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

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess real-world comparative effectiveness studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through a systematic review.

METHODS

We searched Medline for journal articles (2001-2021) and Embase® for abstracts presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 and 2021 annual meetings on non-randomized studies comparing the effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs using ACR-recommended disease activity measures, measures of functional status, and patient-reported outcomes (HAQ, PROMIS PF, patient pain, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of disease activity). Methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool.

RESULTS

Of 1283 records screened, 68 were selected for data extraction, of which 1 was excluded due to critical risk of bias. Most studies were multicenter observational cohort/registry studies (n = 60) and were published between 2011 and 2021 (n = 60). Mean or median reported RA duration was between 6 and 15 years. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (46 studies), Clinical Disease Activity Index (37 studies), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (32 studies) were the most common outcomes used in clinical practice, with regional differences identified. The most common comparison was between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFi bDMARDs (35 studies). There were no evident differences between b/tsDMARDs in clinical effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarizing real-world evidence from a very large number of global studies found there are many effective options for the treatment of RA, but relatively less evidence to support the use of any one b/tsDMARD or drug class over another. Treatment for patients with RA should be tailored to suit individual clinical profiles. Further research is needed to identify whether specific patient subgroups may benefit from specific drug classes.

Causes of the Failure of Biological Therapy at a Tertiary Center: A Cross-Sectional Retrospective Study

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most commonly encountered autoimmune diseases. Treatment generally includes disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and/or biological therapy. However, a significant proportion of the patients do not respond to treatment either as a (primary failure) or lose efficacy over time (secondary failure). Several factors are assumed to influence these conditions.

Objectives

To estimate the prevalence of failure of biological therapy in patients with RA and its causes.

Methods

A total of 335 RA patients who were diagnosed at a tertiary center in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and had a failure after receiving biological therapy were included in this study. Several variables were considered; patient’s socio-demographic data, comorbid conditions, types of biological therapy, the duration of using biological therapy in months, number of biological therapies, allergic reactions, disease activity, and treatment duration.

Results

Overall the prevalence of failure to biological therapy was 58%; 77% primary failure and 23% secondary failure. Patients with negative rheumatoid factor (RF) (p=0.006), using low-dose steroids, and with a longer disease duration had a significant failure of biological therapy (p=0.023).

Conclusion

A high percentage of RA patients had a failure of biological therapy. A multicentric trial is recommended to look for additional factors.

Real-Life Retention Rates and Reasons for Switching of Biological DMARDs in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Ankylosing Spondylitis

Aims: To determine real-life biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) retention rates in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS), explore reasons for switching and to compare results to previously published data.

Methods: Time-to-event analysis for mean treatment duration (estimated as the Restricted Mean Survival Time), b/tsDMARD failure, and b/tsDMARDs switching was performed for 230 patients (n = 147 RA, 46 PsA, 37 AS) who commenced their first b/tsDMARD between 2008 and 2018. Patients were managed in a dedicated “biologics” clinic in a tertiary hospital; the choice of b/tsDMARD was clinician driven based on medical factors and patient preferences. The effect of covariates on switching risk was analysed by a conditional risk-set Cox proportional-hazards model. Treatment retention data was compared to a historical analysis (2002–2008).

Results: The proportions remaining on treatment (retention) were similar, throughout follow-up, for the first, second and third b/tsDMARDs across all patients (p = 0.46). When compared to RA patients, the risk of b/tsDMARD failure was halved in PsA patients [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.50], but no different in AS patients (HR = 1.0). The respective restricted mean (95%CI) treatment durations, estimated at 5 years of follow-up, were 3.1 (2.9, 3.4), 4.1 (3.7, 4.6), and 3.3 (2.8, 3.9) years, for RA, PsA, and AS, respectively. Age, gender, disease duration, smoking status and the use of concomitant csDMARDS were not associated with the risk of bDMARD failure. The most common reasons for switching in the first and subsequent years were secondary (n = 62) and primary (n = 35) failure. Comparison with historical data indicated no substantive differences in switching of the first biologic for RA and PsA.

Conclusion: Similar retention rates of the second and third compared to the first b/tsDMARD in RA, PsA, and AS support a strategy of differential b/tsDMARDs use informed by patient presentation. Despite greater availability of b/tsDMARDs with differing mechanisms of action, retention rates of the first b/tsDMARD remain similar to previous years.

EULAR points to consider for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtCs) for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA).

METHODS

An EULAR Task Force was established comprising 34 individuals: 26 rheumatologists, patient partners and rheumatology experienced health professionals. Two systematic literature reviews addressed clinical questions around diagnostic challenges, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in D2T RA. PtCs were formulated based on the identified evidence and expert opinion. Strength of recommendations (SoR, scale A-D: A typically consistent level 1 studies and D level 5 evidence or inconsistent studies) and level of agreement (LoA, scale 0-10: 0 completely disagree and 10 completely agree) of the PtCs were determined by the Task Force members.

RESULTS

Two overarching principles and 11 PtCs were defined concerning diagnostic confirmation of RA, evaluation of inflammatory disease activity, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, treatment adherence, functional disability, pain, fatigue, goal setting and self-efficacy and the impact of comorbidities. The SoR varied from level C to level D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and PtCs was generally high (8.4-9.6).

CONCLUSIONS

These PtCs for D2T RA can serve as a clinical roadmap to support healthcare professionals and patients to deliver holistic management and more personalised pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies. High-quality evidence was scarce. A research agenda was created to guide future research.

Association of first, second, and third-line bDMARDs and tsDMARD with drug survival among seropositive rheumatoid arthritis patients: Cohort study in A real world setting

OBJECTIVES

To determine the association of first, second, and third-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and tofacitinib with drug survival among seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

The study population was composed of 8,018 seropositive RA patients who were prescribed bDMARDs or tofacitinib between January 2014 and January 2019 from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. First, second, and third-line choice of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) including etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab, as well as non-TNFi including tocilizumab, rituximab, tofacitinib, and abatacept were assessed. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for drug failure according to bDMARD or tofacitinib choice starting from the initial prescription date.

RESULTS

Compared to first etanercept users, patients with first tocilizumab (aHR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.68), tofacitinib (aHR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.42), or abatacept (aHR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69-0.99) had lower risk of drug failure. Second choice of tocilizumab (aHR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.55), tofacitinib (aHR 0.23, 95% CI 0.15-0.37), or abatacept (aHR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.84) was associated with lower drug failure risk compared to second etanercept users. Finally, third choice of tocilizumab (aHR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.62) or tofacitinib (aHR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.63) was associated with lower drug failure risk compared to third TNFi users.

CONCLUSION

First and second-line tocilizumab, tofacitinib, or abatacept may lead to improved drug survival. Third-line use of tocilizumab or tofacitinib may be beneficiary in reducing drug failure risk among seropositive RA patients.

Cycling of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors versus switching to different mechanism of action therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Introduction:

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), main options include cycling onto a different TNFi or switching to a biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug with a different mechanism of action (MOA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed comparative clinical efficacy of cycling versus switching.

