Combination of infliximab and methotrexate therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled trial

Rheumatoid Arthritis, Disease Modifying Agents, and Periprosthetic Joint Infection: What Does a Joint Surgeon Need to Know?

The incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 1.6× greater than in patients undergoing the same procedure for osteoarthritis. This higher risk "may" be due to the immunosuppressive therapies for RA patients including corticosteroids, such as prednisone, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate. There is a debate about the role of DMARDs in increasing the incidence of subsequent PJI. Studies show conflicting results, with some demonstrating no significant increase in the rates of PJI and some finding otherwise. The International Consensus Meeting on PJI recommended that DMARDs should be halted prior to an elective total joint arthroplasty based on their half-life. Moreover, the International Consensus Meeting stated that cessation of immunosuppressant medications should be performed in consultation with and under the direction of the treating physician. In this review, we aimed to provide an introduction to the available treatment options and cover the recommendations on the treatment protocols for RA patients who undergo elective total joint arthroplasty.

The Efficacy and Safety of Mainstream Medications for Patients With cDMARD-Naïve Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background: The mainstream medications for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs), which mostly are methotrexate (MTX), and biologic agents such as adalimumab (ADA), certolizumab (CZP), etanercept (ETN), golimumab (GOL), infliximab (IFX), and tocilizumab (TCZ). This network meta-analysis was aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of the medications above and interventions combining cDMARDs and biologic agents for patients with RA.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched systematically for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes concerning efficacy and safety were evaluated utilizing odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). The outcomes of efficacy would be evaluated through remission and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank each treatment on each index.

Results: A total of 20 RCTs with 9,047 patients were included, and the efficacy and safety of the concerning interventions for RA were evaluated. Compared with cDMARDs alone, TCZ+MTX, ETN+MTX, IFX+MTX, TCZ, and ADA+MTX showed significant statistical advantage on ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70. Apart from that, as for remission, TCZ+MTX, IFX+MTX, TCZ, and CZP+MTX performed better compared to cDMARDs alone. The SUCRA ranking also indicated that TCZ+MTX was the intervention with best ranking in the entire four efficacy indexes followed by ETX+MTX and IFX+MTX. However, there was no obvious difference among these medications compared with cDMARDs when it comes to safety, which need more specific studies on that.

Conclusion: TCZ+MTX was potentially the most recommended combination of medications for RA due to its good performance in all outcomes of efficacy. ETX+MTX and IFX+MTX, which also performed well, could be introduced as alternative treatments. However, considering the adverse events, the treatments concerning should be introduced with caution.

Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX).

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs.

METHODS

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission).

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Automatic Quantification of Radiographic Wrist Joint Space Width of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective: Wrist joint space narrowing is a main radiographic outcome of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Yet, automatic radiographic wrist joint space width (JSW) quantification for RA patients has not been widely investigated. The aim of this paper is to present an automatic method to quantify the JSW of three wrist joints that are least affected by bone overlapping and are frequently involved in RA. These joints are located around the scaphoid bone, viz. the multangular-navicular, capitate-navicular-lunate, and radiocarpal joints. Methods: The joint space around the scaphoid bone is detected by using consecutive searches of separate path segments, where each segment location aids in constraining the subsequent one. For joint margin delineation, first the boundary not affected by X-ray projection is extracted, followed by a backtrace process to obtain the actual joint margin. The accuracy of the quantified JSW is evaluated by comparison with the manually obtained ground truth. Results: Two of the 50 radiographs used for evaluation of the method did not yield a correct path through all three wrist joints. The delineated joint margins of the remaining 48 radiographs were used for JSW quantification. It was found that 90% of the joints had a JSW deviating less than 20% from the mean JSW of manual indications, with the mean JSW error less than 10%. Conclusion: The proposed method is able to automatically quantify the JSW of radiographic wrist joints reliably.

SIGNIFICANCE

The proposed method may aid clinical researchers to study the progression of wrist joint damage in RA studies.Objective: Wrist joint space narrowing is a main radiographic outcome of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Yet, automatic radiographic wrist joint space width (JSW) quantification for RA patients has not been widely investigated. The aim of this paper is to present an automatic method to quantify the JSW of three wrist joints that are least affected by bone overlapping and are frequently involved in RA. These joints are located around the scaphoid bone, viz. the multangular-navicular, capitate-navicular-lunate, and radiocarpal joints. Methods: The joint space around the scaphoid bone is detected by using consecutive searches of separate path segments, where each segment location aids in constraining the subsequent one. For joint margin delineation, first the boundary not affected by X-ray projection is extracted, followed by a backtrace process to obtain the actual joint margin. The accuracy of the quantified JSW is evaluated by comparison with the manually obtained ground truth. Results: Two of the 50 radiographs used for evaluation of the method did not yield a correct path through all three wrist joints. The delineated joint margins of the remaining 48 radiographs were used for JSW quantification. It was found that 90% of the joints had a JSW deviating less than 20% from the mean JSW of manual indications, with the mean JSW error less than 10%. Conclusion: The proposed method is able to automatically quantify the JSW of radiographic wrist joints reliably.

SIGNIFICANCE

The proposed method may aid clinical researchers to study the progression of wrist joint damage in RA studies.

Altered TNF-α response by Aconibal® and methotrexate in a lipopolysaccharide-induced setting of inflammatory conditions: Potential on a synergistic combination

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Aconitum carmichaelii (AC) is a common herbal medicine used as anti-inflammatory and analgesic agent in Eastern Asia. In Korea, a commercial processed AC (Aconibal®) is traditionally used to treat the symptoms of spondylosis deformans and rheumatic pain.

