A Phase III Study Evaluating Continuation, Tapering, and Withdrawal of Certolizumab Pegol After One Year of Therapy in Patients With Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

Update of the Consensus Statement of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on the use of biological and synthetic targeted therapies in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To update the consensus document of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER) regarding the use of targeted biological and synthetic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with the aim of assisting clinicians in their therapeutic decisions.

METHODS

A panel of 13 experts was assembled through an open call by SER. We employed a mixed adaptation-elaboration-update methodology starting from the 2015 Consensus Document of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on the use of biological therapies in RA. Starting with systematic reviews (SR) of recommendations from EULAR 2019, American College of Rheumatology 2021, and GUIPCAR 2017, we updated the search strategies for the PICO questions of GUIPCAR. An additional SR was conducted on demyelinating disease in relation to targeted biological and synthetic therapies. Following the analysis of evidence by different panelists, consensus on the wording and level of agreement for each recommendation was reached in a face-to-face meeting.

RESULTS

The panel established 5 general principles and 15 recommendations on the management of RA. These encompassed crucial aspects such as the importance of early treatment, therapeutic goals in RA, monitoring frequency, the use of glucocorticoids, the application of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), and targeted synthetic DMARDs. Additionally, recommendations on dose reduction of these drugs in stable patients were included. This update also features recommendations on the use of bDMARDs and Janus Kinase inhibitors in some specific clinical situations, such as patients with lung disease, a history of cancer, heart failure, or demyelinating disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This update provides recommendations on key aspects in the management of RA using targeted biological and synthetic therapies.

Effect of the extended dosing interval of anti-TNF-α NANOBODY® compound ozoralizumab in patients with low disease activity rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to evaluate the effect of the extended dosing interval on the efficacy and safety of ozoralizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

In a long-term extension study (HOSHIZORA trial) for patients who had completed a phase II/III study with methotrexate or a phase III study without methotrexate, the dosing interval of ozoralizumab was allowed to extend from every 4 weeks (Q4W) to every 8 weeks (Q8W), at the physician's discretion, for patients who had maintained a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) <3.2 at the last two time points. The continuation rate, efficacy, and safety were examined in patients who had completed 24 weeks after the change in the dosing interval by the data cut-off point.

RESULTS

Of the 32 patients who maintained DAS28-ESR <3.2 and changed the interval from Q4W to Q8W, 28 (87.5%) remained on Q8W for 24 weeks. At Week 24, the percentages of patients who remained on Q8W and achieved DAS28-ESR <2.6 and <3.2 were 71.9% and 84.4%, respectively. No safety concerns were observed for 24 weeks in the Q8W group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with RA and maintained DAS28-ESR <3.2 with ozoralizumab, efficacy was sustained and well tolerated after the dosing interval was extended from Q4W to Q8W.

Initial Treatment with Biological Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to analyse the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of initial treatment with biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Qualitative study. A group of RA experts was selected. A scoping review in Medline was conducted to analyse the evidence of initial RA treatment with biological therapies. Randomised clinical trials were selected. Two reviewers analysed the articles and compiled the data, whose quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. The experts discussed the review's findings and generated a series of general principles: Results: Seventeen studies were included. Most of the included patients were middle-aged women with early RA (1-7 months) and multiple poor prognostic factors. Initial treatment with TNF-alpha inhibitors combined with methotrexate (MTX) and an IL6R inhibitor (either in mono or combination therapy) is effective (activity, function, radiographic damage, quality of life), safe, and superior to MTX monotherapy in the short and medium term. In the long term, patients who received initial treatment with biologicals presented better results than those whose initial therapy was with MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial treatment of RA with biological therapies is effective, efficient, and safe in the short, medium, and long term, particularly for patients with poor prognostic factors.

Prevalence and predictors of sustained remission/low disease activity after discontinuation of induction or maintenance treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic and scoping review

BACKGROUND

To determine the prevalence of sustained remission/low disease activity (LDA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after discontinuation of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), separately in induction treatment and maintenance treatment studies, and to identify predictors of successful discontinuation.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review of studies published from 2005 to May 2022 that reported outcomes after TNFi discontinuation among patients in remission/LDA. We computed prevalences of successful discontinuation by induction or maintenance treatment, remission criterion, and follow-up time. We performed a scoping review of predictors of successful discontinuation.

RESULTS

Twenty-two induction-withdrawal studies were identified. In pooled analyses, 58% (95% confidence interval (CI) 45, 70) had DAS28 < 3.2 (9 studies), 52% (95% CI 35, 69) had DAS28 < 2.6 (9 studies), and 40% (95% CI 18, 64) had SDAI ≤ 3.3 (4 studies) at 37-52 weeks after discontinuation. Among patients who continued TNFi, 62 to 85% maintained remission. Twenty-two studies of maintenance treatment discontinuation were also identified. At 37-52 weeks after TNFi discontinuation, 48% (95% CI 38, 59) had DAS28 < 3.2 (10 studies), and 47% (95% CI 33, 62) had DAS28 < 2.6 (6 studies). Heterogeneity among studies was high. Data on predictors in induction-withdrawal studies were limited. In both treatment scenarios, longer duration of RA was most consistently associated with less successful discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-half of patients with RA remain in remission/LDA for up to 1 year after TNFi discontinuation, with slightly higher proportions in induction-withdrawal settings than with maintenance treatment discontinuation.