Methods:

We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Outcomes included proportion of patients with 20%, 50%, or 70% response to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 response), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) score below 2.6 or between 2.6 and 3.2, mean change in DAS28 score, mean reduction in and proportion of patients achieving a clinically meaningful reduction (⩾0.22) in Health Assessment Questionnaire score, number of serious adverse events (AEs), and withdrawals for any reason/due to AEs/lack of treatment efficacy. To account for the wide range of study populations and designs, we developed three models to conduct the NMA: fixed-effect, random-effects, and hierarchical Bayesian. PROSPERO ID: CRD42019122993.

Results:

We identified nine randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies. The fixed-effect model suggested a 0.99 probability that switch was the better strategy for increasing odds of a clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 [odds ratio (OR): 1.35 (95% credible interval (CI): 0.96–1.81)]. The fixed-effect model also suggested that switch was associated with lower rates of withdrawal for any reasons [OR: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40–0.68)]. The random-effects and hierarchical Bayesian models suggested additional uncertainty as they considered more variability than the fixed-effect model.

Discussion:

Results suggest that switching to a drug with a different MOA is more effective and associated with lower rates of withdrawal than cycling to a different TNFi after failure of first-line TNFi. Further trials that directly compare cycling with switching are warranted to better assess comparative efficacy.

Plain language summary

Assessment of the effectiveness of different drug treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of the published literature

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To summarise, by a systematic literature review (SLR), the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA), informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of D2T RA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.

RESULTS

Two hundred seven (207) papers studied therapeutic strategies. Limited evidence was found on effective and safe disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with comorbidities and other contraindications that limit DMARD options (patients with obesity, hepatitis B and C, risk of venous thromboembolisms, pregnancy and lactation). In patients who previously failed biological (b-)DMARDs, all currently used b/targeted synthetic (ts-)DMARDs were found to be more effective than placebo. In patients who previously failed a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), there was a tendency of non-TNFi bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFis. Generally, effectiveness decreased in patients who previously failed a higher number of bDMARDs. Additionally, exercise, psychological, educational and self-management interventions were found to improve non-inflammatory complaints (mainly functional disability, pain, fatigue), education to improve goal setting, and self-management programmes, educational and psychological interventions to improve self-management.The identified evidence had several limitations: (1) no studies were found in patients with D2T RA specifically, (2) heterogeneous outcome criteria were used and (3) most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR underscores the scarcity of high-quality evidence on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of patients with D2T RA. Effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs decreased in RA patients who had failed a higher number of bDMARDs and a subsequent b/tsDMARD of a previously not targeted mechanism of action was somewhat more effective. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found for improvement of non-inflammatory complaints, goal setting and self-management.

Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Prescription Patterns Among Rheumatologists in Europe and Japan

INTRODUCTION

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are commonly used as first-line therapy (biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [bDMARD] and targeted synthetic DMARD [tsDMARD]: defined as targeted therapy) for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), usually combined with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) but sometimes as monotherapy. If treatment fails, patients cycle to another TNFi (cycling) or switch to a targeted therapy with a different mode of action (MOA; switching). The study aimed to examine prescribing patterns and reasons for current RA treatment practice in Europe (EU5: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and Japan.

METHODS

Data were collected from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP; Q1-Q2 2017). Rheumatologists seeing ≥ 10 (EU5) and ≥ 5 (Japan) patients with RA a month completed Patient Record Forms. Patients ≥ 18 years old, with RA diagnosis and complete RA-targeted therapy history were included. Patients were grouped based on first-line targeted therapy class, and on whether first-line targeted therapy was monotherapy (targeted therapy alone) or combination therapy (targeted therapy and csDMARD). Those patients receiving TNFi at first-line and with ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as TNFi cyclers or MOA switchers. Univariate analysis compared factors across groups. Patient demographics and characteristics compared across groups; physician reasoning for targeted therapy change; and time to discontinuation of targeted therapy.

RESULTS

In EU5 and Japan, respectively, 1741 and 147 patients were included; at first-line, 80.8% and 64.6% received TNFi and 76.0% and 77.6% received combination therapy. Overall in EU5, more combination therapy than monotherapy patients reached maximum csDMARD dose before first-line targeted therapy (P < 0.05); disease severity was higher in patients initiating TNFi versus non-TNFi (P < 0.05). In Japan, trends were similar but not significant. The most common reason physicians gave for changing therapy following first-line targeted therapy was 'secondary lack of efficacy' (EU5: 46.2%; Japan: 53.8%). In EU5 and Japan, respectively, of 365 and 22 patients who received second-line targeted therapy, 52.1% and 54.5% were MOA switchers. In EU5, TNFi cyclers had longer time from diagnosis to second-line targeted therapy initiation than MOA switchers (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

TNFis were the most commonly prescribed targeted therapy at first-line. Between 10 and 20% of patients prescribed a TNFi as first-line targeted therapy did so without concomitant csDMARD. Almost half of patients cycled to another TNFi at second-line.

Frequency of biologic switching and the outcomes of switching in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a national cohort study

BACKGROUND

Information is scarce about biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) switching patterns in children and young people (aged ≤16 years) with juvenile idiopathic arthritis in an era of many biologic therapies. The best choice of biologic to use if the first biological DMARD is not beneficial also remains unclear. We aimed to quantify and characterise biologic switching patterns in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and to compare the effectiveness of using a second tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus non-TNF is following failure of a first TNFi biologic in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Our study population comprised patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis who were enrolled in two parallel UK cohort studies (the British Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology Etanercept Cohort Study [BSPAR-ETN] and the Biologics for Children with Rheumatic Diseases [BCRD] study) between Jan 1, 2004, and April 11, 2019. Data on disease characteristics and DMARD therapy were collected at the time of initiation of a first biologic, at 6 months, at 1 year, and annually thereafter. Biologic switching patterns were described in all patients who started their first biologic from Jan 1, 2010, onwards. Among patients who started treatment with their first biologic from Jan 1, 2004, onwards, had polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (extended oligoarthritis or polyarthritis [positive or negative for rheumatoid factor]), and who had started a second biologic, we assessed changes in outcome variables at 6 months compared with baseline and compared the proportion of patients who achieved an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACR Pedi) 90 response and minimal disease activity at 6 months on the basis of the class of the second biologic (a second TNFi vs non-TNFi biologic). Changes in outcome variables at 6 months were compared using linear regression or logistic regression, adjusted for propensity quintiles to account for confounding by indication. We used multiple imputation to account for missing data.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 1, 2004, and April 11, 2019, 2361 patients were enrolled on initiation of biologic therapy. From Jan 1, 2010, onwards, 1152 patients started their first biologic, most of whom started treatment with TNFis (1050 [91%]). The median follow-up was 2·2 years (IQR 1·1-3·8). During this time, 270 (23%) of 1152 patients started a second biologic, 61 (5%) started a third biologic, and 11 (1%) started a fourth biologic. Among 240 patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis, 194 (81%) started a second TNFi and 46 (19%) started a non-TNFi after an initial TNFi had failed. Choice of second treatment (second TNFi vs non-TNFi biologic) did not affect the proportion of patients who achieved an ACR Pedi 90 response (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·5, 95% CI 0·8-7·9; p=0·11) or minimal disease activity (adjusted OR 1·6, 95% CI 0·6-3·8; p=0·33).

