Head Comparison of Subcutaneous Abatacept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

To report 2‐year patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) from the head‐to‐head Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic‐Naive RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (MTX) (AMPLE) trial.

Methods

AMPLE was a phase IIIb, randomized, investigator‐blinded trial. Biologic‐naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to MTX were randomized to subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (125 mg/week) or adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks) with background MTX. PROs (pain, fatigue, ability to perform work, and ability to perform daily activities) were compared up to year 2 for patients in each treatment group, as well as those who achieved low disease activity at both years 1 and 2 (responders) and those who did not (nonresponders).

Results

A total of 646 patients were randomized and treated with SC abatacept (n = 318) or adalimumab (n = 328). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 treatment arms. Comparable improvements in PROs were observed in the abatacept and adalimumab groups over 2 years, with both groups achieving clinically meaningful improvements in PROs from baseline. At year 2, fatigue improved by 23.4 mm and 21.5 mm on a 100‐mm visual analog scale with abatacept and adalimumab, respectively. Clinical responders achieved greater improvements in PROs than nonresponders.

Conclusion

In biologic‐naive patients with active RA, despite prior MTX, treatment with SC abatacept or adalimumab with background MTX resulted in comparable improvements in PROs, which were highly correlated with physician‐reported clinical response end points.

The Economic Burden of ACPA-Positive Status Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) are serological biomarkers associated with early, rapidly progressing rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including more severe disease and joint damage. ACPA testing has become a routine tool for RA diagnosis and prognosis. Furthermore, treatment efficacy has been shown to vary by ACPA-positive status. However, it is not clear if the economic burden of patients with RA varies by ACPA status.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the economic burden of RA varies by patient ACPA status.

METHODS

IMS PharMetrics Plus health insurance claims and electronic medical record (EMR) data from 2010-2015 were used to identify patients with incident RA. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had ≥ 1 inpatient or ≥ 2 outpatient claims reporting an RA diagnosis code (ICD-9-CM code 714.0), and had an anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP; a surrogate of ACPA) antibody test within 6 months of diagnosis. Incident patients were defined as those who had no claims with an RA diagnosis code in the 6 months before the first observed RA diagnosis. The primary outcome of interest was RA-related medical expenditures, defined as the sum of payer- and patient-paid amounts for all claims with an RA diagnosis code. Secondary outcomes included health care utilization metrics such as treatment with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and physician visits. Generalized linear regression models were used for each outcome, controlling for ACPA-positive status (defined as anti-CCP ≥ 20 AU/mL), age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score as explanatory variables.

RESULTS

Of 647,171 patients diagnosed with RA, 89,296 were incident cases, and 47% (n = 42,285) had an anti-CCP test. After restricting this sample to patients with a linked EMR and reported anti-CCP test result, 859 remained, with 24.7% (n = 212) being ACPA-positive. Compared with ACPA-negative patients, adjusted results showed that ACPA-positive patients were more likely to use either conventional (71.2% vs. 49.6%; P < 0.001) or biologic (20.3% vs. 11.8%; P < 0.001) DMARDs during the first year after diagnosis and had more physician visits (5.58 vs. 3.91 times per year; P < 0.001). Annual RA-associated total expenditures were $7,941 for ACPA-positive and $5,243 for ACPA-negative patients (Δ = $2,698; P = 0.002). RA-associated medical expenditures were $4,380 for ACPA-positive and $3,427 for ACPA-negative patients (Δ = $954; P = 0.168), whereas DMARD expenditures were $3,560 and $1,817, respectively (Δ = $1,743; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RA-related economic burden is higher for patients who are ACPA-positive compared with those who are ACPA-negative. Providers may wish to inform patients diagnosed with ACPA-positive RA about the likely future disease and economic burden in hopes that both stakeholders can be more proactive in addressing them.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this research was contributed by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Patel and Price are employees and stockholders of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Shafrin and Tebeka are employees of Precision Health Economics, a health care consulting firm that received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb to conduct this study. Michaud has received a grant from Pfizer and is employed by the National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases, which has received funds from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Study concept and design were contributed by Shafrin, Price, Patel, and Michaud. Shafrin, Price, and Patel collected the data, and all authors contributed equally to data analysis. The manuscript was written by Shafrin and Tebeka and revised by Shafrin, Price, Patel, and Michaud.

T Helper 17 Cells in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome

Primary Sjögren’s syndrome is an autoimmune disease characterized by diffuse infiltration of lymphocytes into exocrine glands and other tissues. The infiltrating lymphocytes have been identified as subsets of B cells and T cells, including T helper 17 cells, T regulatory cells and follicular helper T cells. The role of these cells in the development of the syndrome is now known, as is their impact on the production of proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-6, IL-17, IL-22 and IL-23. In particular, experimental animal models and patients suggest that a shift in Th17/Treg balance toward the proinflammatory Th17 axis exacerbates primary Sjögren’s syndrome and other autoimmune disorders. Nevertheless, the pathogenesis of the disorder is not yet fully elucidated. This review summarizes the recent advances in therapeutic control of the Treg/Th17 balance, as well as the efficacy of candidate therapeutics against primary Sjögren’s syndrome.