Effect of tapered versus stable treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors on disease flares in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission: a randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVES

Many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) require treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to reach remission. It is debated whether tapering of TNFi to discontinuation should be considered in sustained remission. The aim of ARCTIC REWIND TNFi was to assess the effect of tapering TNFi to withdrawal compared with stable treatment on the risk of disease activity flares in patients with RA in remission ≥1 year.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at nine Norwegian rheumatology departments. Patients with RA in remission ≥12 months on stable TNFi therapy were allocated by computer-based block-randomisation to tapering to discontinuation of TNFi or stable TNFi. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic co-medication was unchanged. The primary endpoint was disease flare during the 12-month study period (non-inferiority margin 20%), assessed in the per-protocol population.

RESULTS

Between June 2013 and January 2019, 99 patients were enrolled and 92 received the allocated treatment strategy. Eighty-four patients were included in the per-protocol population. In the tapering TNFi group, 27/43 (63%) experienced a flare during 12 months, compared with 2/41 (5%) in the stable TNFi group; risk difference (95% CI) 58% (42% to 74%). The tapering strategy was not non-inferior to continued stable treatment. The number of total/serious adverse events was 49/3 in the tapering group, 57/2 in the stable group.

CONCLUSION

In patients with RA in remission for more than 1 year while using TNFi, an increase in flare rate was reported in those who tapered TNFi to discontinuation. However, most regained remission after reinstatement of full-dose treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

EudraCT: 2012-005275-14 and clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01881308.

A real-world 2-year prospective study of medication tapering in patients with well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis within the rheumatoid arthritis medication tapering (RHEUMTAP) cohort

OBJECTIVES

This study had two aims: (i) to investigate outcomes of medication tapering in stable RA patients on biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs/tsDMARDs) and conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) in a real-world prospective cohort; and (ii) to evaluate possible predictors of flare with medication taper.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients with RA in sustained remission or low disease activity while on stable bDMARD/tsDMARDs +/- csDMARDs for at least 6 months underwent medication tapering/stopping and was tracked for 2 years. Patients were evaluated for flares in four groups: no taper, only bDMARD/tsDMARD taper, only csDMARD taper and both csDMARD and bDMARD/tsDMARD taper.

RESULTS

The RHEUMTAP cohort included 131 patients that met eligibility criteria, of which 52 patients underwent a medication taper. Flare was experienced by 15 patients in the taper and two in the no-taper groups. Patients undergoing any taper/stop overall were 10 times more likely to experience a flare compared with those not tapered (HR 10.43, 95% CI 2.98-36.53, P = 0.0002). The group tapering bDMARD/tsDMARD had 31 times higher risk of flare (HR 31.43, 95% CI 6.35-155.55, P <0.0001) than the no-taper group. Patients tapering both csDMARDs and bDMARD/tsDMARDs had 18 times higher risk of flare than the no-taper group (HR 18.45, 95% CI 2.55-133.37, P = 0.0039). The only csDMARD taper group had a 91% lower risk of flare than the bDMARD/tsDMARD taper group (HR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.69, P = 0.0213).

CONCLUSION

In our real-world prospective RHEUMTAP cohort study on the outcomes of different medication tapering groups in well-controlled RA, patients who tapered or stopped bDMARDs/tsDMARDs with or without background therapy were more likely to experience a flare than patients that did not taper any medications and those that tapered only csDMARDs.

Cost-utility analysis of tapering strategies of biologicals in rheumatoid arthritis patients in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines recommend tapering biological disease-modifying antirheumatoid drugs (bDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) if the disease is under control. However, guidelines on tapering are lacking. Assessing cost-effectiveness of different tapering strategies might provide broader input for creating guidelines on how to taper bDMARDs in patients with RA. The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective of bDMARD tapering strategies in Dutch patients with RA, namely 50% dose reduction (tapering), discontinuation and a 50% dose reduction followed by discontinuation (de-escalation).

METHODS

Using a societal perspective, a Markov model with a life-time horizon of 30 years was used to simulate 3-monthly transitions between Disease Activity 28 (DAS28)-defined health states of remission (<2.6), low disease activity (2.63.2). Transition probabilities were estimated through literature search and random effects pooling. Incremental costs, incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net monetary benefits for each tapering strategy were compared with continuation. Deterministic, probabilistic sensitivity analyses and multiple scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

After 30 years, the ICERs were €115 157/QALY lost, €74 226/QALY lost and €67 137/QALY lost for tapering, de-escalation and discontinuation, respectively; mainly driven by bDMARD cost savings and a 72.8% probability of a loss in quality of life. This corresponds to a 76.1%, 64.3% and 60.1% probability of tapering, de-escalation and discontinuation being cost-effective, provided a willingness-to-accept threshold of €50 000/QALY lost.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these analyses, the 50% tapering approach saved the highest cost per QALY lost.

The trajectory of clinical responses in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis who achieve sustained remission in response to abatacept: subanalysis of AVERT-2, a randomized phase IIIb study

BACKGROUND

AVERT-2 (a phase IIIb, two-stage study) evaluated abatacept + methotrexate versus methotrexate alone, in methotrexate-naive, anti-citrullinated protein antibody-positive patients with early (≤ 6 months), active RA. This subanalysis investigated whether individual patients who achieved the week 24 Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission primary endpoint could sustain remission to 1 year and then maintain it following changes in therapy.