INTERPRETATION

For many children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, treatment with a first or second biologic is not beneficial. We found no evidence that switching to a second non-TNFi biologic was more beneficial than a second TNFi.

FUNDING

Versus Arthritis and The British Society for Rheumatology.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sarilumab Added to Methotrexate in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Despite a substantial number of treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response or intolerance (TNF-IR), a lack of clarity on the optimal approach remains. Sarilumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-6 receptor alpha antibody, can be used as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or other conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in TNF-IR patients.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a cost-utility analysis from a U.S. health care system perspective for sarilumab subcutaneous 200 mg + methotrexate versus abatacept + methotrexate or a bundle of TNFi + methotrexate for treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active RA and TNF-IR.

METHODS

Analysis was conducted via individual patient simulation based on patient profiles from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578); a 6-month decision tree was followed by lifetime semi-Markov model with 6-month cycles. Treatment response at 6 months, informed by network meta-analysis, was based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria; patients achieving ≥ ACR20 continued with current therapy, and other patients moved to the next line of biologic DMARD therapy or conventional synthetic DMARD palliative treatment. Direct costs included wholesale acquisition drug costs and administration and routine care costs. Routine care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by predicting the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score based on treatment response and were imputed from published equations.

RESULTS

Sarilumab + methotrexate dominated the TNFi bundle + methotrexate, achieving lower costs ($319,324 vs. $356,096) and greater effectiveness (4.27 vs. 4.15 QALYs), and was on the cost-efficiency frontier with abatacept + methotrexate ($360,211 and 4.29 QALYs). Abatacept + methotrexate was not cost-effective versus sarilumab + methotrexate. Scenario analyses indicated the results were robust; sarilumab + methotrexate became dominant against abatacept + methotrexate after reduced model horizon, minimum response based on ACR50 or ACR70, or time to discontinuation per treatment class. Sarilumab + methotrexate was also dominant versus the TNFi bundle; when class-specific time to treatment discontinuation was specified, sarilumab remained cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,894.

CONCLUSIONS

Sarilumab + methotrexate can be considered an economically dominant (more effective, less costly) option versus a second TNFi + methotrexate; compared with abatacept + methotrexate, it is a less costly but less effective option for patients with moderately to severely active RA who have previously failed TNFi.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Kiss and Gal are employees of Evidera, which received consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for conducting this study. Muszbek was employed by Evidera at the time of this study. Kuznik and Chen are current employees of and stockholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Fournier is an employee of and stockholder in Sanofi. Proudfoot is a former employee of and current stockholder in Sanofi and current employee and stockholder in ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline. Michaud has received grant funding from Pfizer and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The sponsors were involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as data checking of information provided in the manuscript. The authors had unrestricted access to study data, were responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Defining response to TNF-inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: the negative impact of anti-TNF cycling and the need for a personalized medicine approach to identify primary non-responders

Current guidelines recommend treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients to reach low disease activity or remission, however, most biologic-naive RA patients fail to reach treatment targets on their first biologic therapy. Approximately 90% of biologic-naive RA patients receive a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (anti-TNF) as their first biologic treatment, even though several alternative mechanism of action (MOA) therapies are approved as first-line options. After 3 months of therapy, patients may remain on anti-TNF therapy even if they fail to achieve the treatment target, mainly due to formulary structures. This means patients have to endure a second and even a third ineffective anti-TNF-called anti-TNF cycling-before changing MOA. This significantly delays patients from reaching their treatment targets. All anti-TNF drugs target the same molecular and inflammatory pathways; thus, it is not surprising that most patients who are primary non-responders to their initial anti-TNF therapy fail to achieve their treatment targets when cycled through alternative anti-TNFs. This suggests that primary non-responders should be switched to an alternative MOA therapy rather than enduring anti-TNF cycling. Avoiding anti-TNF cycling would prevent disease progression and improve quality of life for RA patients who are primary non-responders to anti-TNFs. The development of a personalized medicine approach to identify primary non-responders to anti-TNFs prior to treatment would allow significantly more patients to reach their treatment target by treating them with alternative MOA therapies as first-line therapies.

A comprehensive review of rituximab therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Rituximab (RTX) is an approved treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients that do not respond adequately to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. However, different new concerns, such as efficacy, optimum dose, safety issues, prediction of response to RTX, and pregnancy outcomes have attracted a lot of attention. The PubMed database was systematically reviewed for the last published articles, new findings, and controversial issues regarding RTX therapy in RA using "Rheumatoid arthritis" AND "rituximab" keywords, last updated on June 18, 2019. From 1812 initial recorders, 162 studies met the criteria. Regarding the optimum dose, low-dose RTX therapy (2 × 500 mg) seems as effective as standard dose (2 × 1000 mg), safer, and more cost-effective. The most common reported safety challenges included de novo infections, false negative serologic tests of viral infections, reactivation of chronic infections, interfering with vaccination outcome, and development of de novo psoriasis. Other less reported side effects are infusion reactions, nervous system disorders, and gastrointestinal disorders. Lower exposure to other biologics, presence of some serological markers (e.g., anti-RF, anti-CCP, IL-33, ESR), specific variations in FCGR3A, FCGR2A, TGFβ1, IL6, IRF5, BAFF genes, and also EBV-positivity could be used to predict response to RTX. Although there is no evidence of the teratogenic effect of RTX, it is recommended that women do not expose themselves to RTX at least 6 months before the conception. Only a reversible reduction of B cell-count in the offspring may be the pregnancy-related outcome. Although RTX is an effective therapeutic option for RA, more studies on optimum doses, prevention of RTX-related side effects, prediction of RTX response, and safety during the pregnancy are required.

Abatacept induced granulomatous hepatitis with a sarcoidosis- like reaction: a blinded trial in mice

BACKGROUND

Abatacept is increasingly used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiophathic arthritis (JIA) treatment. However little is known about the risk of hepatotoxicity. The aim of this study was to determine whether the inhibition of the T cell CD28 receptor by abatacept results in acute hepatitis in BALB/c mice.

METHODS

Twenty BALB/c mice were studied. Ten mice received subcutaneous (SC) injection of abatacept (0.25mg per 25g body weight per 0.03 ml normal saline) at 0, 2, 4 and 8 weeks. For the control group, 10 mice received a SC injection of normal saline (NS) (0.03 ml). At the 10th week post injection, the mice were sacrificed, and histopathological studies were conducted.

RESULTS

Of the abatacept-treated group, 3/10 mice died. Liver histology for the abatacept-treated group showed that 6/7 displayed histopathological changes in the lobular cellular infiltrates of eosinophils, lymphocytes and histiocytes, in addition to granuloma formation. In contrast, only minimal inflammation was observed in 3/10 mice in the control group (p=0.036).

CONCLUSION

Abatacept may play a role in inducing granulomatous hepatitis with a sarcoidosis-like reaction. Additional data including transaminases, antinuclear antibodies (ANA), Antimitochondrial antibodies (AMA) and other auto antibodies should be tested.

Alternative tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or abatacept or rituximab following failure of initial TNFi in rheumatoid arthritis: the SWITCH RCT

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the most common autoimmune disease in the UK, is a chronic systemic inflammatory arthritis that affects 0.8% of the UK population.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not an alternative class of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are comparable to rituximab in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with RA in whom initial tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD and methotrexate (MTX) therapy failed because of inefficacy.