Novel treatment strategies in rheumatoid arthritis

New treatment strategies have substantially changed the course of rheumatoid arthritis. Many patients can achieve remission if the disease is recognised early and is treated promptly and continuously; however, some individuals do not respond adequately to treatment. Rapid diagnosis and a treat-to-target approach with tight monitoring and control, can increase the likelihood of remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In this Series paper, we describe new insights into the management of rheumatoid arthritis with targeted therapy approaches using classic and novel medications, and outline the potential effects of precision medicine in this challenging disease. Articles are included that investigate the treat-to-target approach, which includes adding or de-escalating treatment. Rheumatoid arthritis treatment is impeded by delayed diagnosis, problematic access to specialists, and difficulties adhering to treat-to-target principles. Clinical management goals in rheumatoid arthritis include enabling rapid access to optimum diagnosis and care and the well informed use of multiple treatments approved for this disease.

Macrophages and skeletal health

Bone is in a constant state of remodeling, a process which was once attributed solely to osteoblasts and osteoclasts. Decades of research has identified many other populations of cells in the bone that participate and mediate skeletal homeostasis. Recently, osteal macrophages emerged as vital participants in skeletal remodeling and osseous repair. The exact mechanistic roles of these tissue-resident macrophages are currently under investigation. Macrophages are highly plastic in response to their micro-environment and are typically classified as being pro- or anti-inflammatory (pro-resolving) in nature. Given that inflammatory states result in decreased bone mass, proinflammatory macrophages may be negative regulators of bone turnover. Pro-resolving macrophages have been shown to release anabolic factors and may present a target for therapeutic intervention in inflammation-induced bone loss and fracture healing. The process of apoptotic cell clearance, termed efferocytosis, is mediated by pro-resolving macrophages and may contribute to steady-state bone turnover as well as fracture healing and anabolic effects of osteoporosis therapies. Parathyroid hormone is an anabolic agent in bone that is more effective in the presence of mature phagocytic macrophages, further supporting the hypothesis that efferocytic macrophages are positive contributors to bone turnover. Therapies which alter macrophage plasticity in tissues other than bone should be explored for their potential to treat bone loss either alone or in conjunction with current bone therapeutics. A better understanding of the exact mechanisms by which macrophages mediate bone homeostasis will lead to an expansion of pharmacologic targets for the treatment of osteoporosis and inflammation-induced bone loss.

Risk of Tuberculosis Reactivation in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Ankylosing Spondylitis, and Psoriatic Arthritis Receiving Non-Anti-TNF-Targeted Biologics

Tuberculosis (TB) still represents an important issue for public health in underdeveloped countries, but the use of antitumor necrosis factor agents (anti-TNF) for the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic disorders has reopened the problem also in countries with low TB incidence, due to the increased risk of TB reactivation in subjects with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). Over the last 5 years, several non-anti-TNF-targeted biologics have been licensed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. We reviewed the epidemiology of TB, the role of different cytokines and of the immune system cells involved in the immune response against TB infection, the methods to detect LTBI, and the risk of TB reactivation in patients exposed to non-anti-TNF-targeted biologics. Given the limited role exerted by the cytokines different from TNF, as expected, data from controlled trials, national registries of biologics, and postmarketing surveillance show that the risk of TB reactivation in patients receiving non-anti-TNF-targeted biologics is negligible, hence raising the question whether the screening procedures for LTBI would be necessary.

Targeting the programmed cell death-1 pathway in rheumatoid arthritis

Since the introduction of TNF-α inhibitors and other biologic agents, the clinical outcome for many treated rheumatoid arthritis patients has significantly improved. However, there are still a substantial proportion of patients that are intolerant, or have inadequate responses, with current agents that have become the standards of care. While the majority of these agents are designed to affect the inflammatory features of the disease, there are also agents in the clinic that instead target lymphocyte subsets (e.g., rituximab) or interfere with lymphocyte co-receptor signaling pathways (e.g., abatacept). Due in part to their ability to orchestrate downstream inflammatory responses that lead to joint damage and disease progression, pathogenic expansions of T and B lymphocytes are appreciated to play key roles in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. New insights into immune regulation have suggested novel approaches for the pharmacotherapeutic targeting of lymphocytes. In this review, we discuss deepening insights into human genetics and our understanding of the interface with rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis providing a strong rationale for exploiting the co-inhibitory receptor programmed cell death-1 signaling pathway as a better approach for the treatment of this chronic, often progressive destructive joint disease.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.

METHODS

In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Efficacy and safety of abatacept, a T-cell modulator, in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study in psoriatic arthritis

Objectives

To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept, a selective T-cell costimulation modulator, in a phase III study in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

This study randomised patients (1:1) with active PsA (~60% with prior exposure to a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor) to blinded weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg (n=213) or placebo (n=211) for 24 weeks, followed by open-label subcutaneous abatacept. Patients without ≥20% improvement in joint counts at week 16 were switched to open-label abatacept. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with ≥20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) criteria at week 24.

Results

Abatacept significantly increased ACR20 response versus placebo at week 24 (39.4% vs 22.3%; p<0.001). Although abatacept numerically increased Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index response rates (reduction from baseline ≥0.35) at week 24, this was not statistically significant (31.0% vs 23.7%; p=0.097). The benefits of abatacept were seen in ACR20 responses regardless of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor exposure and in other musculoskeletal manifestations, but significance could not be attributed due to ranking below Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index response in hierarchical testing. However, the benefit on psoriasis lesions was modest. Efficacy was maintained or improved up to week 52. Abatacept was well tolerated with no new safety signals.