METHODS

During the 56-week induction period (IP), patients were randomized to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg + methotrexate or abatacept placebo + methotrexate. Patients completing the IP who achieved SDAI remission (≤ 3.3) at weeks 40 and 52 entered a 48-week de-escalation (DE) period. Patients treated with abatacept + methotrexate were re-randomized to continue weekly abatacept + methotrexate, or de-escalate and then withdraw abatacept (after 24 weeks), or receive abatacept monotherapy. Proportions of patients achieving sustained SDAI and Boolean remission, and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28 [CRP]) < 2.6, were assessed. For patients achieving early sustained SDAI remission at weeks 24/40/52, flow between disease activity categories and individual trajectories was evaluated; flow was also evaluated for later remitters (weeks 40/52 but not week 24).

RESULTS

Among patients treated with abatacept + methotrexate (n/N = 451/752) at IP week 24, 22% achieved SDAI remission, 17% achieved Boolean remission, and 42% achieved DAS28 (CRP) < 2.6; of these, 56%, 58%, and 74%, respectively, sustained a response throughout IP weeks 40/52. Among patients with a sustained response at IP weeks 24/40/52, 82% (14/17) on weekly abatacept + methotrexate, 81% (13/16) on abatacept monotherapy, 63% (12/19) who de-escalated/withdrew abatacept, and 65% (11/17) on abatacept placebo + methotrexate were in SDAI remission at end of the DE period; rates were higher than for later remitters in all arms except abatacept placebo + methotrexate.

CONCLUSIONS

A high proportion of individual patients achieving clinical endpoints at IP week 24 with abatacept + methotrexate sustained their responses through week 52. Of patients achieving early and sustained SDAI remission through 52 weeks, numerically more maintained remission during the DE period if weekly abatacept treatment continued.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02504268 (ClinicalTrials.gov), registered July 21, 2015.

Tapering biologic DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis

With the arrival of biologics and the shift toward treat-to-target therapy, the possibility of a sustained clinical response has become an achievable goal for many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Although biologics have revolutionized the treatment of RA, they are costly, potentially inconvenient, and carry risks of side effects. Whether they can or should be tapered in patients with tight disease control is a matter of clinical uncertainty. The major international rheumatology professional societies have all issued guidelines on this question, but across recommendations, consensus is lacking on how and when to consider therapy de-escalation. Recent evidence suggests that sustained remission or low disease activity is more attainable with dose reduction as opposed to outright discontinuation of biologic therapy, and certain predictors of successful taper have begun to be described. This article will (1) summarize the current evidence base for biologic tapering in RA, (2) outline real-world outcomes findings, (3) review important contextual factors relevant to therapy de-escalation, such as cost-effectiveness considerations and patient perspectives, and (4) conclude by summarizing current guidelines.

Patient-individual tapering of DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a real-world setting

OBJECTIVE

We aim to provide real-world evidence on the effectiveness of patient-individual tapering of DMARDs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily clinical practice using medical records and claims data.

METHODS

We utilize data obtained through a controlled prospective cohort study in Germany conducted from July 2018 to March 2021. Participants consist of RA patients in sustained remission (>6 months) who were eligible for tapering at enrolment. Patients treated with individual tapering based on shared decision making (n = 200) are compared with patients without any dose-reduction (n = 237). The risk of loss of remission and the risk of flare is assessed with risk-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimators and Cox-Regressions. We evaluate differences in costs one year before and after baseline based on claims data for the subgroup of patients insured at one major sickness fund in Germany (n = 76).

RESULTS

The risk of flare (HR 0.88 95%-CI: 0.59-1.30) or loss of remission (HR 1.04 95%-CI: 0.73, 1.49) was not statistically different between the individual tapering group and the continuation group. Minor increases of disease activity and decreases of quality of life were observed 12 months after baseline, again with no statistically significant difference. Drug costs decreased by 1,017€in the individual tapering group while increased by 1,151€in the continuation group (p< 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Individual tapering of DMARDs does not increase the average risk of experiencing flares or loss of remission. Encouraging rheumatologists and patients to apply tapering in shared decision may be a feasible approach to allow individualisation of treatment in RA.

Efficacy and safety of progressively reducing biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in persistent remission: a study protocol for a non-inferiority randomized, controlled, single-blind trial

Background

To compare the effects of two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) administration strategies on the maintenance effect and safety of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in remission, to analyze the effects of gradual drug reduction and dose maintenance treatment on clinical outcomes in patients who have achieved remission with different types of bDMARDs, to search and screen out people who may benefit from drug reduction strategies, and to provide references for drug reduction strategies and treatment options for patients with RA in remission, so as to help improve the safety of the treatment and reduce the economic burden.

Methods

The study will be a 24-month non-inferiority randomized, controlled, single-blind trial and is planned to be launched in our hospital from September 2021 to August 2023. Patients will be randomized in a ratio of 2:1 to two groups: maintenance or injection spacing by 50%/gradual reduction of dosage every 3 months up to complete stop. When the patient relapses, return to the last effective dose. If the remission can be maintained, the medication of bDMARDs can be stopped 9 months after enrollment. The primary outcome will be the persistent flare rate.