DESIGN

Multicentre, Phase III, open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative TNFi and abatacept with that of rituximab (and background MTX therapy). Eligible consenting patients were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio using minimisation incorporating a random element. Minimisation factors were centre, disease duration, non-response category and seropositive/seronegative status.

SETTING

UK outpatient rheumatology departments.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with RA and were receiving MTX, but had not responded to two or more conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapies and had shown an inadequate treatment response to a first TNFi.

INTERVENTIONS

Alternative TNFi, abatacept or rituximab (and continued background MTX).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was absolute reduction in the Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS28) at 24 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures over 48 weeks were additional measures of disease activity, quality of life, cost-effectiveness, radiographic measures, safety and toxicity.

LIMITATIONS

Owing to third-party contractual issues, commissioning challenges delaying centre set-up and thus slower than expected recruitment, the funders terminated the trial early.

RESULTS

Between July 2012 and December 2014, 149 patients in 35 centres were registered, of whom 122 were randomised to treatment (alternative TNFi, n = 41; abatacept, n = 41; rituximab, n = 40). The numbers, as specified, were analysed in each group [in line with the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle]. Comparing alternative TNFi with rituximab, the difference in mean reduction in DAS28 at 24 weeks post randomisation was 0.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 1.05] in the ITT patient population and -0.58 (95% CI -1.72 to 0.55) in the per protocol (PP) population. Corresponding results for the abatacept and rituximab comparison were 0.04 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.79) in the ITT population and -0.15 (95% CI -1.27 to 0.98) in the PP population. General improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life and the patients' general health was apparent over time, with no notable differences between treatment groups. There was a marked initial improvement in the patients' global assessment of pain and arthritis at 12 weeks across all three treatment groups. Switching to alternative TNFi may be cost-effective compared with rituximab [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £5332.02 per quality-adjusted life-year gained]; however, switching to abatacept compared with switching to alternative TNFi is unlikely to be cost-effective (ICER £253,967.96), but there was substantial uncertainty in the decisions. The value of information analysis indicated that further research would be highly valuable to the NHS. Ten serious adverse events in nine patients were reported; none were suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions. Two patients died and 10 experienced toxicity.

FUTURE WORK

The results will add to the randomised evidence base and could be included in future meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

How to manage first-line TNFi treatment failures remains unresolved. Had the trial recruited to target, more credible evidence on whether or not either of the interventions were non-inferior to rituximab may have been provided, although this remains speculative.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89222125 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295151.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Comparative effectiveness of abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab and TNFi biologics in RA: results from the nationwide Swedish register

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines rank abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab and TNF-inhibitors (TNFi) as having equal effectiveness for the treatment of RA, at least as second line therapies. These recommendations are mainly based on meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, with few direct drug-drug comparisons. Our objective was to compare the real-world absolute and relative effectiveness among RA patients starting any of the available biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs).

METHODS

We used the Swedish Rheumatology Register to identify patients with RA initiating TNFi, rituximab, abatacept or tocilizumab in 2010-2016 as first bDMARD (n = 9333), or after switch from TNFi as first bDMARD (n = 3941). National Swedish registers provided additional covariates and censoring events. Effectiveness was assessed 3 and 12 months after treatment start, as the proportion remaining on therapy and with EULAR Good Response, HAQ improvement >0.2, zero swollen/tender joints and CDAI remission. Adjusted differences were estimated with multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

Patients starting non-TNFi (vs TNFi) as first bDMARD had a higher proportion remaining on drug and reaching most response outcomes as first bDMARD (1-year EULAR Good Response/HAQ improvement: TNFi 24.9/25.4%, rituximab 28.6/37.2%, abatacept 31.9/33.7%, tocilizumab 50.9/43.1%). After switch from a first TNFi, rituximab and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, were associated with significantly better response measures than TNFi (1-year EULAR Good Response/HAQ improvement: TNFi 11.6/16.1%, rituximab 24.8/33.2%, abatacept 13.1/17.5%, tocilizumab 34.1/29.4%). Differences remained significant after adjusting for potential confounders.

CONCLUSION

Treatment outcomes among RA patients treated in Swedish clinical practice are in line with a superior effectiveness of non-TNFi bDMARDs, in particular tocilizumab and rituximab, compared with TNFi.

TNF Inhibitor-Induced Psoriasis: Proposed Algorithm for Treatment and Management

Tumor necrosis factor a (TNF-α)-targeted therapies have expanded the therapeutic options for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and have significantly improved patients' quality of life. Paradoxically, anti-TNF-α agents may induce psoriatic eruptions or worsen preexisting psoriatic skin disease. Currently, there is no standard approach for the management of TNF inhibitor-induced psoriasis. Here, we conduct a literature review on TNF inhibitor-induced psoriasis and introduce a novel treatment algorithm for maintaining otherwise effective anti-TNF therapy versus switching to a different class as appropriate in the management of patients with IBD, RA, psoriasis, or PsA.

FCGR2A/FCGR3A Gene Polymorphisms and Clinical Variables as Predictors of Response to Tocilizumab and Rituximab in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

We evaluated the influence of clinical, biochemical, and genetic factors on response in 142 patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, of whom 87 patients were treated with tocilizumab (61.26%) and 55 patients were treated with rituximab (38.7%;) according to the variables European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, remission, low disease activity, and improvement in Disease Activity Score, 28 joints (DAS28) at 6, 12, and 18 months. A retrospective prospective cohort study was conducted. Patients carrying the FCGR3A rs396991-TT genotype treated with tocilizumab showed higher EULAR response (OR, 5.075; 95%CI, 1.20-21.33; P = .027) at 12 months, those who were naive for biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) at the beginning of treatment showed satisfactory EULAR response, higher remission, and greater improvement in DAS28 at 6 months. Younger age at start of tocilizumab treatment was associated with satisfactory EULAR response at 18 months and greater remission at 6 and 18 months. Subcutaneous tocilizumab administration was associated with higher remission at 6 months and improved low disease activity rate at 12 months. In patients treated with rituximab, carriers of the FCGR2A rs1801274-TT genotype had higher EULAR response at 6 months (OR, 4.861; 95%CI, 1.11-21.12; P = .035), 12 months (OR, 4.667; p = 0.066, 95%CI, 0.90-24.12; P = .066), and 18 months (OR, 2.487; 95%CI, 0.35-17.31; P = .357), higher remission (OR: 10.625; p = 0.044, CI_95% : 1.07, 105.47) at 6 months, and greater improvement in DAS28 at 12 months (B = 0.782; 95%CI, -0.15 to 1.71; P = .098) and 18 months (B = 1.414; 95%CI, 0.19-2.63; P = .025). The FCGR3A rs396991-G allele was associated with improved low disease activity rate (OR, 4.904; 95%CI, 0.84-28.48; P = .077) and greater improvement in DAS28 (B = -1.083; 95%CI, -1.98 to -0.18; P = .021) at 18 months. Patients with a lower number of previous biological therapies had higher remission at 12 months. We suggest that the FCGR3A rs396991-TT genotype, higher baseline value of DAS28, subcutaneous tocilizumab administration, younger age at the beginning of treatment, and being bDMARD naive are associated with better response to tocilizumab. In patients treated with rituximab, we found better response in those patients with the FCGR2A rs1801274-TT genotype, the FCGR3A rs396991-G allele, and lower number of previous biological therapies.