Conclusions

Abatacept treatment of PsA in this phase III study achieved its primary end point, ACR20 response, showed beneficial trends overall in musculoskeletal manifestations and was well tolerated. There was only a modest impact on psoriasis lesions.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01860976 (funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb).

Matrix Metalloproteinase Gene Activation Resulting from Disordred Epigenetic Mechanisms in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) are implicated in the degradation of extracellular matrix (ECM). Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) synovial fibroblasts (SFs) produce matrix-degrading enzymes, including MMPs, which facilitate cartilage destruction in the affected joints in RA. Epigenetic mechanisms contribute to change in the chromatin state, resulting in an alteration of gene transcription. Recently, MMP gene activation has been shown to be caused in RASFs by the dysregulation of epigenetic changes, such as histone modifications, DNA methylation, and microRNA (miRNA) signaling. In this paper, we review the role of MMPs in the pathogenesis of RA as well as the disordered epigenetic mechanisms regulating MMP gene activation in RASFs.

Poor prognostic factors guiding treatment decisions in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a review of data from randomized clinical trials and cohort studies

Prognostic factors are used for treatment decisions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). High disease activity, the early presence of erosions, and autoantibody positivity are the most frequently used poor prognostic factors but other features, such as functional disability, extraarticular disease, or multibiomarkers, are also assessed. Prognostic factors are incorporated in current treatment recommendations for the management of RA and are used as inclusion criteria in randomized controlled trials. They are defined heterogeneously and the relevance of a single or combined presence of poor prognostic factors remains unclear. This review summarizes the current definitions of poor prognostic factors and their use in clinical research. Perspectives on future research are also outlined.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.

METHODS

On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Improvements in Fatigue in 1536 Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Correlation with Other Treatment Outcomes: A Post Hoc Analysis of Three Randomized Controlled Trials of Abatacept

INTRODUCTION

A post hoc analysis of three randomized controlled trials of abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was conducted to explore the effect of abatacept on fatigue in RA and its correlation with other outcomes.

METHODS

In this analysis of AGREE (early RA) and AIM and ATTAIN (established RA), changes in baseline fatigue (0-100 mm scale), pain, sleep (AIM and ATTAIN only) and Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28 (C-reactive protein; CRP) were calculated at days 29, 85, and 169. Agreement between improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences (MCID) in fatigue and other outcomes were evaluated using agreement statistics (kappa) in each study and at each time point.

RESULTS

Of 1536 patients (mean disease duration: 6.2 months [AGREE], 8.5 years [AIM], 12.2 years [ATTAIN]), mean (SE) decreases in fatigue from baseline to day 169 with abatacept were 28.9 (1.7), 25.3 (1.2), and 21.9 (1.6) in AGREE, AIM, and ATTAIN, respectively, with corresponding decreases of 16.0, 13.7, and 13.4 at day 29. Most patients (67.8%; 624/920) reported improvements ≥MCID in fatigue with abatacept at day 169; 79.2% (671/847) and 57.8% (388/671) reported improvements ≥MCID in pain and sleep, respectively; 18.9% (158/836) were in DAS28 (CRP) remission. Agreement between improvement in fatigue and other outcomes was low (kappa range 0.30-0.51 [pain], 0.14-0.26 [sleep], and 0.02-0.12 [DAS28 (CRP) remission]).

CONCLUSIONS

Abatacept resulted in rapid improvements in fatigue and pain in patients with RA. However, low agreement between improvements in these outcomes indicates that fatigue and other outcomes including pain and sleep may represent different domains of response.

FUNDING

Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A window of opportunity for abatacept in RA: is disease duration an independent predictor of low disease activity/remission in clinical practice?

The objective of the study was to examine whether disease duration independently predicts treatment response among biologic-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating abatacept in clinical practice. Using the Corrona RA registry (February 2006–January 2015), biologic-naïve patients with RA initiating abatacept with 12-month (±3 months) follow-up and assessment of disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]) at initiation and at 12 months were identified. The primary outcome was mean change in CDAI (ΔCDAI) from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes at 12 months included achievement of low disease activity (LDA; CDAI ≤10 in patients with moderate/high disease activity at initiation) and remission (CDAI ≤2.8 in patients with low, moderate or high disease activity at initiation). Linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the relationship between disease duration and response to abatacept. There were 281 biologic-naïve patients with RA initiating abatacept (disease duration 0–2 years, n = 107; 3–5 years, n = 45; 6–10 years, n = 50; >10 years, n = 79). Increased disease duration was associated with older age (p = 0.047), and the median number of prior conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs used was lowest in the 0- to 2-year duration group (p < 0.001). Mean ΔCDAI (SE) ranged from −10.22 (1.19) for 0–2 years to −4.63 (1.38) for >10 years. In adjusted analyses, shorter disease duration was significantly associated with greater mean ΔCDAI (p = 0.015) and greater likelihood of achieving LDA (p = 0.048). In biologic-naïve patients with RA initiating abatacept, earlier disease (shorter disease duration) was associated with greater ΔCDAI and likelihood of achieving LDA.

