TNFi Cycling Versus Changing Mechanism of Action in TNFi-Experienced Patients: Result of the Corrona CERTAIN Comparative Effectiveness Study

Decision Impact Analysis to Measure the Influence of Molecular Signature Response Classifier Testing on Treatment Selection in Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Clinical guidelines offer little guidance for treatment selection following inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) was validated to predict tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response. The decision impact of MSRC results on biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) selection was evaluated.

METHODS

This is an analysis of AIMS, a longitudinal, prospective database of patients with RA tested using the MSRC. This study assessed selection of b/tsDMARDs class after MSRC testing by surveying physicians, the rate of b/tsDMARD prescriptions aligning with MSRC results, and the percentage of physicians utilizing MSRC results for decision-making.

RESULTS

Of 1018 participants, 70.7% (720/1018) had treatment selected after receiving MSRC results. In this MSRC-informed cohort, 75.6% (544/720) of patients received a b/tsDMARD aligned with MSRC results, and 84.6% (609/720) of providers reported using MSRC results to guide treatment selection. The most prevalent reason reported (8.2%, 59/720) for not aligning treatment selection with MSRC results from the total cohort was health insurance coverage issues.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that rheumatologists reported using the MSRC test to guide b/tsDMARD selection for patients with RA. In most cases, MSRC test results appeared to influence clinical decision-making according to physician self-report. Wider adoption of precision medicine tools like the MSRC could support rheumatologists and patients in working together to achieve optimal outcomes for RA.

Management of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases after treatment failure with a first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor: A narrative review

The emergence of biologics with different modes of action (MoAs) and therapeutic targets has changed treatment patterns in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. While tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) are often utilized as the first biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, some patients may not respond adequately (primary failure), fail to sustain response over time (secondary failure), or experience intolerable adverse events. Whether these patients would benefit more from cycling to a different TNFi or switching to a biologic with a different MoA is still unclear. We discuss here treatment outcomes of TNFi cycling versus MoA switching after treatment failure with a first TNFi in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, focusing specifically on rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Treatment guidelines for these patients are ambiguous and, at times, contradictory in their recommendations. However, this is due to a lack of high-quality head-to-head data to definitively support cycling between TNFis after failure to a first-line TNFi over switching to a different MoA.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After Switching Between Interleukin-6-Receptor Inhibitors and Janus Kinase Inhibitors: Findings from an Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

This observational study evaluated response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switched from an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor (IL-6Ri) to a Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) and vice versa.

METHODS

Adult patients with RA, who initiated IL-6Ri or JAKi (following discontinuation of JAKi or IL-6Ri, respectively) during/after December 2012 and had a 6-month follow-up visit were enrolled. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at baseline and the follow-up visit. Continuous outcomes included Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), pain, fatigue, tender joint count, swollen joint count, Physician Global Assessment (MDGA), Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), and morning stiffness duration. Categorical outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving CDAI low disease activity (LDA), remission, and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for HAQ, pain, fatigue, MDGA, and PtGA. Continuous outcomes were summarized as mean changes from baseline, and categorical outcomes as response rates. Differences in the outcome measures between groups were evaluated using linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Between IL-6Ri (n = 100) and JAKi initiators (n = 129), no significant differences were noted for continuous outcomes. Within both groups, a significant proportion of patients achieved LDA, remission, and MCIDs for other measures, although the odds of achieving LDA were higher among IL-6Ri (vs. JAKi) initiators with moderate-to-severe disease (adjusted odds ratio: 3.30 [1.01, 10.78]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with RA can achieve improvement in response when switching between IL-6Ri and JAKi. Although both therapies affect the IL-6 pathway, there are distinct mechanisms of action, which likely contribute to their clinical improvement, when reciprocally switched as follow-on treatments.

Does the Type of Failure and the Choice of the Second Biologic Influence Response and Persistence on Medication in Rheumatoid Arthritis?

BACKGROUND

The type of failure may predict response to a second biologic. We evaluated the response to a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi in patients failing their initial TNFi, either primarily or secondarily.

METHODS

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were biologic-naive and had a Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10, who started their first TNFi for ≥3 months and then switched to a second biologic, were included in the study. Secondary failure was defined as 2 consecutive low-CDAI visits and then switching to a second biologic while they had moderate/severe CDAI. Primary failure was defined if it did not meet the definition of secondary failure, or if they had at least 1 moderate/severe CDAI after 3 months on treatment. We used multivariable logistic regression comparing primary versus secondary failure for achievement of CDAI ≤10 (primary outcome) and minimal clinically important differences (secondary outcome) at 6 months after switch.