Discussion

Our study may provide a reference for the selection of drug reduction strategies and treatment options for patients with RA in remission, so as to help improve the safety of the treatment and reduce the economic burden.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100044751. Registered on 26 March 2021

De-escalation of Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Agents and Reduction in Adverse Effects: A Systematic Review

Background: The long-term use of anti-TNF-α agents can lead to adverse effects, such as infections and immune-mediated cutaneous reactions. Whether de-escalation by dose reduction or interval lengthening reduces these adverse effects is uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare the incidence of infections and skin manifestations after anti-TNF-α dose de-escalation with standard dosing. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 14 January 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing anti-TNF-α de-escalation strategies with standard dosing among patients with inflammatory conditions, that report on infections, skin manifestations, or both, were included. The risk of bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane risk-of bias tool (RCTs) or the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (non-RCTs). Results: Fourteen RCTs and six observational studies (or 2706 patients) were included. Eight RCTs had low risk of bias or some concerns. Four non-RCTs were of good methodological quality. The studies described patients with axial spondyloarthritis (8 studies, 780 patients), rheumatoid arthritis (7 studies, 1458 patients), psoriasis (3 studies, 332 patients), or inflammatory bowel disease (2 studies, 136 patients). De-escalation strategies included interval lengthening (12 studies, 1317 patients), dose reduction (6 studies, 1130 patients), or both (2 studies, 259 patients). Overall, the occurrence of infections and skin manifestations did not differ between standard treatment and de-escalation. The disappearance of infections or skin manifestations after de-escalation was only reported in two studies. The majority of studies focused on etanercept and adalimumab. Heterogeneity in reporting of infections and skin manifestations precluded meta-analysis. Conclusion: We found that anti-TNF-α de-escalation does not reduce infections or skin reactions. A de-escalation strategy should not be recommended for the sole purpose of reducing drug-related adverse effects. The meticulous documentation of adverse effects is recommended to further address this question. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021252977.

Risk of flare after tapering or withdrawal of b-/tsDMARDs in patients with RA or axSpA: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate flare risk when tapering or withdrawing biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b-/tsDMARDs) compared to continuation in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) in sustained remission or low disease activity.

METHODS

Articles were identified in Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Eligible trials were randomised, controlled trials comparing tapering and/or withdrawal of b- and/or tsDMARDs with standard dose in IA. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed with risk ratio (RR), or Peto's Odds Ratio (POR) for sparse events, and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis comprised 22 trials: 11 assessed tapering and 7 addressed withdrawal (4 assessed both). Only trials with a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) population were identified. An increased flare risk was demonstrated when b-/tsDMARD tapering was compared to continuation, RR = 1.45 (95%CI: 1.19 to 1.77, I2 = 42.5%), and potentially increased for persistent flare, POR = 1.56 (95%CI: 0.97 to 2.52, I2 = 0%). Comparing tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) withdrawal to continuation, a highly increased flare risk (RR = 2.28, 95%CI: 1.78 to 2.93, I2 = 78%) and increased odds of persistent flare (POR = 3.41, 95%CI: 1.91 to 6.09, I2 = 49%) was observed. No clear difference in flare risk between RA or axSpA was observed.

CONCLUSION

A high risk for flare and persistent flare was demonstrated for TNFi withdrawal whereas an increased risk for flare but not for persistent flare was observed for b-/tsDMARD tapering. Thus, tapering seems to be the more favourable approach.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42019136905).

Tapering of Etanercept is feasible in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in sustained remission: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Objective: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission, tapering of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs can be considered. Tapering has already been investigated, but its feasibility remains to be determined. Therefore, we explored the feasibility of tapering etanercept in RA in a setting close to practice.Method: Patients with RA in 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) remission (≥ 6 months) and treated with etanercept 50 mg weekly (≥ 1 year) were included in the pragmatic 1 year open-label multicentre randomized controlled TapERA (Tapering Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis) trial. Patients were assigned to continue etanercept weekly or to taper to every other week (EOW). Patients who lost remission [DAS28-C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 2.6] were re-escalated to etanercept weekly. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients maintaining DAS28-CRP remission for 6 months.Results: Sixty-six patients were randomized to etanercept weekly (n = 34) or EOW (n = 32). After 6 months, 26/34 patients (76%) in the weekly and 19/32 (59%) in the EOW group maintained disease control (p = 0.136). In the EOW group, 20/32 patients (63%) remained on their tapered treatment during the trial. Two patients reintroduced weekly etanercept themselves. Ten patients were re-escalated to etanercept weekly by the rheumatologist, after a median (interquartile range) interval of 3.0 (2.0-6.0) months. Among these patients, 7/10 regained remission after re-escalation, four of them at the next study visit.Conclusions: Although non-inferiority could not be demonstrated, tapering of etanercept to EOW appeared feasible in patients in sustained remission.

Tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: an overview for daily practice

In this Review, we discuss the possibility of drug tapering in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission or low disease activity, for glucocorticoids and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. We review international guidelines and recommendations, as well as remaining uncertainties, and provide an overview of the current literature. Three strategies of tapering are discussed: (1) tapering by discontinuation of one of the drugs in combination therapy regimens, (2) tapering by reducing the dose of one of the drugs in combination therapy regimens, and (3) tapering by dose reduction of monotherapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. We discuss the outcomes and robustness of evidence of trials and observational cohorts, and we give a trajectory for further research and drug tapering in daily practice.