The Challenge of Treating Early-Stage Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Contribution of Mixed Treatment Comparison to Choosing Appropriate Biologic Agents

BACKGROUND

Use of biologic drugs is approved for treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), both in established disease and at the early stage of RA (ERA). Identification of ERA and an early therapeutic strategy would lead to greater clinical improvement. Only a few indirect comparisons of the efficacy of different biologic agents in established RA have been performed and, to date, no studies reporting direct comparisons have been performed in ERA.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare, by use of a mixed treatment comparison (MTC), the efficacy profiles of biologic agents in ERA.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed to identify results of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating biologic agents at licensed doses to treat patients affected by ERA. The primary end points for the analysis were the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses from baseline to various times of follow-up. WinBUGS 1.4 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) was used to perform the analyses. The MTC results are reported as the relative risk of a response for every single treatment coadministered with methotrexate, versus methotrexate plus placebo, which was used as a comparator in all RCTs.

RESULTS

Ten scientific papers met the study inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Data on the use of infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, abatacept, golimumab, and rituximab were included. No studies reported on the use of certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab in ERA. All biologic agents coadministered with methotrexate proved to be more efficacious than methotrexate plus placebo in inducing ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses. The biologic agent characterized by the highest probability of inducing an ACR70 response was adalimumab (33.28%). Etanercept was the biologic agent with the highest probability of inducing ACR20 and ACR50 responses, in comparison with all other biologic agents, with probability rates of 62.95 and 37.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In our analysis, adalimumab proved to be the biologic agent with the highest probability of inducing an ACR70 response in patients affected by ERA, while etanercept was the biologic agent with the highest probability of inducing ACR50 and ACR20 responses.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Generalizability of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Biologic Agent Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have consistently demonstrated the efficacy of biologic agents in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who satisfy strict eligibility criteria, yet studies report that a majority of RA patients in the US have had biologic treatment exposure. We identified the proportion of RA patients in clinical practice satisfying entry criteria for biologic agent RCTs.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria of 30 RCTs of 10 Food and Drug Administration-approved biologic agents to treat RA were reviewed, summarized, and applied to 2 observational clinical cohorts: the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis registry (VARA; n = 1,523) and the Rheumatology and Arthritis Investigational Network Database (RAIN-DB; n = 1,548). Patients at a single clinical encounter were assessed for overall trial eligibility as well as eligibility across 3 domains: demographics, disease activity, and medication exposure.

RESULTS

The mean percentage of patients that satisfied eligibility criteria was 3.7% (interquartile range [IQR] 1.5-3.1) in VARA and 7.1% (IQR 4.4-7.7) in RAIN-DB. Ineligibility was most often due to low disease activity, specifically low joint counts. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints at enrollment was 6.59 (range 6.1-7.1) across RCTs versus 3.87 (0.07-8.69) in VARA and 3.65 (0.49-7.21) in RAIN-DB. RCTs for non-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor biologic agents were more restrictive than RCTs for TNF inhibitors. There was no trend in eligibility by RCT study publication or drug approval date.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of RA patients from our clinical cohorts did not satisfy criteria for participation in biologic agent RCTs. These findings underscore the need for caution in extrapolating trial results to day-to-day management of RA patients and may provide insight into the differential responses to biologic agents reported in prior observational studies.

Differences in Predictive Factors for Sustained Clinical Remission with Abatacept Between Younger and Elderly Patients with Biologic-naive Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from the ABROAD Study

OBJECTIVE

To differentiate predictive factors for sustained clinical remission between elderly and younger patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving abatacept (ABA) as an initial biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.

METHODS

The study involved 277 biologic-naive patients with RA with high or moderate disease activity, who were treated with intravenous ABA and evaluated for 48 weeks in 43 Japanese hospitals and rheumatology clinics (the ABatacept Research Outcomes as a First-line Biological Agent in the Real WorlD study: UMIN000004651). Predictive factors associated with sustained clinical remission defined by the 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) during the 24-48-week or 36-48-week periods were determined in elderly (≥ 65 yrs, n = 148) and younger patient groups (< 65 yrs, n = 129) using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Clinical remission was achieved at 24 and 48 weeks in 35.1% and 36.5% of patients in the elderly group and 34.9% and 43.4% in the younger group, respectively. In elderly patients, anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) positivity and a lower DAS28-CRP score were significantly associated with sustained clinical remission; however, a lower Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score was not related to sustained clinical remission. In younger patients, lower DAS28-CRP and HAQ-DI scores were predictive factors for sustained clinical remission, whereas ACPA positivity was not a useful predictive factor for sustained clinical remission.

CONCLUSION

Although the effectiveness of ABA in biologic-naive patients with RA was equally recognized in elderly and younger patients, the baseline clinical characteristics associated with sustained clinical remission were substantially different.

Methotrexate dosage as a source of bias in biological trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate if optimal dose of either oral or injectable regimens of methotrexate (MTX) of 25 mg/week was used in the comparator arms of studies comparing biologic drugs with MTX in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases for randomised controlled trials comparing biologics with MTX in RA. A systematic review was performed among studies that met predefined criteria focusing on assessment of dose of MTX used in the comparator arm. Study authors were contacted when necessary. Study quality was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 3276 references were identified and 13 trials were included. We obtained maximal dose and regimen for all. The maximal dose of MTX used in the comparator arm of the trials was no more than 20 mg/week in any trial and for all but one trial, MTX was given orally and not by injection. The trial that used an injectable form reached a maximum of 15 mg/week.