Long-term persistence with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

To investigate the long term persistence of rituximab (RTX) in a large observational RA cohort, investigate persistence of RTX when used as a first or second line biologic DMARD (bDMARD), to characterize subsequent bDMARD treatment following RTX.

Methods

Patients with RA starting treatment with RTX (MabThera) between 2008 and 2011 were recruited into the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for RA. Duration of RTX treatment over the first 4 years after initiation was estimated via Kaplan-Meier estimates and the reason for discontinuation was ascertained. Subsequent bDMARD use following RTX discontinuation was characterised. Treatment survival in bDMARD-naïve (first line RTX use) and experienced (second line RTX use) cohorts was described.

Results

One thousand six hundred and twenty-nine patients were recruited (1371 bDMARD-experienced and 258 bDMARD-naïve). Sixty percent of the whole cohort remained on RTX after 4 years. Ineffectiveness (46%) and death (24%) were the most common reason for RTX discontinuation. RTX discontinuation was associated with RF negativity for the bDMARD-experienced cohort. Of those that discontinued RTX, 46% initiated treatment with another bDMARD, with tocilizumab being the most common.

Conclusion

This large study of patients initiating RTX treatment for severe RA found that 60% persisted with treatment after 4 years. This study also identified that RTX is tolerated well when used as a first or second line bDMARD.

Biologic refractory disease in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objectives

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have revolutionised treatment and outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The expanding repertoire allows the option of switching bDMARD if current treatment is not effective. For some patients, even after switching, disease control remains elusive. This analysis aims to quantify the frequency of, and identify factors associated with, bDMARD refractory disease.

Methods

Patients with RA starting first-line tumour necrosis factor inhibitor in the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for RA from 2001 to 2014 were included. We defined patients as bDMARD refractory on the date they started their third class of bDMARD. Follow-up was censored at last follow-up date, 30 November 2016, or death, whichever came first. Switching patterns and stop reasons of bDMARDs were investigated. Cox regression identified baseline clinical factors associated with refractory disease. Multiple imputation of missing baseline data was used.

Results

867 of 13 502 (6%) patients were bDMARD refractory; median time to third bDMARD class of 8 years. In the multivariable analysis, baseline factors associated with bDMARD refractory disease included patients registered more recently, women, younger age, shorter disease duration, higher patient global assessment, higher Health Assessment Questionnaire score, current smokers, obesity and greater social deprivation.

Conclusions

This first national study has identified the frequency of bDMARD refractory disease to be at least 6% of patients who have ever received bDMARDs. As the choice of bDMARDs increases, patients are cycling through bDMARDs quicker. The aetiopathogenesis of bDMARD refractory disease requires further investigation. Focusing resources, such as nursing support, on these patients may help them achieve more stable, controlled disease.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After a Change in Targeted Therapy

BACKGROUND

Targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or alternative mechanisms of action (MOAs), such as a T-cell co-stimulation modulator (abatacept), Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib), or interleukin-6 inhibitor (tocilizumab).

OBJECTIVE

To examine treatment persistence and healthcare costs in patients with RA who changed therapy by cycling therapy (ie, switching within the same drug class), or switching between, the TNF inhibitors and alternative MOA medication classes.

METHODS

We analyzed medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured patients who cycled or switched between targeted DMARD agents between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2014 (ie, the index date), to determine treatment patterns (ie, treatment switching, discontinuation, restarting after a gap ≥60 days, or persistence) and costs (plan- and patient-paid) for 1 year postindex. The cost per persistent patient was the total healthcare cost divided by the number of treatment-persistent patients.

RESULTS

The analysis included 6203 patients who cycled between TNF inhibitors, 2640 patients who switched from TNF inhibitors to alternative MOA agents, 699 patients who cycled between alternative MOA agents, and 687 patients who switched from alternative MOA agents to TNF inhibitors. The 1-year treatment persistence rates (with P values vs TNF inhibitor cyclers) were 45.2% for TNF inhibitor cyclers, 50.3% for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (P <.001), 51.4% for alternative MOA agent cyclers (P = .002), and 46.1% for alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor switchers (P = .63). Compared with TNF inhibitor cyclers, the cost per persistent patient was lower for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (-$16,853 RA-related; -$19,280 targeted DMARDs), alternative MOA agent cyclers (-$21,662 RA-related; -$25,153 targeted DMARDs), and alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor cyclers (-$7206 RA-related; -$7919 targeted DMARDs).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with RA, patients who switched from a TNF inhibitor to an alternative MOA agent and those who cycled between alternative MOA agents had significantly higher treatment persistence rates and a substantially lower cost per persistent patient than those who cycled between TNF inhibitors. These findings support the evaluation of switching medication classes for patients with RA when a targeted therapy fails.

Precision Medicine in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has substantially improved in recent years because of the development of novel drugs. However, response is not universal for any of the treatment options, and selection of an effective therapy is currently based on a trial-and-error approach. Delayed treatment response increases the risk of progressive joint damage and resultant disability and also has a significant impact on quality of life for patients. For many drugs, the patient's genetic background influences response to therapy, and understanding the genetics of response to therapy in RA may allow for targeted personalized health care.

Long-term efficacy and safety of add-on tacrolimus for persistent, active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors

AIM

To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of adding tacrolimus for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy with methotrexate.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who were treated with adding tacrolimus onto anti-TNF therapy with methotrexate for active RA despite anti-TNF therapy with methotrexate, were retrospectively analyzed in terms of treatment response, achieving remission, subsequent treatment tapering and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients could be analyzed. Median symptom duration was 2.9 years and prior duration of anti-TNF therapy was 40 weeks. Median value of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints was 4.6. Five, eight and two were on infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab at the onset of tacrolimus, respectively. At 2 years, the proportions of patients achieving responses of American College of Rheumatology 50, 70 and 90, were 80%, 73% and 40%, respectively, and those achieving remission as defined by Simplified Disease Activity Index ≤ 3.3 were 67%. All patients could discontinue oral glucocorticoids and 10 had been successfully withdrawn from anti-TNF therapy for more than 1 year at the final observation.

CONCLUSION

Adding tacrolimus onto anti-TNF therapy is a promising therapeutic option with sustained benefit for refractory RA patients despite treatment with anti-TNF therapy combined with methotrexate.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Changing Biologics in the USA

Introduction

After a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fails tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, clinical guidelines support either cycling to another TNFi or switching to a different mechanism of action (MOA), but payers often require TNFi cycling before they reimburse switching MOA. This study examined treatment persistence, cost, and cost per persistent patient among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers.

Methods

This study of Commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data from the Optum Research Database included patients with RA and at least one claim for a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2012 and September 2015 who changed to another TNFi or a different MOA therapy (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) within 1 year. The index date was the date of the change in therapy. Treatment persistence was defined as no subsequent switch or 60-day gap in therapy for 1 year post-index. RA-related costs included plan-paid and patient-paid amounts for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Medication costs included index and post-index costs of TNFi and different MOA therapies.