Switching from TNFα inhibitor to tacrolimus as maintenance therapy in rheumatoid arthritis after achieving low disease activity with TNFα inhibitors and methotrexate: 24-week result from a non-randomized, prospective, active-controlled trial

Background

Tapering or stopping biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs has been proposed for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in remission, but it frequently results in high rates of recurrence. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus (TAC) as maintenance therapy in patients with established RA in remission after receiving combination therapy with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

This 24-week, prospective, open-label trial included patients who received TNFi and MTX at stable doses for ≥24 weeks and had low disease activity (LDA), measured by Disease Activity Score-28 for ≥12 weeks. Patients selected one of two arms: maintenance (TNFi plus MTX) or switched (TAC plus MTX). The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of patients maintaining LDA at week 24, which was assessed using a logistic regression model. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study period.

Results

In efficacy analysis, 80 and 34 patients were included in the maintenance and switched arms, respectively. At week 24, LDA was maintained in 99% and 91% of patients in the maintenance and switched arms, respectively (odds ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.01–1.59). Drug-related adverse effects tended to be more common in the switched arm than in the maintenance arm (20.9% versus 7.1%, respectively) but were well-tolerated.

Conclusion

This controlled study tested a novel treatment strategy of switching from TNFi to TAC in RA patients with sustained LDA, and the findings suggested that TNFi can be replaced with TAC in most patients without the patients experiencing flare-ups for at least 24 weeks.

Trial registration

Korea CDC CRIS, KCT0005868. Registered 4 February 2021—retrospectively registered

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-021-02566-z.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.

RESULTS

The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional).

CONCLUSION

This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.

RESULTS

The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional).

CONCLUSION

This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

Reduction of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The effects of dose reduction or spacing of all types of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis has not been consistently assessed in systematic reviews. We aimed to assess the effects of biologics reduction compared with dose maintenance in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in low disease activity or remission. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis according to a previously registered protocol (PROSPERO registration: CRD42017069080); and searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and trial registers up to July, 2020. Two researchers selected, extracted and assessed the risk of bias of controlled trials that randomized patients to reduction/spacing or dose maintenance of biologics. Low disease activity, disability and other clinically important outcomes were summarized in random effect meta-analyses. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We included ten studies (n = 1331 patients), which assessed reduction or spacing of abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, or tocilizumab. Risk of bias was high in over half of trials, mainly due to lack of blinding. No statistically significant difference was found in low disease activity (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.78-1.04; I² = 60%, very low certainty), and other outcomes. Subgroup analysis of blinded studies led to homogeneous results, which remained heterogeneous in open-label studies. Reduction or spacing biologics did not affect disease activity and other important outcome. Changes in the doses regimen should consider patient preferences, considering the low certainty of evidence.

Systematic Literature Review of Residual Symptoms and an Unmet Need in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

To evaluate the nature and burden of residual disease in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who meet treatment targets. Second, for those who did not meet targets, to evaluate how much is due to patient symptoms.

Methods

Prospective and retrospective studies were searched in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library in the English language from January 1, 2008 to April 18, 2018; conference abstracts (from January 2016 to April 2018) and reference lists of relevant studies were also screened.

Results

Of 8,339 records identified, 55 were included in the review; 53 were unique studies, including 10 randomized controlled trials. Of these, 48 reported on patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA) or remission. Studies varied in population, treatment goals, and outcome reporting. The proportions of patients with residual symptoms in these studies varied by the definitions used for LDA or remission and were more often reported in patients with LDA than those in remission. The most commonly reported outcome measures were functional disability (n = 34 studies), tender or swollen joints (n = 18), pain (n = 17), patient global assessment (n = 15), and fatigue (n = 14). However, few studies reported the percentage of patients achieving a specific threshold, which could then be used to easily define the presence of residual symptoms.

Conclusion

Residual symptoms are present in some patients despite their achieving LDA or remission, highlighting an unmet need, especially with respect to improving pain, fatigue, and function. Standardized reporting in future observational studies would facilitate better understanding of this issue in defined RA populations.

Predictors of successful discontinuation of biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission or low disease activity: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review possible predictors of successful discontinuation of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) in RA patients in remission or low disease activity.

METHODS

MEDLINE database and Cochrane Library were scanned for studies that discontinued b/tsDMARDs in remission/low disease activity and searched for predictors of successful discontinuation. Additionally, EULAR and ACR meeting abstracts were hand searched.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies with a total of 5724 patients were included. Predictors of successful b/tsDMARD discontinuation were (number of studies): low disease activity (n = 13), better physical function (n = 6), low or absence of rheumatoid factor (n = 5) or ACPA (n = 3), low levels of CRP (n = 3) or ESR (n = 3), shorter disease duration (n = 3), low signals of disease activity by ultrasound (n = 3). Only one study with high risk of bias was identified on tsDMARD discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Several predictors of successful bDMARD discontinuation were identified. Although studies are heterogeneous, these predictors may inform clinical decision making in patients who are considered for a potential bDMARD discontinuation.