AIM OF STUDY

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is systemic and autoimmune disease characterized by chronic inflammation. Methotrexate (MTX) is often the first-line therapy for RA. If MTX monotherapy is ineffective or RA is initially severe, adding a tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitor to the treatment can be beneficial. However, its inhibitory effects on RA when combined with MTX are unknown. Therefore, we investigated the stable modulation of and synergistic to additive effect on TNF-α using AC combined with MTX (AMC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An inflammatory response mimicking RA was induced in the mouse macrophage cell line Raw 264.7 using interferon-γ or lipopolysaccharide (LPS). We predicted that AC and MTX at a 3:1 ratio would have synergistic therapeutic effects and this was determined using the Chou-Talalay method of median effect analysis and CalcuSyn software. We analyzed the profiles of various inflammatory cytokine-related proteins using Search tool for retrieval of interacting genes and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes.

RESULTS

The expression levels of selected inflammatory immune mediators such as interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1α, chemokine ligand 5, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, nitric oxide synthase, and cyclooxygenase were reduced via regulation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway. AMC inhibited the levels of matrix metalloproteinases-1 and -3 in the human synovial cell line SW982.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show for the first time the potential beneficial effects of AMC in RA management.

Contribution of bacterial pathogens to evoking serological disease markers and aggravating disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis

Commensal bacteria and their pathogenic components in the gastrointestinal tract and oral cavity may play pathological roles in autoimmune diseases. To study the possible involvement of bacterial pathogens in autoimmune diseases, IgG and IgA antibodies against pathogenic components produced by three strains of commensal bacteria, Escherichia coli-lipopolysaccharide (E. coli-LPS), Porphyromonas gingivalis-LPS (Pg-LPS) and peptidoglycan polysaccharide (PG-PS) from Streptococcus pyogenes, were determined by an improved ELISA system for sera from two groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), who met rapid radiographic progression (RRP) criteria and non-RRP, and compared to normal (NL) controls. Antibody responses to these bacterial pathogens are unique and consistent in individuals, and no fundamental difference was observed between RA and NL controls. Despite the similar antibody responses to pathogens, lower IgG or higher IgA and consequent higher IgA/IgG antibody ratio among the patients with RA related to disease marker levels and disease activity. Peculiarly, the IgA/IgG anti-Pg-LPS antibody ratio resulted from lower IgG and higher IgA antibody responses to Pg-LPS strongly correlated not only with rheumatoid factor (RF), but also correlated with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP) and disease activity score of 28 joints with ESR (DAS28-ESR) in the RRP group. In contrast, the IgA/IgG anti-E. coli-LPS and anti-PG-PS antibody ratio correlated or tended to correlate with RF, ESR, CRP, and DAS28-ESR in the non-RRP group, whereas either the IgG or IgA anti-Pg-LPS antibody levels and consequent IgA/IgG anti-Pg-LPS antibody ratio did not correlate with any clinical marker levels in this group. Notably, anti-circular-citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody levels, which did not correlate with either IgG or IgA antibody levels to any pathogens, did not correlate with severity of arthritis in both RRP and non-RRP. Taken together, we propose that multiple environmental pathogens, which overwhelm the host antibody defense function, contribute independently or concomitantly to evoking disease makers and aggravating disease activity, and affect disease outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN CTR UMIN000012200.

Radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis patients following initial combination versus step-up treat-to-target therapy in daily clinical practice: results from the DREAM registry

Background

Early and intensive targeted treatment with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) has been shown to lead to substantial reductions in disease activity and radiograph damage in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this quasi-experimental study was to compare the first-year radiographic progression rates between a treat-to-target (T2 T) strategy with initial combination therapy (strategy II, started in 2012) versus an initial step-up monotherapy (strategy I, started in 2006).

Methods

A total of 128 patients from strategy II was individually matched with 128 patients from strategy I on sex, age (± 5 yrs.) and baseline disease activity (± 0.5 on the DAS28). Differences in radiographic progression (Sharp/van der Heijde) scores (SHS) and the number of patients experiencing a minimal clinically important difference (MCID; ≥ 5 SHS points) between both strategies were tested with Mann Whitney U and chi-square tests. Next, linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to examine which baseline variables were associated with radiographic progression scores and the probability of experiencing an MCID within 1 year.

Results

Patients with initial combination therapy had slightly higher baseline disease activity scores and pain scores, but better mental health scores. Patients with initial monotherapy had significantly more, and more frequently clinically relevant, radiographic progression after 1 year. Experiencing a MCID was independently associated with fewer tender joints (p = 0.050) and higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p = 0.015) at baseline.

Conclusion

Treating early RA patients with initial combination therapy results in better radiographic outcomes than initial monotherapy in daily clinical practice.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register NTR578, 12 January 2006.

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.

High titers of both rheumatoid factor and anti-CCP antibodies at baseline in patients with rheumatoid arthritis are associated with increased circulating baseline TNF level, low drug levels, and reduced clinical responses: a post hoc analysis of the RISING study

Background

Although both rheumatoid factor (RF) and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP) are useful for diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the impact of these autoantibodies on the efficacy of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors has been controversial. The aim of this post hoc analysis of a randomized double-blind study (the RISING study) was to investigate the influences of RF and anti-CCP on the clinical response to infliximab in patients with RA.