Results

There were 581 (38.3%) MOA switchers and 935 (61.7%) TNFi cyclers. The treatment persistence rate was significantly higher for MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers (47.7% versus 40.2%, P = 0.004). Mean 1-year healthcare costs were significantly lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers for total RA-related costs ($37,804 versus $42,116; P < 0.001) and medication costs ($29,001 versus $34,917; P < 0.001). When costs were divided by treatment persistence, costs per persistent patient were lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers: $25,436 lower total RA-related cost and $25,999 lower medication costs.

Conclusion

MOA switching is associated with higher treatment persistence and lower healthcare costs than TNFi cycling. Reimbursement policies that require patients to cycle TNFi before switching MOA may result in suboptimal outcomes for both patients and payers.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Discontinuation of Biologic Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Analysis from the Corrona RA Registry

Introduction

Despite the availability of multiple effective therapies, discontinuation/switching of treatment is common for many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study was designed to examine initiation of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) within the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (Corrona) RA Registry, and characterize reasons for discontinuation.

Methods

Inclusion criteria were: Corrona-registered adults (≥18 years) with RA (2002–2011); age of RA onset: ≥16 years; ≥6 months’ follow-up after initiation of first/subsequent bDMARD. Patients receiving both tumor necrosis factor antagonists and non-TNF antagonists were included. Treatment discontinuation was defined as first report of stopping initial therapy or initiation of new bDMARD at/between visits, using a follow-up physician questionnaire.

Results

Overall, 6209 patients met inclusion criteria and 80.7% received TNF antagonists. Median time to discontinuation/change of therapy was 25.1 months (26.5 months with TNF antagonists vs. 20.5 months with non-TNF antagonists; log-rank p < 0.0001); 82.2, 67.3, and 51.1% of patients remained on therapy at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Reasons for discontinuation were captured for 49.2% of patients, including: loss of efficacy (35.8%); physician preference (27.8%); safety (20.1%); patient preference (17.9%); and no access to treatment (9.0%). Baseline factors with greatest correlation to discontinuation were modified Health Assessment Questionnaire scores, patient-reported anxiety/depression, initiation of bDMARD treatment in 2007–2010 versus 2002–2003, and Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

Conclusions

Almost one-third of patients in the US discontinue currently available bDMARD therapies for RA by 12 months and almost half by 24 months, most commonly due to loss of efficacy.

Funding

Corrona LLC and MedImmune.

Drug survival of second biological DMARD therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective non-interventional cohort analysis

Background

Since persistence to first biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) is far from ideal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, many do receive a second and/or third bDMARD treatment. However, little is known about treatment persistence of the second-line bDMARD and it is specifically unknown whether the mode of action of such a treatment is associated with different persistence rates. We aimed to assess discontinuation-, re-initiation- or continuation-rates of a 2nd bDMARD therapy as well as switching-rates to a third biological DMARD (3rd bDMARD) therapy in RA patients.

Method

Analysis was based on German claims data (2010–2013). Patients were included if they had received at least one prescription for an anti-TNF and at least one follow-up prescription of a 2nd bDMARD different from the first anti-TNF. Patient follow-up started on the date of the first prescription for the 2nd bDMARD and lasted for 12 months or until a patient’s death.

Results

2667 RA patients received at least one anti-TNF prescription. Of these, 451 patients received a second bDMARD (340 anti-TNF, mean age 52.6 years; 111 non-anti-TNF, mean age 55.9 years).

During the follow-up, 28.8% vs. 11.7% of the 2nd anti-TNF vs. non-anti-TNF patients (p < 0.001) switched to a 3rd bDMARD; 14.1% vs. 19.8% (p = 0.179) discontinued without re-start; 3.8% vs.1.8% (p = 0.387) re-started and 53.5 vs. 66.7% (p < 0.050) continued therapy. Patients in the non-anti-TNF group demonstrated longer drug survival (295 days) than patients in the anti-TNF group (264 days; p = 0.016).

Independent variables associated with earlier discontinuation (including re-start) or switch were prescription of an anti-TNF as 2nd bDMARD (HR = 1.512) and a higher comorbidity level (CCI, HR = 1.112), whereas previous painkiller medication (HR = 0.629) was associated with later discontinuation or switch.

Conclusions

Only 56.8% of RA patients continued 2nd bDMARD treatment after 12 months; 60% if re-start was included. Non-anti-TNF patients had a higher probability of continuing 2nd bDMARD therapy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1684-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Treatment Persistence and Clinical Outcomes of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Cycling or Switching to a New Mechanism of Action Therapy: Real-world Observational Study of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in the United States with Prior Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy

Introduction

To examine treatment persistence and clinical outcomes associated with switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to a medication with a new mechanism of action (MOA) (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) versus cycling to another TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

This retrospective, longitudinal study included patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the JointMan^® US clinical database who received a TNFi in April 2010 or later and either cycled to a TNFi or switched to a new MOA therapy by March 2015. Cox proportional hazards models were used for time to non-persistence (switching or discontinuing). An ordinary least squares regression model compared 1-year reduction from baseline for the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI).

Results

There were 332 (54.2%) TNFi cyclers and 281 (45.8%) new MOA switchers. During a median follow-up of 29.9 months, treatment persistence was 36.7% overall. Compared with new MOA switchers, TNFi cyclers were 51% more likely to be non-persistent (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.511; 95% CI 1.196, 1.908), driven by a higher likelihood of switching again (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.016; 95% CI 1.428, 2.847). Clinical outcomes were evaluable for 239 (53.3%) TNFi cyclers and 209 (46.7%) new MOA switchers. One-year mean reduction in CDAI from baseline to end of follow-up was significantly higher for new MOA switchers than TNFi cyclers (−7.54 vs. −4.81; P = 0.037), but the difference was not statistically significant after adjustment for baseline CDAI (−6.39 vs. −5.83; P = 0.607).

Conclusion

In this study, TNFi cycling was common in clinical practice, but switching to a new MOA DMARD was associated with significantly better treatment persistence and a trend toward greater CDAI reduction that was not significant after adjustment for baseline disease activity.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Biologics registers in RA: methodological aspects, current role and future applications

The beginning of the 21st century saw a biopharmaceutical revolution in the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, particularly rheumatoid arthritis. The fast-evolving use of biologic therapies highlighted the need to develop registers at national and international levels with the aim of collecting long-term data on patient outcomes. Over the past 15 years, many biologics registers have contributed a wealth of data and provided robust and reliable evidence on the use, effectiveness and safety of these therapies. The unavoidable challenges posed by the continuous introduction of new therapies, particularly with regard to understanding their long-term safety, highlights the importance of learning from experience with established biologic therapies. In this Perspectives article, the role of biologics registers in bridging the evidence gap between efficacy in clinical trials and real-world effectiveness is discussed, with a focus on methodological aspects of registers, their unique features and challenges and their role going forward.

Outcomes of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor cycling versus switching to a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug with a new mechanism of action among patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To examine treatment patterns, treatment effectiveness, and treatment costs for 1 year after patients with rheumatoid arthritis switched from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab), either cycling to another TNFi ("TNFi cyclers") or switching to a new mechanism of action (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) ("new MOA switchers").