CONCLUSIONS

A suboptimal dose of MTX was used in biological clinical trials performed in RA, particularly regarding route of administration. This may have biased findings in favour of biological agents.

Combination therapy with biologic agents in rheumatic diseases: current and future prospects

Strategies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on 'treat to target' aim to control disease activity, minimize structural damage, and promote longer life. Several disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been shown to be effective including biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). Treatment guidelines and recommendations for RA have also been published. According to those guidelines, conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), as monotherapy or combination therapy, should be used in DMARD-naïve patients, irrespective of the addition of glucocorticoids (GCs). Combination therapies with bDMARDs are also essential for conducting treatment strategies for RA, because in every recommendation or guideline for the management of RA, combination therapies of csDMARDs with bDMARDs are recommended for RA patients with moderate or high disease activity after failure of csDMARD treatment. bDMARDs are more efficacious if used concomitantly with methotrexate (MTX) than with MTX monotherapy or bDMARD monotherapy. Thus, retention has been reported to be longer when combined with MTX. The superior efficacy of combination therapy compared with MTX monotherapy or bDMARD monotherapy could be because: (1) it could help to minimize MTX toxicity by reducing the dose of MTX, thus retention rate of the same therapeutic regimen would become high; (2) anti-bDMARD antibodies are observed at lower concentrations when using MTX concomitantly, so less clearance of bDMARDs via less formation of bDMARD and an anti-bDMARD immune complex; (3) of the additive effects of MTX to bDMARD, especially the combination of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) with MTX. Hence, evidence suggests that combination therapy with bDMARDs is more efficacious than monotherapy using a csDMARD or bDMARD, and that MTX is the best drug for this purpose (if MTX is not contraindicated). Finding the most effective drug regimen at the lowest cost will be the aim of RA treatment in the future.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.

METHODS

We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.

MAIN RESULTS

158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.

Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients after Initiation of a New Biologic Agent: Trajectories of Disease Activity in a Large Multinational Cohort Study

Background

Response to disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is often heterogeneous. We aimed to identify types of disease activity trajectories following the initiation of a new biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Methods

Pooled analysis of nine national registries of patients with diagnosis of RA, who initiated Abatacept and had at least two measures of disease activity (DAS28). We used growth mixture models to identify groups of patients with similar courses of treatment response, and examined these patients' characteristics and effectiveness outcomes.

Findings

We identified three types of treatment response trajectories: ‘gradual responders’ (GR; 3576 patients, 91·7%) had a baseline mean DAS28 of 4·1 and progressive improvement over time; ‘rapid responders’ (RR; 219 patients, 5·6%) had higher baseline DAS28 and rapid improvement in disease activity; ‘inadequate responders’ (IR; 103 patients, 2·6%) had high DAS28 at baseline (5·1) and progressive worsening in disease activity. They were similar in baseline characteristics. Drug discontinuation for ineffectiveness was shorter among inadequate responders (p = 0.03), and EULAR good or moderate responses at 1 year was much higher among ‘rapid responders’ (p < 0.001).

Interpretation

Clinical information and baseline clinical characteristics do not allow a reliable prediction of which trajectory the patients will follow after bDMARD initiation.

•

This study examined disease activity trajectories in a multinational cohort of 3898 rheumatoid arthritis patients.

•

Growth mixture models identified three groups: gradual, rapid, and inadequate responders (GR: 91·7%, RR: 5·6%, IR: 2·6%).

•

At baseline, groups were similar in demographic and clinical characteristics, and moderately different in function and disease activity.

•

The groups had large difference in drug retention and in good or moderate response rate.

Using nine national registries, this study of 3898 established RA patients initiating a new bDMARD identified distinct types of responders: gradual, rapid and inadequate responders. Neither socio-demographic nor clinical characteristics at baseline allowed the prediction of the type of response trajectory after treatment initiation, but effectiveness outcomes strongly differed, suggesting that these empirically derived subgroups have clinical relevance.

As a major aim of precision medicine is to make anti-rheumatic therapy more personalized, the detection of responder types following initiation of a specific bDMARD underscores the need to find reliable predictors of trajectories to identify patients needing a distinct treatment strategy.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib following inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

OBJECTIVES

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have shown diminished clinical response following an inadequate response (IR) to ≥1 previous bDMARD. Here, tofacitinib was compared with placebo in patients with an IR to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs; bDMARD-naive) and in patients with an IR to bDMARDs (bDMARD-IR).

METHODS

Data were taken from phase II and phase III studies of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo, as monotherapy or with background methotrexate or other csDMARDs. Efficacy endpoints and incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) of special interest were assessed.

RESULTS

2812 bDMARD-naive and 705 bDMARD-IR patients were analysed. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups within subpopulations. Across subpopulations, improvements in efficacy parameters at month 3 were generally significantly greater for both tofacitinib doses versus placebo. Clinical response was numerically greater with bDMARD-naive versus bDMARD-IR patients (overlapping 95% CIs). Rates of safety events of special interest were generally similar between tofacitinib doses and subpopulations; however, patients receiving glucocorticoids had more serious AEs, discontinuations due to AEs, serious infection events and herpes zoster. Numerically greater clinical responses and incidence rates of AEs of special interest were generally reported for tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily versus tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (overlapping 95% CIs).