Methods

Methotrexate-refractory patients with RA received 3 mg/kg of infliximab from weeks 0 to 6 and then 3, 6, or 10 mg/kg every 8 weeks from weeks 14 to 46. In this post hoc analysis, patients were stratified into three classes on the basis of baseline RF/anti-CCP titers: “low/low-C” (RF < 55 IU/ml, anti-CCP < 42 U/ml), “high/high-C” (RF ≥ 160 IU/ml, anti-CCP ≥ 100 U/ml), and “middle-C” (neither low/low-C nor high/high-C). Baseline plasma TNF level, serum infliximab level, and disease activity were compared between the three classes.

Results

Baseline RF and anti-CCP titers showed significant correlations with baseline TNF and infliximab levels in weeks 2–14. Comparison of the three classes showed that baseline TNF level was lowest in the low/low-C group and highest in the high/high-C group (median 0.73 versus 1.15 pg/ml), that infliximab levels at week 14 were highest in the low/low-C group and lowest in the high/high-C group (median 1.0 versus 0.1 μg/ml), and that Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein at week 14 was lowest in the low/low-C group and highest in the high/high-C group (median 3.17 versus 3.82). A similar correlation was observed at week 54 in the 3 mg/kg dosing group, but not in the 6 or 10 mg/kg group. Significant decreases in both RF and anti-CCP were observed during infliximab treatment.

Conclusions

RF/anti-CCP titers correlated with TNF level. This might explain the association of RF/anti-CCP with infliximab level and clinical response in patients with RA. Baseline RF/anti-CCP titers may serve as indices that aid infliximab treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00691028. Retrospectively registered on 3 June 2008.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-017-1401-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Remission induction by Raising the dose of Remicade in RA (RRRR) study: Rationale and study protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing for sustained clinical remission after discontinuation of infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Infliximab, an inhibitor of TNF-α, is one of the most widely used biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Recent studies indicated that baseline serum TNF-α could be considered as a key indicator for optimal dosing of infliximab for RA treatment to achieve the clinical response and its sustained remission. The Remission induction by Raising the dose of Remicade in RA (RRRR) study is an open-label, parallel group, multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare the proportions of clinical remission based on the simplified disease activity index (SDAI) after 1 year of treatment and its sustained remission rate after another 1 year between the investigational treatment strategy (for which the dose of infliximab was chosen based on the baseline serum TNF) and the standard strategy of 3 mg/kg per 8 weeks of infliximab administration in infliximab-naïve patients with RA showing an inadequate response to MTX. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients who kept discontinuation of infliximab 1 year after discontinued infliximab at the time of 54 weeks after the first administration of infliximab. The secondary endpoints are the proportion of clinical remission based on SDAI and changes in SDAI from baseline at each time point, other clinical parameters, quality of life measures and adverse events. Target sample size of randomized patients is 400 patients in total. The main results of the RRRR study are expected to be published at the end of 2017.

Leflunomide is equally efficacious and safe compared to low dose rituximab in refractory rheumatoid arthritis given in combination with methotrexate: results from a randomized double blind controlled clinical trial

Background

The standard dose of rituximab used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 1000 mg but recent studies have shown that low dose (500 mg) is also effective. Efficacy of low dose rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to first-line non-biologic Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs), compared to leflunomide is unknown. In a tertiary care referral setting, we conducted a randomized, double blind controlled clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of low-dose rituximab-methotrexate combination with leflunomide-methotrexate combination.

Methods

Patients on methotrexate (10-20 mg/week) with a Disease Activity Score (DAS) > 3.2 were randomly assigned to rituximab (500 mg on days 1 and 15) or leflunomide (10-20 mg/day). The primary end-point was ACR20 at 24 weeks. Sample of 40 had 70% power to detect a 30% difference. ACR50, ACR70, DAS, EULAR good response, CD3 + (T cell), CD19 + (B cell) and CD19 + CD27+ (memory B cell) counts, tetanus and pneumococcal antibody levels were secondary end points.

Results

Baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups. At week 24, ACR20 was 85% vs 84% (p = 0.93), ACR50 was 60% vs. 64% (p = 0.79) and ACR70 was 35% vs 32% (P = 0.84), in rituximab and in leflunomide groups respectively. Serious adverse events were similar.

With rituximab there was significant reduction in B cells (p < 0.001), memory B cells (p < 0.001) and pneumococcal antibody levels (P < 0.05) without significant changes in T cells (p = 0.835) and tetanus antibody levels (p = 0.424) at 24 weeks. With leflunomide, significant reduction in memory B cells (p < 0.01) and pneumococcal antibody levels (p < 0.01) occurred without significant changes in B cells (P > 0.05), T cells (P > 0.05) or tetanus antibody levels (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Leflunomide-methotrexate combination is as efficacious as low-dose rituximab-methotrexate combination at 24 weeks, in RA patient’s refractory to initial DMARDs. The high responses seen in both groups have favorable cost implications for patients in developing countries. Changes in immune parameters with leflunomide are novel and need further characterization.

Trial registration

The trial was registered with the Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry (SLCTR), a publicly accessible primary registry linked to the registry network of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the WHO (WHO-ICTRP) (registration number: SLCTR/2008/008 dated 16th May 2008).

Analysis of Closed Claims in the Clinical Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Japan

Background:

Despite an increasing awareness of the risk of medical errors, few data sources are available to highlight the characteristics and patterns of medical errors in the clinical management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The present study aimed to evaluate medical malpractice claims associated with the management of RA and other autoimmune connective tissue diseases (ACTDs).

Methods:

We analyzed 38 ACTD-associated closed claims extracted from a total of 8530 claims processed between July 2004 and June 2014 by the Tokyo headquarters office of Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Incorporated, a leading malpractice insurer in Japan.