RESULTS

Of the 462 patients included, 64.3% and 35.7% stopped the first TNFi because of a primary and secondary failure, respectively. Patients with primary failure had a more severe disease (CDAI mean, 26.39 vs. 21.61; p < 0.001). The likelihood of achieving CDAI ≤10 (odds ratio, 4.367; 95% confidence interval, 2.428-7.856) and minimal clinically important difference (odds ratio, 2.851; 95% confidence interval, 1.619-5.020) was significantly higher for secondary than primary failure regardless of choice of a second agent.

CONCLUSION

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis with secondary failure to a first TNFi responded better to a second biologic agent, regardless of the choice of biologic.

Comparison of a second TNFi vs other biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD following an initial TNFi

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis may require treatment with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD). Often, a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the initial b/tsDMARD. The TNFi may not be effective or may not be well tolerated, so patients will opt for a different TNFi or switch to a non-TNFi b/tsDMARD. No preference for a TNFi or non-TNFi has been established and guidelines are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effectiveness by comparing patients using a second TNFi vs a non-TNFi after initial use of TNFi based on treatment patterns and health care utilization. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plan, Medicaid, and commercial plan claims data from Humana's Research Database (Louisville, KY). The first claim for TNFi or non-TNFi (July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018) following earlier TNFi was the index date. Patients were required to have pre-index enrollment of 6 months and 12 months post-index along with diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, or psoriasis. During the 12-month follow-up, persistence to the index TNFi or non-TNFi was measured as continued therapy without a gap exceeding 45 days (81 days for intravenous infusions). Adherence was proportion of days covered at least 0.8. Addition of a nonbiologic DMARD or corticosteroid was also identified. Inpatient admissions and emergency department visits were observed. Inverse probability of treatment weights was used to balance cohorts. Logistic regression models were fit to TNFi vs non-TNFI on treatment and utilization measures. RESULTS: Of identified patients, 1,022 were indexed to a second TNFi and 1,024 were indexed to non-TNFi. Weighted cohorts were balanced, with mean age 56.5 vs 56.4 years, 70.5% vs 70.7% female sex, and 68.0% vs 67.9% MAPD plan. No differences were observed on persistence or adherence, with adjusted odds ratios (OR) of 1.05 (95% CI = 0.91-1.20) and 1.04 (0.91-1.20), respectively. No differences were observed for changes in therapy via switching to another TNFi/non-TNFi (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.54-1.62), via nonbiologic DMARD addition (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.83-1.11), or corticosteroid addition (OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.92-1.88). No differences were observed for hospitalization (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.99-1.37) or emergency department visits (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.89-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found between a second TNFi vs a non-TNFi. As a result, choice of TNFi or non-TNFi following an initial TNFi may be driven by relevant patient-specific considerations. At the population level, policies that prefer either TNFi or non-TNFi appear reasonable. DISCLOSURES: The study was funded by Humana Inc. Mr Racsa is an employee of Humana Healthcare Research, Inc., a subsidiary of Humana Inc. Drs Asante and Bloomfield are employees of Humana Inc. Dr Schwab was an employee of Humana Healthcare Research, Inc., a subsidiary of Humana Inc., and is now an employee of RTI Health Solutions. Dr Cornett was an employee of Humana Inc. and is now an employee of ImmunoGen Inc.

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.

[Janus kinase inhibitors]

In 2017 the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors were approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Germany. The mode of action of JAK inhibitors differs from biologicals, as multiple cytokines are inhibited. In comparison with the treatment with biologicals, JAK inhibitors have the advantage of oral application, three of the four currently approved JAK inhibitors were superior to adalimumab in at least some of the endpoints in randomized controlled trials, they have a short half-life and have a particular efficacy in the control of pain. On the other hand, the rate of malignancies and major cardiovascular events was increased in the Oral Surveillance trial in comparison with tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors but not in the CorEvitas registry and not in the phase III approval trials. The clarification of these safety discussions and the evaluation of further registry data will decide the position of JAK inhibitors in the therapeutic algorithm for rheumatoid arthritis.