CONCLUSIONS

Tofacitinib demonstrated efficacy in both bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-IR patients with RA. Clinical response to tofacitinib was generally numerically greater in bDMARD-naive than bDMARD-IR patients. The safety profile appeared similar between subpopulations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

(NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385).

New therapeutic approaches in rheumatoid arthritis

The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has changed dramatically over the past two decades. The combination of better insights into the pathophysiological and immunological mechanisms of RA and the possibilities offered by biotechnology led to the development and introduction into clinical practice of a new class of antirheumatic biologic therapies, which along with earlier and more aggressive treatment contributed to dramatically better outcomes for patients with RA. To date, nine biologic agents have been approved for the treatment for RA, and a first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor has also been approved in the United States and various other countries in the world (but not by the European Medicines Agency [EMA]). Many additional molecules with distinct mechanisms of action are currently being tested in laboratories and in clinical trials. In addition, considerable improvements have been made in the optimal use of all these agents through treatment strategies such as treating-to-target, induction-maintenance, and dose individualization.

Safety and Efficacy of Methotrexate in Psoriasis: A Meta-Analysis of Published Trials

Background

Methotrexate (MTX) has been used to treat psoriasis for over half a century. Even so, clinical data characterising its efficacy and safety are sparse.

Objective

In order to enhance the available evidence, we conducted two meta-analyses, one for efficacy and one for safety outcomes, respectively, according to PRISMA checklist. (Data sources, study criteria, and study synthesis methods are detailed in Methods).

Results

In terms of efficacy, only eleven studies met criteria for study design and passed a Cochrane risk of bias analysis. Based on this limited dataset, 45.2% [95% confidence interval 34.1–60.0] of patients achieve PASI75 at primary endpoint (12 or 16 weeks, respectively, n = 705 patients across all studies), compared to a calculated PASI75 of 4.4 [3.5–5.6] for placebo, yielding a relative risk of 10.2 [95% C.I. 7.1–14.7]. For safety outcomes, we extended the meta-analysis to include studies employing the same dose range of MTX for other chronic inflammatory conditions, e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, in order not to maximise capture of relevant safety data. Based on 2763 patient safety years, adverse events (AEs) were found treatment limiting in 6.9 ± 1.4% (mean ± s.e.) of patients treated for six months, with an adverse effect profile largely in line with that encountered in clinical practice. Finally, in order to facilitate prospective clinical audit and to help generate long-term treatment outcomes under real world conditions, we also developed an easy to use documentation form to be completed by patients without requirement for additional staff time.

Limitations

Meta-analyses for efficacy and safety, respectively, employed non-identical selection criteria.

Conclusions

These meta-analyses summarise currently available evidence on MTX in psoriasis and should be of use to gauge whether local results broadly fall within outcomes.

Analysis of Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinases in Bone and Cartilage of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Abatacept

The aim of this study was to analyze the histological changes related to mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinases in bone and cartilage treated with abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A total of 20 patients of bone and cartilage were assessed: 10 abatacept with methotrexate (MTX)-treated RA patients were compared with 10 MTX-treated RA patients (control). The histology of bone and cartilage was observed by staining with hematoxylin and eosin and analyzed immunohistochemically for the expression of tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6, CD4 (T cell), CD68 (macrophage), receptor activator of nuclear kappa-B ligand, osteoprotegerin, osteopontin, CD29 (β-1 integrin), phospho-p38 MAPK (Tyr180/Tyr182), phospho-p44/42 MAPK (extracellular signal-regulated kinase, ERK1/ERK2), and phosphor-c-Jun N-terminal kinase. The expressions of CD29 known as mechanoreceptor and ERK known as mechanotransduction signal protein in MAP kinases in the bone and cartilage of patients treated with abatacept were significantly different from those of control. These findings suggest that increases in CD29 and ERK in MAP kinases may change the metabolism of bone and cartilage in RA patients treated with abatacept.

Subcutaneous abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis: current update

INTRODUCTION

A number of biologic agents have been approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They have changed the landscape of therapy and demonstrate substantial efficacy with a good safety record. One of these agents is intravenous (i.v.) abatacept (ABA), which has a novel mechanism of action by selectively inhibiting the interaction between T- and antigen-presenting cells. Recently, ABA administered by subcutaneous (s.c.) injection has also been approved for use in RA. In this review, will focus in recent data published in this agent.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews Phase III clinical trials (ACQUIRE, ACCOMPANY, ALLOW, ATTUNE, AMPLE and AVERT) in terms of clinical efficacy including long-term efficacy, radiographic progression, safety and immunogenicity.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the current trend in biologic therapy to s.c. administration, the availability of both i.v. and s.c. ABA provides considerable advantage both to patients and physicians in this competitive environment. The clinical trials have shown comparable efficacy and safety of s.c. ABA to i.v. ABA and others biologics.

Selective Inhibition of Membrane Type 1 Matrix Metalloproteinase Abrogates Progression of Experimental Inflammatory Arthritis: Synergy With Tumor Necrosis Factor Blockade

OBJECTIVE

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), destruction of articular cartilage by the inflamed synovium is considered to be driven by increased activities of proteolytic enzymes, including matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). The purpose of this study was to investigate the therapeutic potential of selective inhibition of membrane type 1 MMP (MT1-MMP) and its combination with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockage in mice with collagen-induced arthritis (CIA).