Results:

RA was the most common ACTD assessed in this study, accounting for 20 cases. Although the male-to-female ratio among these cases was 5:15, in accordance with the general demographic distribution of RA, the proportion of patients older than 60 years (77.8%) was relatively high as the general range of RA susceptibility is 30–50 years. The analysis of allegation types among RA cases revealed statistically significant differences from non-RA cases (Fisher's exact test) as well as the following key findings: diagnosis-related allegations were absent (P < 0.01), whereas medication-related allegations were distinctively common (P = 0.02). Clinical processes related to the assessment process were most vulnerable to breakdown and leading to negligence identified with subsequent medication-related allegations, particularly among RA cases.

Conclusions:

The characteristics of malpractice claims associated with RA management, including the high frequency of medication-related allegations, breakdowns in the assessment process, and high claim numbers among patients older than 60 years, suggest the importance of caution exercised by physicians when administering immunosuppressants for the clinical treatment of RA.

Benefit-risk trade-offs for treatment decisions in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: focus on the patient perspective

Given the increasing number of available treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with varying efficacy and safety profiles, it is critical to understand the level of trade-offs that patients are willing to make between benefits and risks. Adult patients with moderate to severe RA were invited to participate in a discrete choice experiment that solicited their preferences for hypothetical RA treatments. Each participant was presented with 14 choice cards asking about their preference between two hypothetical RA treatments with varying levels of efficacy, adverse events, and process-related attributes. A multivariable logistic regression model assessed the association between the attributes and the patient's decision and risk-increases were calculated. 510 eligible patients with moderate to severe RA completed the study. The average age of the participants was 56.4 years, 64.7% were female, and 45.1% received biologic agents. To achieve a 50% improvement in physical function, patients were willing to accept risk-increases of 91.1, 4.7, and 18.4% for abnormal laboratory results, cancer, and serious infection, respectively. Similarly, to achieve a 50% reduction in RA-related pain, patients were willing to accept risk-increases of 70.6, 3.7, and 14.2% for each AE. Moreover, patients were willing to trade risk-increases of 42.0, 2.2, and 8.5% for each AE to obtain a 50% reduction in the number of swollen joints. Patients with moderate to severe RA are willing to accept increased treatment risks to achieve improved physical function and disease control. These attributes are helpful to clinicians to make informed treatment choices.

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.

Inflammatory Arthritis: A Newly Recognized Adverse Event of Immune Checkpoint Blockade

This commentary summarizes current knowledge on the clinical presentation, management, and outcomes of the inflammatory arthritis which may occur as an immune‐related adverse evet of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Herein, we propose a new algorithm aimed at assisting oncologists in the diagnosis and management of this immune‐related adverse event.

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.

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.

Triple Oral Therapy Versus Antitumor Necrosis Factor Plus Methotrexate (MTX) in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Inadequate Response to MTX: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX), the relative effectiveness of the combination of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) compared with the combination of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and MTX, as second-line therapy, is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerance of triple oral DMARD therapy versus anti-TNF agents associated with MTX in patients with RA after MTX failure.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature up to November 2015 in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane library, and abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) meetings from 2006 to 2015. Articles were included if they were of randomized controlled trials of patients receiving triple oral combination therapy (TT; MTX + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine) compared with anti-TNF agents plus MTX. Treatment effects were examined by disease activity [Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28)], ACR and EULAR response criteria, structural damage by the modified total Sharp score, and functional disability by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ).

RESULTS

Our search identified 263 articles; only 5 fulfilled the selection criteria. Analysis of ACR and EULAR response criteria, DAS28, and modified Sharp scores favored anti-TNF agents combined with MTX. Functional disability (HAQ) and rates of adverse events did not differ between treatments.

CONCLUSION

In patients with RA in whom MTX has failed, the addition of a TNF antagonist to MTX may be a valid option, with better clinical outcomes and better radiographic results in the presence of poor prognostic factors. In the absence of poor prognostic factors and/or with contraindications to biologic agents, TT retains its place in the therapeutic strategy for RA in a currently restricted economic context.

Head-to-head comparison of aggressive conventional therapy and three biological treatments and comparison of two de-escalation strategies in patients who respond to treatment: study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-assessor, phase 4 study

BACKGROUND

New targeted therapies and improved treatment strategies have dramatically improved the outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, it is unknown whether different early aggressive interventions can induce stable remission or a low-active disease state that can be maintained with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) therapy, and whether they differ in efficacy and safety. The Nordic Rheumatic Diseases Strategy Trials And Registries (NORD-STAR) study will assess and compare (1) the proportion of patients who achieve remission in a head-to-head comparison between csDMARD plus glucocorticoid therapy and three different biological DMARD (bDMARD) therapies with different modes of action and (2) two de-escalation strategies in patients who respond to first-line therapy.

METHODS/DESIGN

In a pragmatic, 80-160-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded, phase 4 study, 800 patients with early RA (symptom duration less than 24 months) are randomized 1:1:1:1 to one of four different treatment arms: (1) aggressive csDMARD therapy with methotrexate + sulphasalazine + hydroxychloroquine + i.a. glucocorticoids (arm 1A) or methotrexate + prednisolone p.o. (arm 1B), (2) methotrexate + certolizumab-pegol, (3) methotrexate + abatacept, or (4) methotrexate + tocilizumab. The primary clinical endpoint is the proportion of patients reaching Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission at week 24. Patients in stable remission over 24 consecutive weeks enter part 2 of the study earliest after 48 weeks. Patients not achieving sustained CDAI remission over 24 consecutive weeks, exit the study after 80 weeks. In part 2, patients are re-randomized to two different de-escalation strategies, either immediate or delayed (after 24 weeks) tapering, followed by cessation of study medication. All patients remain on stable doses of methotrexate. The primary clinical endpoint in part 2 is the proportion of patients in remission (CDAI ≤2.8) 24 weeks after initiating treatment de-escalation. Radiographic assessment will be performed regularly throughout the trial, and blood and urine samples will be stored in a biobank for later biomarker analyses.