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data for a national insurer. Treatment persistence (without switching again, restarting, or discontinuing), treatment effectiveness (defined below), and costs were assessed for the 12-month post-switch period. Patients were "effectively treated" if they satisfied all six criteria for a treatment effectiveness algorithm (high adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, no subsequent switch in therapy, no new/increased oral glucocorticoids, and <2 glucocorticoid injections). Multivariable logistic models were used to adjust for baseline factors.

RESULTS

The database included 581 new MOA switchers and 935 TNFi cyclers. New MOA switchers were 39% more likely than TNFi cyclers to persist after the switch (odds ratio [OR] = 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12-1.74; p = .003) and 36% less likely to switch therapy again (OR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.51-0.81; p < .001). New MOA switchers were 43% more likely than TNFi cyclers to be effectively treated (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.11-1.85; p = .006). New MOA switchers had 16% lower drug costs than TNFi cyclers (cost ratio = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.79-0.88; p < .001) and 11% lower total costs of rheumatoid arthritis-related medical care (cost ratio = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.84-0.94; p < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Claims payments may not reflect rebates or other cost offsets. Medical and pharmacy claims do not include clinical end-points or reasons that lead to new MOA switching vs TNFi cycling.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support switching to a new MOA after a patient fails treatment with a TNFi, which is consistent with recent guidelines for the pharmacologic management of established rheumatoid arthritis.

Second-line biologic therapy optimization in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE

The Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO) reviewed the most consistent literature to indicate the best strategy for the second-line biologic choice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature to identify English-language articles on efficacy of second-line biologic choice in RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data were extracted from available randomized, controlled trials, national biologic registries, national healthcare databases, post-marketing surveys, and open-label observational studies.

RESULTS

Some previously stated variables, including the patients׳ preference, the indication for anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monotherapy in potential childbearing women, and the intravenous route with dose titration in obese subjects resulted valid for all the three rheumatic conditions. In RA, golimumab as second-line biologic has the highest level of evidence in anti-TNF failure. The switching strategy is preferable for responder patients who experience an adverse event, whereas serious or class-specific side effects should be managed by the choice of a differently targeted drug. Secondary inadequate response to etanercept (ETN) should be treated with a biologic agent other than anti-TNF. After two or more anti-TNF failures, the swapping to a different mode of action is recommended. Among non-anti-TNF targeted biologics, to date rituximab (RTX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) have the strongest evidence of efficacy in the treatment of anti-TNF failures. In PsA and AS patients failing the first anti-TNF, the switch strategy to a second is advisable, taking in account the evidence of adalimumab efficacy in patients with uveitis. The severity of psoriasis, of articular involvement, and the predominance of enthesitis and/or dactylitis may drive the choice toward ustekinumab or secukinumab in PsA, and the latter in AS.

CONCLUSION

Taking in account the paucity of controlled trials, second-line biologic therapy may be reasonably optimized in patients with RA, SpA, and PsA.

Treatment effectiveness and treatment patterns among rheumatoid arthritis patients after switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to another medication

Objectives

After treatment failure with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can switch to another TNFi (TNFi cyclers) or to a targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) with a non-TNFi mechanism of action (non-TNFi switchers). This study compared treatment patterns and treatment effectiveness between TNFi cyclers and non-TNFi switchers in patients with RA.

Methods

The analysis included a cohort of patients from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial database with RA who switched from a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) either to another TNFi or to a non-TNFi targeted DMARD (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2014. A claims-based algorithm was used to estimate treatment effectiveness based on six criteria (adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional therapy, no switch to another targeted DMARD, no new/increased oral glucocorticoid, and intra-articular injections on <2 days).

Results

The cohort included 5,020 TNFi cyclers and 1,925 non-TNFi switchers. Non-TNFi switchers were significantly less likely than TNFi cyclers to switch therapy again within 6 months (13.2% vs 19.5%; P<0.001) or within 12 months (29.7% vs 34.6%; P<0.001) and significantly more likely to be persistent on therapy at 12 months (61.8% vs 58.2%; P<0.001). Non-TNFi switchers were significantly more likely than TNFi cyclers to achieve all six of the claims-based effectiveness algorithm criteria for the 12 months after the initial switch (27% vs 24%; P=0.011).

Conclusion

Although the absolute differences were small, these results support switching to a non-TNFi targeted DMARD instead of TNFi cycling when patients with RA require another therapy after TNFi failure.

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.

Independent Candidate Serum Protein Biomarkers of Response to Adalimumab and to Infliximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Exploratory Study

Response to treatment of rheumatoid arthritis shows large inter-individual variability. This heterogeneity is observed with all the anti-rheumatic drugs, including the commonly used TNF inhibitors. It seems that drug-specific and target-specific factors lead individual patients to respond or not to a given drug, although this point has been challenged. The search of biomarkers distinguishing responders from non-responders has included shotgun proteomics of serum, as a previous study of response to infliximab, an anti-TNF antibody. Here, we have used the same study design and technology to search biomarkers of response to a different anti-TNF antibody, adalimumab, and we have compared the results obtained for the two anti-TNF drugs. Search of biomarkers of response to adalimumab included depletion of the most abundant serum proteins, 8-plex isobaric tag for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) labeling, two-dimensional liquid chromatography fractionation and relative quantification with a hybrid Orbitrap mass spectrometer. With this approach, 264 proteins were identified in all the samples with at least 2 peptides and 95% confidence. Nine proteins showed differences between non-responders and responders (P < 0.05), representing putative biomarkers of response to adalimumab. These results were compared with the previous study of infliximab. Surprisingly, the non-responder/responder differences in the two studies were not correlated (rs = 0.07; P = 0.40). This overall independence with all the proteins showed two identifiable components. On one side, the putative biomarkers of response to either adalimumab or infliximab, which were not shared and showed an inverse correlation (rs = -0.69; P = 0.0023). On the other, eight proteins showing significant non-responder/responder differences in the analysis combining data of response to the two drugs. These results identify new putative biomarkers of response to treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and indicate that they are notably drug-specific.

Personalized biological treatment for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review with a focus on clinical applicability

OBJECTIVES

To review studies that address prediction of response to biologic treatment in RA and to explore the clinical utility of the studied (bio)markers.

METHODS

A search for relevant articles was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies that presented predictive values or in which these could be calculated were selected. The added value was determined by the added value on prior probability for each (bio)marker. Only an increase/decrease in chance of response ⩾15% was considered clinically relevant, whereas in oncology values >25% are common.

RESULTS

Of the 57 eligible studies, 14 (bio)markers were studied in more than one cohort and an overview of the added predictive value of each marker is presented. Of the replicated predictors, none consistently showed an increase/decrease in probability of response ⩾15%. However, positivity of RF and ACPA in case of rituximab and the presence of the TNF-α promoter 308 GG genotype for TNF inhibitor therapy were consistently predictive, yet low in added predictive value. Besides these, 65 (bio)markers studied once showed remarkably high (but not validated) predictive values.

CONCLUSION

We were unable to address clinically useful baseline (bio)markers for use in individually tailored treatment. Some predictors are consistently predictive, yet low in added predictive value, while several others are promising but await replication. The challenge now is to design studies to validate all explored and promising findings individually and in combination to make these (bio)markers relevant to clinical practice.