METHODS

CIA was induced in DBA/1 mice by immunization with bovine type II collagen. From the onset of clinical arthritis, mice were treated with MT1-MMP selective inhibitory antibody DX-2400 and/or TNFR-Fc fusion protein. Disease progression was monitored daily, and serum, lymph nodes, and affected paws were collected at the end of the study for cytokine and histologic analyses. For in vitro analysis, bone marrow-derived macrophages were stimulated with lipopolysaccharide for 24 hours in the presence of DX-2400 and/or TNFR-Fc to analyze cytokine production and phenotype.

RESULTS

DX-2400 treatment significantly reduced cartilage degradation and disease progression in mice with CIA. Importantly, when combined with TNF blockade, DX-2400 acted synergistically, inducing long-term benefit. DX-2400 also inhibited the up-regulation of interleukin-12 (IL-12)/IL-23 p40 via polarization toward an M2 phenotype in bone marrow-derived macrophages. Increased production of IL-17 induced by anti-TNF, which correlated with an incomplete response to anti-TNF, was abrogated by combined treatment with DX-2400 in CIA.

CONCLUSION

Targeting MT1-MMP provides a potential strategy for joint protection, and its combination with TNF blockade may be particularly beneficial in RA patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF therapy.

Usability and Acceptability of the Abatacept Pre-Filled Autoinjector for the Subcutaneous Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the abatacept autoinjector can be used by the intended population without patterns of preventable use errors, and is acceptable when assessed against key user needs.

Methods

Two independently conducted simulated-use studies, with no active drug administered, quantified use errors and evaluated the abatacept autoinjector and competitor devices on key attributes (comfort, control, ease of use, confidence of dose) and overall acceptability. Autoinjector preference was also assessed. Participants were patients with rheumatoid arthritis, caregivers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were informed that a new rheumatoid arthritis autoinjector was being tested but were blinded to the intended drug and sponsor identity.

Results

In the formative (pre-validation) study (n = 54), two high-priority use errors occurred, both of which resulted from protocol non-compliance rather than mental confusion or physical limitations. In the summative (validation) study (n = 99), one high-priority use error occurred; this was deemed a simulated-use study artifact as participant behavior was guided by actual experience associated with the feel of drug delivery into the skin rather than by protocol, so no mitigation steps were considered necessary. Across user groups, average scores were consistently high for the pre-defined key attributes. Overall acceptability scores (7-point scale) were significantly higher for the abatacept versus competitor autoinjectors—formative study: patients 6.7 vs 5.2 (P = 0.0001), caregivers 7.0 vs 4.6 (P = 0.0093), HCPs 6.8 vs 5.1 (P = 0.0020); summative study: patients 6.5 vs 5.9 (P = 0.0404), caregivers 6.8 vs 5.8 (P = 0.0047), HCPs 6.8 vs 5.1 (P = 0.0002). The abatacept autoinjector was preferred to competitor devices: patients 85.7% vs 14.3% (P = 0.00002), caregivers 84.2% vs 15.8% (P = 0.00443), HCPs 95.0% vs 5.0% (P = 0.00004). Positive experiences with the abatacept autoinjector were attributed to the rubberized grip, device size, visualization of dose progression, button ergonomics, and ease of use.

Conclusion

The abatacept autoinjector demonstrated usability without patterns of preventable use errors, and with high acceptability ratings across all key attributes assessed. Preference over competitor autoinjectors was due to device ergonomics, visualization of dose progression, confidence of dose delivery, and overall ease of use.

Funding

Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0286-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effectiveness and safety of abatacept in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis enrolled in the French Society of Rheumatology's ORA registry

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of age on the risk-benefit balance of abatacept in RA.

METHODS

Data from the French orencia and RA registry, including a 2-year follow-up, were used to compare the effectiveness and safety of abatacept according to age.

RESULTS

Among the 1017 patients, 103 were very elderly (⩾75 years), 215 elderly (65-74), 406 intermediate aged (50-64) and 293 very young (<50). At baseline, elderly and very elderly patients had longer disease duration, higher CRP levels and higher disease activity. These age groups showed a lower incidence of previous anti-TNF therapy and less common concomitant use of DMARDs, but a similar use of corticosteroid therapy. After adjusting for disease duration, RF/ACPA positivity, use of DMARDs or corticosteroids and previous anti-TNF treatment, the EULAR response (good or moderate) and the remission rate were not significantly different between the four age groups. At 6 months, the very elderly had a significantly lower likelihood of a good response than the very young (odds ratio = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.68). The decrease in DAS28-ESR over the 24-month follow-up period did not differ by age. Increasing age was associated with a higher rate of discontinuation for adverse events, especially severe infections (per 100 patient-years: 1.73 in very young, 4.65 in intermediates, 5.90 in elderly, 10.38 in very elderly; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of abatacept is not affected by age, but the increased rate of side effects, especially infections, in the elderly must be taken into account.