DISCUSSION

NORD-STAR is the first investigator-initiated, randomized, early RA trial to compare (1) csDMARD and three different bDMARD therapies head to head and (2) two different de-escalation strategies. The trial has the potential to identify which treatment strategy to apply in early RA to achieve the best possible outcomes for both patients and society.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01491815 and NCT02466581 . Registered on 8 December 2011 and May 2015, respectively. EudraCT: 2011-004720-35.

Risk of tuberculosis in patients treated with TNF-α antagonists: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

An increased risk of tuberculosis (TB) has been reported in patients treated with TNF-α antagonists, an issue that has been highlighted in a WHO black box warning. This review aimed to assess the risk of TB in patients undergoing TNF-α antagonists treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane library and studies selected for inclusion according to predefined criteria. ORs with 95% CIs were calculated using the random-effect model. Subgroup analyses considered the effects of drug type, disease and TB endemicity. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

29 RCTs involving 11 879 patients were included (14 for infliximab, 9 for adalimumab, 2 for golimumab, 1 for etanercept and 3 for certolizumab pegol). Of 7912 patients allocated to TNF-α antagonists, 45 (0.57%) developed TB, while only 3 cases occurred in 3967 patients allocated to control groups, resulting in an OR of 1.94 (95% CI 1.10 to 3.44, p=0.02). Subgroup analyses indicated that patients of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a higher increased risk of TB when treated with TNF-α antagonists (OR 2.29 (1.09 to 4.78), p=0.03). The level of the evidence was recommended as 'low' by the GRADE system.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from our meta-analysis indicate that the risk of TB may be significantly increased in patients treated with TNF-α antagonists. However, further studies are needed to reveal the biological mechanism of the increased TB risk caused by TNF-α antagonists treatment.

Low disease activity for up to 3 years after adalimumab discontinuation in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year results of the HOPEFUL-3 Study

Background

This study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of long-term adalimumab (ADA) discontinuation after achievement of low disease activity (LDA) in Japanese patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to identify predictors of LDA maintenance.

Methods

In the HOPEFUL-1 study, patients received initial therapy with either ADA plus methotrexate (MTX; intensive therapy) or MTX alone (standard therapy) for 26 weeks, followed by ADA + MTX for 26 weeks. In the HOPEFUL-2 study, patients received ADA + MTX (ADA continuation) or MTX alone (ADA discontinuation) for 52 weeks. HOPEFUL-3 was an observational study that enrolled patients who had completed HOPEFUL-2; these patients were followed for an additional 104 weeks.

Results

Of the 172 patients enrolled in the HOPEFUL-3 study, 135 (ADA continuation, n = 61; ADA discontinuation, n = 74) with 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) values at both week 52 (start of HOPEFUL-2) and week 208 (end of HOPEFUL-3) were included in the effectiveness analysis. At week 208, 58 (95.1%) of 61 patients and 59 (79.7%) of 74 patients who continued or discontinued ADA, respectively, had LDA (DAS28-CRP <3.2). Initial intensive therapy was associated with a better outcome than standard therapy in terms of change in modified total Sharp score from week 0 to week 208, which was ≤0.5 (64% vs. 30%). The incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in the ADA discontinuation group than in the ADA continuation group (9.7% vs. 32.9%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Approximately 80% of patients who discontinued ADA for 3 years after achieving LDA with ADA + MTX were still in LDA, with a lower incidence of adverse events than patients who continued ADA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01346501. Registered 29 April 2011.

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.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update

Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.

Risk of infections using anti-TNF agents in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Five anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents have received regulatory approval for use in rheumatology: adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Apart from their well-documented therapeutic value, it is still uncertain to what extent they are associated with an increased risk of infectious adverse events. Areas covered: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized studies to determine the effect of anti-TNF drugs on the occurrence of infectious adverse events (serious infections; tuberculosis; opportunistic infections; any infection). We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2014 to identify eligible studies in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis that evaluated anti-TNF drugs compared with placebo or no treatment. Expert opinion: Our study encompassed data from 71 randomized controlled trials involving 22,760 participants (range of follow-up: 1-36 months) and seven open label extension studies with 2,236 participants (range of follow-up: 6-48 months). Quantitative synthesis of the available data found statistically significant increases in the occurrence of any infections (20%), serious infections (40%), and tuberculosis (250%) associated with anti-TNF drug use, while the data for opportunistic infections were scarce. The quality of synthesized evidence was judged as moderate. Further evidence from registries and long-term epidemiological studies are needed to better define the relationship between anti-TNF agents and infection complications.

Clinical benefit of 1-year certolizumab pegol (CZP) add-on therapy to methotrexate treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis was observed following CZP discontinuation: 2-year results of the C-OPERA study, a phase III randomised trial

Objectives

To investigate the clinical impact of 1-year certolizumab pegol (CZP) therapy added to the first year of 2-year methotrexate (MTX) therapy, compared with 2-year therapy with MTX alone.