Overcoming Compensatory Mechanisms toward Chronic Drug Administration to Ensure Long-Term, Sustainable Beneficial Effects

Chronic administration of drugs leads to the activation of compensatory mechanisms that may inhibit some of their activity and induce unwanted toxicity. These mechanisms are an obstacle for maintaining a sustainable effect for many chronic medications. Pathways that adapt to the burden induced by chronic drugs, whether or not related to the underlying disease, can lead to a partial or complete loss of effect. Variability characterizes many biological systems and manifests itself as large intra- and inter-individual differences in the response to drugs. Circadian rhythm-based chronotherapy is further associated with variability in responses noted among patients. This paper reviews current knowledge regarding the loss of effect of chronic medications and the range of variabilities that have been described in responses and loss of responses. Establishment of a personalized platform for overcoming these prohibitive mechanisms is presented as a model for ensuring long-term sustained medication effects. This novel platform implements personalized variability signatures and individualized circadian rhythms for preventing and opposing the prohibitive effect of the compensatory mechanisms induced by chronic drug administration.

Efficacy of pharmacological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature research (SLR) to investigate the efficacy of any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) (conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD, biological (b) and biosimilar DMARD, targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD) or glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in patients with RA was done by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2016 and 8 March 2019.

RESULTS

234 abstracts were selected for detailed assessment, with 136 finally included. They comprised the efficacy of bDMARDs versus placebo or other bDMARDs, efficacy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) across different patient populations and head-to-head of different bDMARDs versus JAKi or other bDMARDs. Switching of bDMARDs to other bDMARDs or tsDMARDs, strategic trials and tapering studies of bDMARDs, csDMARDs and JAKi were assessed. The drugs evaluated included abatacept, adalimumab, ABT-122, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, SBI-087, CNTO6785, decernotinib, etanercept, filgotinib, golimumab, GCs, GS-9876, guselkumab, hydroxychloroquine, infliximab, leflunomide, mavrilimumab, methotrexate, olokizumab, otilimab, peficitinib, rituximab, sarilumab, salazopyrine, secukinumab, sirukumab, tacrolimus, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, tregalizumab, upadacitinib, ustekinumab and vobarilizumab. The efficacy of many bDMARDs and tsDMARDs was shown. Switching to another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi bDMARDs after TNFi treatment failure is efficacious. Tapering of DMARDs is possible in patients achieving long-standing stringent clinical remission; in patients with residual disease activity (including patients in LDA) the risk of flares is increased during the tapering. Biosimilars are non-inferior to their reference products.

CONCLUSION

This SLR informed the task force regarding the evidence base of various therapeutic regimen for the development of the update of EULAR's RA management recommendation.

Impact of tapering targeted therapies (bDMARDs or JAKis) on the risk of serious infections and adverse events of special interest in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis: a systematic analysis of the literature and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the impact of tapering targeted therapies (bDMARDs or JAKis) on the risk of serious infections and severe adverse events (SAEs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in remission or low disease activity (LDA) state.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A meta-analysis based on a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, until August 2019, as well as relevant databases of international conferences, was used to evaluate the risk difference (RD) at 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of incidence density of serious infections, SAEs, malignancies, cardiovascular adverse events (CV AEs), or deaths after tapering (dose reduction or spacing) compared to continuation of targeted therapies.

RESULTS

Of the 1957 studies initially identified, 13 controlled trials (9 RA and 4 SpA trials) were included in the meta-analysis. 1174 patient-years were studied in the tapering group (TG) versus 1086 in the usual care group (UC). There were 1.7/100 patient-year (p-y) serious infections in TG versus 2.6/100 p-y in UC (RD (95% CI) 0.01 (0.00 to 0.02), p = 0.13) and 7.4/100 p-y SAEs in TG versus 6.7/100 p-y in UC (RD 0.00 (- 0.02 to 0.02), p = 0.82). The risk of malignancies, CV AEs, or deaths did not differ between the tapering and the usual care groups. Subgroup analysis (RA and SpA) detected no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

We could not show significant impact of tapering bDMARD or JAKi over continuation concerning the risk of serious infections, SAEs, malignancies, CV AEs, or deaths in RA and SpA patients in remission or LDA state.

Linkage of Periodontitis and Rheumatoid Arthritis: Current Evidence and Potential Biological Interactions

The association between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and periodontal disease (PD) has been the focus of numerous investigations driven by their common pathological features. RA is an autoimmune disease characterized by chronic inflammation, the production of anti-citrullinated proteins antibodies (ACPA) leading to synovial joint inflammation and destruction. PD is a chronic inflammatory condition associated with a dysbiotic microbial biofilm affecting the supporting tissues around the teeth leading to the destruction of mineralized and non-mineralized connective tissues. Chronic inflammation associated with both RA and PD is similar in the predominant adaptive immune phenotype, in the imbalance between pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines and in the role of smoking and genetic background as risk factors. Structural damage that occurs in consequence of chronic inflammation is the ultimate cause of loss of function and disability observed with the progression of RA and PD. Interestingly, the periodontal pathogen Porphyromonas gingivalis has been implicated in the generation of ACPA in RA patients, suggesting a direct biological intersection between PD and RA. However, more studies are warranted to confirm this link, elucidate potential mechanisms involved, and ascertain temporal associations between RA and PD. This review is mainly focused on recent clinical and translational research intends to discuss and provide an overview of the relationship between RA and PD, exploring the similarities in the immune-pathological aspects and the possible mechanisms linking the development and progression of both diseases. In addition, the current available treatments targeting both RA and PD were revised.