New pharmacological strategies in rheumatic diseases

Targeting the pathogenic pathway of chronic inflammation represents an unmet challenge for controlling disease activity, preventing functional disability, and maintaining an adequate quality of life in patients with rheumatic diseases. Abatacept, a novel molecule that inhibits co-stimulation signal, induces an inhibitory effect on the T-cells. This will further interfere with the activity of several cell lines, leading to the normalization of the immune response. In the latest years, abatacept has been extensively investigated in studies of rheumatoid arthritis for which it was recently approved as a second line biologic treatment in Romania. This review presents the clinical efficacy of abatacept in several rheumatic diseases and highlights the safety profile of this biological agent. Abbreviations: ACR = American College of Rheumatology, ADR = Adverse drug reaction, APC = antigen presenting cell, ApS = psoriatic arthritis, CRP = C reactive protein, CTLA-4 = Cytotoxic T-Cell Lymphocyte Antigen-4, DAS = Disease activity score, DMARDs = Disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, EMA = European Medicine Agency, EULAR = European League Against Rheumatism, FDA = Food and Drugs Administration, HBV = Hepatitis B virus, JIA = Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis, LDA = low disease activity (LDA), MRI = magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), MTX = methotrexate, RA = rheumatoid arthritis, RCT = randomized controlled trial, SS = Sjogren's syndrome, TCR = T cell receptor.

Short-Term Efficacy Reliably Predicts Long-Term Clinical Benefit in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials as Demonstrated by Model-Based Meta-Analysis

The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between short‐term and long‐term treatment effects measured by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 responses and to assess the feasibility of predicting 6‐month efficacy from short‐term data. A rheumatoid arthritis (RA) database was constructed from 68 reported trials. We focused on the relationship between 3‐ and 6‐month ACR50 treatment effects and developed a generalized nonlinear model to quantify the relationship and test the impact of covariates. The ΔACR50 at 6 months strongly correlated with that at 3 months, moderately correlated with that at 2 months, and only weakly correlated with results obtained at <2 months. A scaling factor that reflected the ratio of 6‐ to 3‐month treatment effects was estimated to be 0.997, suggesting that the treatment effects at 3 months are approaching a “plateau.” Drug classes, baseline Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints, and the magnitude of control arm response did not show significant impacts on the scaling factor. This work quantitatively supports the empirical clinical development paradigm of using 3‐month efficacy data to predict long‐term efficacy and to inform the probability of clinical success based on early efficacy readout.

Tocilizumab in early progressive rheumatoid arthritis: FUNCTION, a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The efficacy of tocilizumab (TCZ), an anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody, has not previously been evaluated in a population consisting exclusively of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

In a double-blind randomised controlled trial (FUNCTION), 1162 methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with early progressive RA were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to one of four treatment groups: 4 mg/kg TCZ+MTX, 8 mg/kg TCZ+MTX, 8 mg/kg TCZ+placebo and placebo+MTX (comparator group). The primary outcome was remission according to Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) <2.6) at week 24. Radiographic and physical function outcomes were also evaluated. We report results through week 52.

RESULTS

The intent-to-treat population included 1157 patients. Significantly more patients receiving 8 mg/kg TCZ+MTX and 8 mg/kg TCZ+placebo than receiving placebo+MTX achieved DAS28-ESR remission at week 24 (45% and 39% vs 15%; p<0.0001). The 8 mg/kg TCZ+MTX group also achieved significantly greater improvement in radiographic disease progression and physical function at week 52 than did patients treated with placebo+MTX (mean change from baseline in van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score, 0.08 vs 1.14 (p=0.0001); mean reduction in Health Assessment Disability Index, -0.81 vs -0.64 (p=0.0024)). In addition, the 8 mg/kg TCZ+placebo and 4 mg/kg TCZ+MTX groups demonstrated clinical efficacy that was at least as effective as MTX for these key secondary endpoints. Serious adverse events were similar among treatment groups. Adverse events resulting in premature withdrawal occurred in 20% of patients in the 8 mg/kg TCZ+MTX group.

CONCLUSIONS

TCZ is effective in combination with MTX and as monotherapy for the treatment of patients with early RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01007435.

Immunological evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with itolizumab

Rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disease characterized by joint inflammation that affects approximately 1% of the general population. Itolizumab, a monoclonal antibody specific for the human CD6 molecule mainly expressed on T lymphocytes, has been shown to inhibit proliferation of T cells and proinflammatory cytokine production in psoriasis patients. We have now assessed the immunological effect of itolizumab in combination with methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis by analyzing clinical samples taken from 30 patients enrolled in a clinical trial. T and B cell subpopulations were measured at different time points of the study. Plasma cytokine levels and anti-idiotypic antibody response to itolizumab were also evaluated. The combined treatment of itolizumab and methotrexate led to a reduction in the frequency of T cell subpopulations, and plasma levels of proinflammatory cytokines showed a significant decrease up to at least 12 weeks after treatment ended. No anti-idiotypic antibody response was detected. These results support the relevance of the CD6 molecule as a therapeutic target for the treatment of this disease.

Towards prevention of autoantibody-positive rheumatoid arthritis: from lifestyle modification to preventive treatment

Recent advances in research into the earliest phases of RA have provided additional insights into the processes leading from the healthy to the diseased state. These insights have opened the way for the development of preventive strategies for RA, which represents a significant paradigm shift from treatment to prevention and will have major implications for patients as well as society. It would be a huge step forward if clinical signs and symptoms, disability, impaired quality of life and the need for chronic immunosuppressive treatment could be prevented. RA can be seen as a prototypic autoimmune disease, and discoveries about the preclinical diseased state for RA could potentially facilitate research into prevention of other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as type 1 diabetes, SLE and multiple sclerosis. This review focuses on the current knowledge of factors contributing to the development of RA and discusses the opportunities for intervention.