Methods

MTX-naïve patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with poor prognostic factors were eligible to enter Certolizumab-Optimal Prevention of joint damage for Early RA (C-OPERA), a multicentre, randomised, controlled study, which consisted of a 52-week double-blind (DB) period and subsequent 52-week post treatment (PT) period. Patients were randomised to optimised MTX+CZP (n=159) or optimised MTX+placebo (PBO; n=157). Following the DB period, patients entered the PT period, receiving MTX alone (CZP+MTX→MTX; n=108, PBO+MTX→MTX; n=71). Patients who flared could receive rescue treatment with open-label CZP.

Results

34 CZP+MTX→MTX patients and 14 PBO+MTX→MTX patients discontinued during the PT period. From week 52 through week 104, significant inhibition of total modified total Sharp score progression was observed for CZP+MTX versus PBO+MTX (week 104: 84.2% vs 67.5% (p<0.001)). Remission rates decreased after CZP discontinuation; however, higher rates were maintained through week 104 in CZP+MTX→MTX versus PBO+MTX→MTX (41.5% vs 29.3% (p=0.026), 34.6% vs 24.2% (p=0.049) and 41.5% vs 33.1% (p=0.132) at week 104 in SDAI, Boolean and DAS28(erythrocyte sedimentation rate) remission. CZP retreated patients due to flare (n=28) showed rapid clinical improvement. The incidence of overall adverse events was similar between groups.

Conclusions

In MTX-naïve patients with early RA with poor prognostic factors, an initial 1 year of add-on CZP to 2-year optimised MTX therapy brings radiographic and clinical benefit through 2 years, even after stopping CZP.

Trial registration number

NCT01451203.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-methotrexate combination therapy versus triple therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials have not consistently demonstrated differences between tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) plus methotrexate and triple therapy (methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine plus sulfasalazine) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The study objective was to estimate the efficacy, radiographic benefits, safety and patient-reported outcomes of TNFi-methotrexate versus triple therapy in patients with RA.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials of TNFi-methotrexate or triple therapy as one of the treatment arms in patients with an inadequate response to or who were naive to methotrexate was conducted. American College of Rheumatology 70% response criteria (ACR70) at 6 months was the prespecified primary endpoint to evaluate depth of response. Data from direct and indirect comparisons between TNFi-methotrexate and triple therapy were pooled and quantitatively analysed using fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian models.

RESULTS

We analysed 33 studies in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate and 19 in patients naive to methotrexate. In inadequate responders, triple therapy was associated with lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.35, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.19 to 0.64). Most secondary endpoints tended to favour TNFi-methotrexate in terms of OR direction; however, no clear increased likelihood of achieving these endpoints was observed for either therapy. The odds of infection were lower with triple therapy than with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.08, 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.57). There were no differences observed between the two regimens in patients naive to methotrexate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this NMA, triple therapy was associated with 65% lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate. Although secondary endpoints numerically favoured TNFi-methotrexate, no clear differences were observed. The odds of infection were greater with TNFi-methotrexate. No differences were observed for patients naive to methotrexate. These results may help inform care of patients who fail methotrexate first-line therapy.

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.

Review on the Influence of Protocol Design on Clinical Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Rituximab

OBJECTIVE

To critically analyze the influence of protocol design on clinical outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with rituximab.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed and EMBASE search (January 2000-January 2012) using the key words rheumatoid arthritis and rituximab was performed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

A search of English-language studies from the data sources was conducted for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with 100 patients or more assessing the efficacy and safety of rituximab in the treatment of RA. From these studies, 2 authors independently extracted, compiled, and aggregated the data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. In these studies, some patients had not been treated with tumor necrosis factor-alfa (TNF-α) inhibitors, while most did not respond to it. The variables compared included dose (500 vs 1000 mg), duration of study (24 vs 48 weeks), and number of cycles (1 vs 2). They were statistically analyzed using the χ2 test. There was a statistically significant difference in the response to rituximab compared to the control (methotrexate) (p < 0.001). In patients who were studied for only 24 weeks, given 500 or 1000 mg for 1 or 2 cycles, a 90% or greater response rate was reported in those who achieved an ACR 20, but no statistically significant differences were observed (p = 0.75). In patients studied for 48 weeks who received 2 cycles of either 500 mg or 1000 mg of rituximab and achieved an ACR 20, a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was observed in those who received a dose of 1000 mg for 2 cycles (42.77% vs 67.49%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who are nonresponsive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and TNF-α inhibitors, rituximab may be a promising and well-tolerated biologic agent. The capacity of rituximab to produce long-term, sustained remissions could not be evaluated because the duration of the studies was limited to 24 weeks or 48 weeks. Studies with longer periods of observation are warranted.

Direct Comparative Effectiveness Among 3 Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Biologics in a Real-Life Cohort of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

This study aimed to compare the clinical response at 36 months and evaluate the adverse events in a cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with etanercept, infliximab, or adalimumab.

Methods

An observational retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients older than 18 years with active rheumatoid arthritis, for which the physician had initiated a treatment scheme with etanercept, infliximab, or adalimumab, were included in the study. The follow-up was conducted through at least trimestral evaluations during the course of 36 months. Outcomes evaluated included Disease Activity Score 28, level of disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and degree of disability.

Results

Three hundred seven subjects were included in the cohort (108 adalimumab, 107 infliximab, and 92 etanercept). The median Disease Activity Score 28 at the onset was 4.1 and 2.39 at month 36. There were no differences among the 3 medications (P = 0.51). The remission rate was of 7.4 per 100 people per month (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.6–8.3) without differences between groups. The initial Health Assessment Questionnaire median was 1.75 and 0.25 at 36 months. No differences per medicine were found (P = 0.54). The most common adverse effect was dermatitis. Eighteen cases of serious adverse effects occurred, including 11 cases of serious infectious events. The adverse events rates were as follows: infliximab, 24 per 100 people per year (95% CI, 19–29); adalimumab, 22 per 100 people per year (95% CI, 18–27); and etanercept, 12 per 100 people per year (95% CI, 8–16).