The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registers in Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) study: Protocol for a prospective cohort study of the long-term safety and quality of life outcomes of biologic treatment

BACKGROUND

Axial spondyloarthropathy typically has its onset in early adulthood and can impact significantly on quality of life. In the UK, biologic anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy is recommended for patients who are unresponsive to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. There remain several unresolved issues about the long-term safety and quality of life outcomes of biologic treatment in axial spondyloarthropathy. Long-term "real-world" surveillance data are required to complement data from randomised controlled trials.

METHODS/DESIGN

We are conducting a UK-wide prospective cohort study of patients with axial spondyloarthropathy who are naïve to biologic therapy at the time of recruitment. Those about to commence anti-tumour necrosis factor biologic therapy will enter a "biologic" sub-cohort with other patients assigned to a "non-biologic" sub-cohort. The primary objective is to determine whether the use of biologic therapy is associated with an increased risk of serious infection, while secondary objectives are to assess differences in malignancy, serious comorbidity, all-cause mortality but also assess impact on specific clinical domains (physical health, mental health and quality of life) including work outcomes between biologic and non-biologic patient cohorts. Patients will be followed-up for up to 5 years. Data are obtained at baseline and at standard clinical follow-up visits - at 3, 6 and 12 months and then annually for the biologic cohort and annually for the non-biologic cohort. This study will also collect biological samples for genetic analysis.

DISCUSSION

Although biologic therapy is widely used for ankylosing spondylitis patients who are unresponsive to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, the majority of the available safety information comes from rheumatoid arthritis, where increased infection risk has consistently been shown. However, given the typical demographic differences between rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthropathy patients, it is important to develop an epidemiologically rigorous cohort of patients receiving biologic therapy to effectively evaluate outcomes with regard not only to safety but also to quantify benefits across clinical, psychosocial and work outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This is an observational cohort study and clinical trial registration was not required or obtained.

2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop a new evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences.

RESULTS

The guideline covers the use of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat-to-target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional.

CONCLUSION

This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision-making process taking into account patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Unraveling the conundrum

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a heterogeneous disease with a complex and yet not fully understood pathophysiology, where numerous different cell-types contribute to a destructive process of the joints. This complexity results into a considerable interpatient variability in clinical course and severity, which may additionally involve genetics and/or environmental factors. After three decades of focused efforts scientists have now achieved to apply in clinical practice, for patients with RA, the "treat to target" approach with initiation of aggressive therapy soon after diagnosis and escalation of the therapy in pursuit of clinical remission. In addition to the conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, biologics have greatly improved the management of RA, demonstrating efficacy and safety in alleviating symptoms, inhibiting bone erosion, and preventing loss of function. Nonetheless, despite the plethora of therapeutic options and their combinations, unmet therapeutic needs in RA remain, as current therapies sometimes fail or produce only partial responses and/or develop unwanted side-effects. Unfortunately the mechanisms of 'nonresponse' remain unknown and most probable lie in the unrevealed heterogeneity of the RA pathophysiology. In this review, through the effort of unraveling the complex pathophysiological pathways, we will depict drugs used throughout the years for the treatment of RA, the current and future biological therapies and their molecular or cellular targets and finally will suggest therapeutic algorithms for RA management. With multiple biologic options, there is still a need for strong predictive biomarkers to determine which drug is most likely to be effective, safe, and durable in a given individual. The fact that available biologics are not effective in all patients attests to the heterogeneity of RA, yet over the long term, as research and treatment become more aggressive, efficacy, toxicity, and costs must be balanced within the therapeutic equation to enhance the quality of life in patients with RA.

The comparative effectiveness of biologics among older adults and disabled rheumatoid arthritis patients in the Medicare population

AIMS

Older and disabled rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients are often not present in large numbers in clinical trials or registries. A novel, claims-based clinical effectiveness algorithm provides the potential to compare the effectiveness of different biologics among this population using large administrative databases.

METHOD

Using Medicare 2006-2010 data for 100% of patients with RA, we identified biologic naïve users of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab, defined as no biologic use during the 12 months before the biologic initiation. The effectiveness was evaluated at 365 days after biologic initiation, determined using a validated claims-based algorithm. We compared the proportion meeting effectiveness criteria for each biologic using robust Poisson regression to compute risk ratios (RRs) adjusted for potential confounders. One year cost per effectively treated patient was calculated by different biologics.

RESULTS

The study included biologic naïve users of abatacept (n = 2129), adalimumab (n = 2944), etanercept (n = 3517) and infliximab (n = 5654). The algorithm classified the medications as 26% effective for abatacept, 24% for adalimumab, 28% for etanercept and 23% for infliximab, indicating comparable effectiveness. However, after adjustment and compared with infliximab, the RRs for effectiveness were 1.17 (95% CI 1.06, 1.30) for abatacept, 1.11 (95% CI 1.02, 1.23) for adalimumab and 1.27 (95% CI 1.17, 1.39) for etanercept. Older patients had a higher effectiveness than patients who were disabled (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.08, 1.28). Infliximab had highest cost per effectively treated patient.

CONCLUSION

Abatacept, adalimumab and etanercept are more effective than infliximab among RA patients initiating biologics. Effectiveness was significantly higher among older patients compared with disabled RA Medicare patients.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus subsequent anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with prior exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies in the United States Corrona registry

Introduction

Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite anti–tumor necrosis factor(anti-TNF)agent treatment can switch to either a subsequent anti-TNF agent or a biologic with an alternative mechanism of action, such as rituximab; however, there are limited data available to help physicians decide between these 2 strategies. The objective of this analysis was to examine the effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus a subsequent anti-TNF agent in anti-TNF–experienced patients with RA using clinical practice data from the Corrona registry.

Methods

Rituximab-naive patients from the Corrona registry with prior exposure to ≥1 anti-TNF agent who initiated rituximab or anti-TNF agents (2/28/2006-10/31/2012) were included. Two cohorts were analyzed: the trimmed population (excluding patients who fell outside the propensity score distribution overlap) and the stratified-matched population (stratified by 1 vs ≥2 anti-TNF agents, then matched based on propensity score). The primary effectiveness outcome was achievement of low disease activity (LDA)/remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index ≤10) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included achievement of modified American College of Rheumatology (mACR) 20/50/70 responses and meaningful improvement (≥0.25) in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) score at 1 year. New cardiovascular, infectious and cancer events were reported.

Results

Estimates for LDA/remission, mACR response and mHAQ improvement were consistently better for rituximab than for anti-TNF agent users in adjusted analyses. The odds ratio for likelihood of LDA/remission in rituximab versus anti-TNF patients was 1.35 (95 % CI, 0.95-1.91) in the trimmed population and 1.54 (95 % CI, 1.01-2.35) in the stratified-matched population. Rituximab patients were significantly more likely than anti-TNF patients to achieve mACR20/50 and mHAQ improvement in the trimmed population and mACR20 and mHAQ in the stratified-matched population. The rate of new adverse events per 100 patient-years was similar between groups.

Conclusions

In anti-TNF–experienced patients with RA, rituximab was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving LDA/remission, mACR response and physical function improvement, with a comparable safety profile, versus subsequent anti-TNF agent users.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01402661. Registered 25 July 2011.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0776-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.