Questioning a publication bias between industry-funded and non-industry-funded randomized controlled trials on biological and small molecule therapy for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

There has been a significant increase in financial support of clinical research by the pharmaceutical industry.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive systematic literature review to determine whether there is publication bias for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) studies between industry-funded and non-industry funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and between RCTs with positive results (PRs) and those with negative results (NRs) of FDAapproved biological and small molecule drug therapy for RA. Each RCT was classified as having either a PR or a NR, and as having received commercial funding or not.

RESULTS

Most (297/349, 85.18%) of the RCTs were commercially funded. There was no significant difference in PRs or association with publication between commercially and noncommercially funded RCTs. Sample size was significantly larger in commercially funded RCTs and in those with PRs, and it was the only significant parameter that predicted publication in higher impact factor journals in the field of RA.

CONCLUSION

There is no significant association between commercial funding and the publication of positive results or the publication of an RCT in higher impact factor journals.

Down-titration and discontinuation strategies of tumour necrosis factor-blocking agents for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with low disease activity

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in treating people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but are associated with (dose-dependent) adverse effects and high costs. To prevent overtreatment, several trials have assessed the effectiveness of down-titration compared with continuation of the standard dose. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, or disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents on disease activity, functioning, costs, safety, and radiographic damage compared with usual care in people with RA and low disease activity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL (29 March 2018) and four trial registries (11 April 2018) together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We screened conference proceedings (American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism 2005-2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) to usual care/no down-titration in people with RA and low disease activity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

One previously included trial was excluded retrospectively in this update because it was not an RCT/CCT. We included eight additional trials, for a total of 14 studies (13 RCTs and one CCT, 3315 participants in total) reporting anti-TNF down-titration. Six studies (1148 participants) reported anti-TNF dose reduction compared with anti-TNF continuation. Eight studies (2111 participants) reported anti-TNF discontinuation compared with anti-TNF continuation (three studies assessed both anti-TNF discontinuation and dose reduction), and three studies assessed disease activity-guided anti-TNF dose tapering (365 participants). These studies included data on all anti-TNF agents, but primarily adalimumab and etanercept. Thirteen studies were available in full text, one was available as abstract. We assessed the included studies generally at low to moderate risk of bias; our main concerns were bias due to open-label treatment and unblinded outcome assessment. Clinical heterogeneity between the trials was high. The included studies were performed at clinical centres around the world and included people with early as well as established RA, the majority of whom were female with mean ages between 47 and 60. Study durations ranged from 6 months to 3.5 years.We found that anti-TNF dose reduction leads to little or no difference in mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 26 to 52 weeks (high-certainty evidence, mean difference (MD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.24, absolute risk difference (ARD) 1%) compared with continuation. Also, anti-TNF dose reduction does not result in an important deterioration in function after 26 to 52 weeks (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)) (high-certainty evidence, MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.19, ARD 3%). Next to this, anti-TNF dose reduction may slightly reduce the proportion of participants switched to another biologic (low-certainty evidence), but probably slightly increases the proportion of participants with minimal radiographic progression after 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence, risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.95, ARD 2% higher). Anti-TNF dose reduction may cause little or no difference in serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and proportion of participants with persistent remission (low-certainty evidence).Results show that anti-TNF discontinuation probably slightly increases the mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 28 to 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence, MD 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.25, ARD 14%), and that the RR of persistent remission lies between 0.16 and 0.77 (low-certainty evidence). Anti-TNF discontinuation increases the proportion participants with minimal radiographic progression after 52 weeks (high-certainty evidence, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.59, ARD 7%) and may lead to a slight deterioration in function (HAQ-DI) (low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether anti-TNF discontinuation influences the number of serious adverse events (due to very low-certainty evidence) and the number of withdrawals due to adverse events after 28 to 52 weeks probably increases slightly (moderate-certainty evidence, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.84, ARD 1% higher).Anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering may result in little or no difference in mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 72 to 78 weeks (low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering results in little or no difference in the proportion of participants with persistent remission after 18 months (high-certainty evidence, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06, ARD -9%) and may result in little or no difference in switching to another biologic (low-certainty evidence). Anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering may slightly increase proportion of participants with minimal radiographic progression (low-certainty evidence) and probably leads to a slight deterioration of function after 18 months (moderate-certainty evidence, MD 0.2 higher, 0.02 lower to 0.42 higher, ARD 7% higher), It is uncertain whether anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering influences the number of serious adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that fixed-dose reduction of anti-TNF, after at least three to 12 months of low disease activity, is comparable to continuation of the standard dose regarding disease activity and function, and may be comparable with regards to the proportion of participants with persistent remission. Discontinuation (also without disease activity-guided adaptation) of anti-TNF is probably inferior to continuation of treatment with respect to disease activity, the proportion of participants with persistent remission, function, and minimal radiographic damage. Disease activity-guided dose tapering of anti-TNF is comparable to continuation of treatment with respect to the proportion of participants with persistent remission and may be comparable regarding disease activity.Caveats of this review are that available data are mainly limited to etanercept and adalimumab, the heterogeneity between studies, and the use of superiority instead of non-inferiority designs.Future research should focus on the anti-TNF agents infliximab and golimumab; assessment of disease activity, function, and radiographic outcomes after longer follow-up; and assessment of long-term safety, cost-effectiveness, and predictors for successful down-titration. Also, use of a validated flare criterion, non-inferiority designs, and disease activity-guided tapering instead of fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation would allow researchers to better interpret study findings and generalise to clinical practice.