Conclusions

Etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab are 3 effective therapeutic anti–tumor necrosis factor alternatives to reduce the level of severity and the degree of disability generated by rheumatoid arthritis. Etanercept presented a rate of adverse events lower than those for infliximab and adalimumab.

Long-term use of biologic agents does not increase the risk of serious infections in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis

This study aimed to determine whether the long-term use of biologic agents increases serious infections in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to determine the risk factors of serious infections in biologics-treated elderly RA patients. We retrospectively analyzed the incidence rate of serious infections that required hospitalization between biologics-treated and non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-treated elderly RA patients (aged over 65 years). We examined the risk factors for serious infections in biologics-treated elderly RA patients. We found that, during a 3-year observation period, the incidence rate of serious infections was not significantly different between biologics-treated and non-biologic DMARD-treated elderly RA patients [8.0 (95% CI 4.7–13.5) and 6.3 (95% CI 4.1–9.5) events per 100 person-years of follow-up, respectively, P = 0.78]. The time to the first serious infection did not significantly differ between the two groups by the analysis of the Kaplan–Meier curves, either (P = 0.46). We then found that prednisolone doses alone were significantly associated with serious infections in biologics-treated elderly RA patients. Furthermore, we found that prednisolone at 1–4 mg/day was associated with serious infections in biologics-treated patients, but not non-biologic DMARD-treated patients. On the other hand, prednisolone at greater than 5 mg/day was associated with serious infections in both biologics-treated and non-biologics-treated patients. We show that there is not a significant difference between the incidence of serious infections between biologics group and non-biologics group in elderly RA patients (≧65 years) and that even very low-dose glucocorticoid use (prednisolone 1–4 mg/day) is a risk factor for serious infections in biologics-treated elderly RA patients.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients: results of the CREATE registry

Biological drugs have proven efficacy and effectiveness in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), although none has been shown to be superior. Few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of biological drugs in real-life clinical conditions. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab in achieving clinical remission (DAS28 < 2.6) when used as initial biological therapy. Patients were diagnosed with RA who began treatment with infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab in the Reina Sofia Hospital (Cordoba, Spain) between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2012. Effectiveness was measured as the percentage of patients who achieved clinical remission after 2 years. The cost analysis considered the use of direct health resources (perspective of the healthcare system). Cost-effectiveness was calculated by dividing the total mean cost of each treatment by the percentage of patients who achieved remission. One hundred and thirty patients were included: 55 with infliximab, 44 with adalimumab and 31 with etanercept. After 2 years, 45.2 % of patients with adalimumab achieved clinical remission, versus 29.1 % with infliximab (p = 0.133) and 22.7 % with etanercept (p = 0.040), with no differences between etanercept and infliximab (p = 0.475). The average total cost at 2 years was €29,858, €25,329 and €23,309 for adalimumab, infliximab and etanercept, respectively, while the mean cost (95 %CI) to achieve remission was €66,057 (48,038–84,076), €87,040 (78,496–95,584) and €102,683 (94,559–110,807), respectively. Adalimumab was more efficient than etanercept (p < 0.001) and infliximab (p = 0.026), with no differences between etanercept and infliximab (p = 0.086). Adalimumab was the most cost-effective treatment in achieving clinical remission in real-life clinical conditions in RA patients during the study period.

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.

Incidence and risk factors for cervical lesions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis under the current pharmacologic treatment paradigm

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the incidence and risk factors for cervical lesions in patients with rheumatic arthritis (RA) under the current pharmacologic treatment paradigm.

METHODS

Of patients with RA onset after 2000, 151 who introduced biologic agents (BAs) because of high disease activity and underwent cervical radiography more than 5 years after onset were included. Incidence of those with cervical lesions and predictors of cervical lesions were analyzed. Mean disease duration was 8.5 years. The radiographic definitions of cervical lesions were as follows: atlantoaxial subluxation (AAS), atlantodental interval >3 mm; vertical subluxation (VS), Ranawat value <13 mm; and subaxial subluxation (SS), and listhesis >2 mm.

RESULTS

Radiographic evaluation indicated AAS in 43 cases (28%), VS in 10 (7%), and SS in 6 (4%). The incidence of those with any cervical lesion was 32% (48/151). Univariate analysis showed that disease duration, time from onset to BA use, and onset before 2005 were significant predictors of cervical lesions, while multivariate regression analysis showed that disease duration and Steinbrocker stage were predictors.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of cervical lesions in patients with RA onset after 2000 was still high (32%). In addition, disease duration and Steinbrocker stage were predictors of cervical lesions.

A Critical Review of Biosimilars in IBD: The Confluence of Biologic Drug Development, Regulatory Requirements, Clinical Outcomes, and Big Business

On February 9, 2016, the Food and Drug Administration Arthritis Advisory Committee recommended by a vote of 21 to 3, that the biosimilar to infliximab, CT-P13, be approved for rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis and, by extrapolation, for all the indications for which infliximab is currently approved, including adult and pediatric ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. On April 5, 2016, the Food and Drug Administration concurred with this recommendation and approved CT-P13 (Inflectra; Pfizer Inc.) for all diseases for which infliximab had previously been approved, including adult and pediatric moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and pediatric and adult moderate to severe and fistulizing Crohn's disease. This was despite the absence of any randomized controlled trials studying the infliximab biosimilar in any inflammatory bowel disease. This highly controversial approach has been criticized by various rheumatology and gastroenterology professional societies around the world. This review will cover the stepwise approach to biosimilar development, issues of extrapolation and interchangeability, and conclude with a discussion of the regulatory, intellectual property issues, and financial implications, which will all intersect in the decision and ability to prescribe a biosimilar or reference anti-tumor necrosis factor drug.

Optimizing biological treatments for rheumatoid arthritis

The area of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment has been revolutionized during the last decades with the development of biological therapies and their introduction into daily clinical practice contributing greatly to this dramatic change. However, several aspects of the use of these highly effective but expensive therapies remain far from optimal. To date, there is no clear evidence for the optimal sequence of biological agents, and the choice of a second- or third-line biologic is random. The effect of drug levels and the presence of neutralizing anti-drug antibodies remain unclear. In addition, the identification of prognostic factors of response, both clinical and histopathological, is crucial for a more individualized treatment approach.

Tofacitinib versus methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: patient-reported outcomes from the randomised phase III ORAL Start trial

Objectives

To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients (defined as no prior treatment or ≤3 doses) receiving tofacitinib versus MTX.

Methods

In the 24-month, phase III, randomised, controlled, ORAL Start trial (NCT01039688), patients were randomised 2:2:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day (n=373), tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day (n=397) or MTX (n=186). PROs assessed included Patient Global Assessment of disease (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) and health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 [SF-36]).

Results

PROs improved following tofacitinib and MTX treatment: benefits were sustained over 24 months. Patients receiving tofacitinib reported earlier responses which were significantly different between each tofacitinib dose and MTX at month 3 through month 24. At month 6 (primary end point), significant improvements versus MTX were observed in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS), 5/8 domain scores and FACIT-F with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day; all PROs, except SF-36 Mental Component Summary Score and Medical Outcomes Survey-Sleep, with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day. At month 6, the proportion of patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important difference were significant versus MTX with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day in PtGA and 3/8 SF-36 domains; and with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS, 4/8 domains and FACIT-F.

Conclusions

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg two times per day monotherapy versus MTX reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in multiple PROs over 24 months; onset of benefit with tofacitinib treatment occurred earlier.

Trial registration number

NCT01039688.

Radiographic changes and factors associated with subsequent progression of damage in weight-bearing joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis under TNF-blocking therapies-three-year observational study

OBJECTIVES

The long-term effects of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-blocking therapies on weight-bearing joints in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have not been fully characterized. The purpose of this study was to assess the radiographic changes of weight-bearing joints in patients with RA during 3-year of TNF-blocking therapies and to identify factors related to the progression of joint damage.

METHODS

Changes in clinical variables and radiological findings in 243 weight-bearing joints (63 hips, 54 knees, 71 ankles, and 55 subtalar joints) in 38 consecutive patients were investigated during three years of treatment with TNF-blocking agents. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for the progression of weight-bearing joint damage.

RESULTS

Seventeen (14.5%) of proximal weight-bearing joints (hips and knees) showed apparent radiographic progression during three years of treatment, whereas none of the proximal weight-bearing joints showed radiographic evidence of improvement or repair. In contrast, distal weight-bearing joints (ankle and subtalar joints) displayed radiographic progression and improvement in 20 (15.9%) and 8 (6.3%) joints, respectively. Multivariate logistic analysis for proximal weight-bearing joints identified the baseline Larsen grade (p < 0.001, OR:24.85, 95%CI: 5.07-121.79) and disease activity at one year after treatment (p = 0.003, OR:3.34, 95%CI:1.50-7.46) as independent factors associated with the progression of joint damage. On the other hand, multivariate analysis for distal weight-bearing joints identified disease activity at one year after treatment (p < 0.001, OR:2.13, 95%CI:1.43-3.18) as an independent factor related to the progression of damage.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline Larsen grade was strongly associated with the progression of damage in the proximal weight-bearing joints. Disease activity after treatment was an independent factor for progression of damage in proximal and distal weight-bearing joints. Early treatment with TNF-blocking agents and tight control of disease activity are necessary to prevent the progression of damage of the weight-bearing joints.

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.

Induction maintenance with tumour necrosis factor-inhibitor combination therapy with discontinuation versus methotrexate monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy in randomised controlled trials

Objective

To determine whether an induction-maintenance strategy of combined therapy (methotrexate (MTX)+tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor (TNFi)) followed by withdrawal of TNFi could yield better long-term results than a strategy with MTX monotherapy, since it is unclear if the benefits from an induction phase with combined therapy are sustained if TNFi is withdrawn.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of trials using the initial combination of MTX+TNFi in conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A systematic literature search was performed for induction-maintenance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where initial combination therapy was compared with MTX monotherapy in patients with clinically active early RA. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA; Disease Activity Score (DAS)28<3.2) and/or remission (DAS28<2.6) at 12–76 weeks of follow-up. A random-effects model was used to pool the risk ratio (RR) for LDA and remission and heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analyses.

Results

We identified 6 published RCTs, 4 of them where MTX+adalimumab was given as initial therapy and where adalimumab was withdrawn in a subset of patients after LDA/remission had been achieved. 2 additional trials used MTX+infliximab as combination therapy. The pooled RRs for achieving LDA and clinical remission at follow-up after withdrawal of TNFi were 1.41 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.89) and 1.34 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.89), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between trials due to different treatment strategies, which was a limitation to this study.

Conclusions

Initial therapy with MTX+TNFi is associated with a higher chance of retaining LDA and/or remission even after discontinuation of TNFi.

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.