Long-Term Efficacy of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors for the Treatment of Methotrexate-Naïve Rheumatoid Arthritis: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Synthesis of evidence on the long-term use of first-line biologic therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is required. We compared the efficacy of up to 5 years' treatment with first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) versus other treatment strategies in this population.

METHODS

Previous systematic reviews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving treatment of methotrexate-naïve RA patients with first-line TNFis. Literature was synthesized qualitatively, and a meta-analysis conducted to evaluate American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, clinical remission defined by any standard measure, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ) at Years 2 and/or 5.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs involving 4306 patients [first-line TNFi, n = 2234; other treatment strategies (control), n = 2072] were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies were double-blind for the first 2 years, while seven were partly/completely open label during this period. Five studies reported data at Year 5; all were open label at this time point. At Year 2, ACR50 response, ACR70 response and remission rates were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus control in double-blind RCTs [log-odds ratio (OR) 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02, 0.62; p = 0.035], log-OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.20, 0.77; p = 0.001), and log-OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.13, 0.74; p = 0.005), respectively], but not in open-label studies. No significant between-group differences were observed in mean HAQ at Year 2 in double-blind or open-label RCTs or in ACR response or remission outcomes at Year 5.

CONCLUSION

In double-blind studies, 2-year efficacy outcomes were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus other treatment strategies in patients with MTX-naïve RA. No significant differences in these outcomes were observed when data from open-label RCTs were considered on their own. Further data on the efficacy of TNFi therapy over ≥ 2 years in patients with methotrexate-naïve RA are required. Plain language summary available for this article.

Non-medical Switching from Originator Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors to Their Biosimilars: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Studies

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are widely used biologics for the treatment of several chronic inflammatory diseases. The launch of anti-TNF biosimilars has introduced the possibility of non-medical switching between originator biologics and their biosimilars. However, the potential clinical and patient-reported consequences of non-medical switching remain largely unknown, as much of the evidence comes from poorly or uncontrolled real-world evidence (RWE) studies that often have an element of bias and nonstandardized outcome measures. To appropriately evaluate the safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of non-medical switching from an originator to its biosimilar, we propose that seven key study design elements should be considered when assessing the existing evidence: studies should be (1) randomized and double-blind, (2) adequately controlled, and (3) adequately powered; include (4) multiple switching, (5) an assessment of immunogenicity, and (6) adequate follow-up duration; and (7) report individual patient-level outcomes. This systematic review assessed the robustness and consistency of the current non-medical switching evidence, with a focus on TNF inhibitors. A comprehensive literature search (January 2012-February 2018) identified 98 publications corresponding to 91 studies (17 randomized controlled trials and 74 RWE studies) describing non-medical switching from a TNF inhibitor originator to its biosimilar. When assessing the totality of this evidence, none of the non-medical switching studies conducted to date were found to use all seven of the key design elements, and the absence of these elements dilutes the robustness of the data. Furthermore, discontinuation rates varied widely among studies (0-87%), suggesting heterogeneity and inconclusiveness of the current efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity evidence, particularly at an individual patient level. Therefore, patients should not be indiscriminately switched from an originator TNF inhibitor to its biosimilar for non-medical reasons. Switching decisions should remain between the treating physicians and their patients and be made on a case-by-case basis, relying upon robust scientific evidence.

FUNDING

AbbVie.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available for this article.

Risk of losing remission, low disease activity or radiographic progression in case of bDMARD discontinuation or tapering in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic analysis of the literature and meta-analysis

Objectives

To assess the risk of losing remission, low disease activity (LDA) or radiographic progression in the case of (1) discontinuing or (2) tapering doses of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with continuation of the initial treatment regimen in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with remission or LDA.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature analysis was carried out through May 2017 on the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and international congress databases, selecting controlled trials comparing bDMARDs discontinuation/tapering versus continuation in RA patients with remission or LDA. The meta-analysis assessed the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI of losing remission or LDA and the risk of radiographic progression after (1) discontinuing and (2) tapering doses of bDMARDs versus continuing the initial treatment.

Results

The meta-analysis comparing bDMARDs discontinuation versus continuation performed on nine trials showed an increased risk of losing remission (RR (95% CI)=1.97(1.43 to 2.73), P<0.0001) or LDA (RR (95% CI)=2.24(1.52 to 3.30), P<0.0001) and an increased risk of radiographic progression (RR (95% CI)=1.09(1.02 to 1.17), P=0.01) in case of bDMARD discontinuation. The meta-analysis comparing bDMARDs tapering versus continuation performed on 11 trials showed an increased risk of losing remission (RR (95% CI)=1.23(1.06 to 1.42), P=0.006) but no increased risk of losing LDA (RR (95% CI)=1.02 (0.85 to 1.23), P=0.81) nor any increased risk of radiographic progression (RR (95% CI)=1.09(0.94 to 1.26), P=0.26) in case of bDMARD tapering.

Conclusion

Discontinuation of bDMARDs leads to an increased risk of losing remission or LDA and radiographic progression, while tapering doses of bDMARDs does not increase the risk of relapse (LDA) or radiographic progression, even though there is an increased risk of losing remission.