Persistence on biologic DMARD monotherapy after achieving rheumatoid arthritis disease control on combination therapy: retrospective analysis of corrona registry data

Risk factors associated with relapse after methotrexate dose reduction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving golimumab and methotrexate combination therapy

AIM

To identify risk factors for relapse after methotrexate (MTX) dose reduction in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients receiving golimumab (GLM)/MTX combination therapy.

METHOD

Data on RA patients ≥20 years old receiving GLM (50 mg) + MTX for ≥6 months were retrospectively collected. MTX dose reduction was defined as a reduction of ≥12 mg from the total dose within 12 weeks of the maximum dose (≥1 mg/wk average). Relapse was defined as Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) score ≥3.2 or sustained (≥ twice) increase of ≥0.6 from baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 304 eligible patients were included. Among the MTX-reduction group (n = 125), 16.8% of patients relapsed. Age, duration from diagnosis to the initiation of GLM, baseline MTX dose, and DAS28-CRP were comparable between relapse and no-relapse groups. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of relapse after MTX reduction was 4.37 (95% CI 1.16-16.38, P = 0.03) for prior use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and the aORs for cardiovascular disease (CVD), gastrointestinal disease and liver disease were 2.36, 2.28, and 3.03, respectively. Compared to the non-reduction group, the MTX-reduction group had a higher proportion of patients with CVD (17.6% vs 7.3%, P = 0.02) and a lower proportion of prior use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (11.2% vs. 24.0%, P = 0.0076).

CONCLUSION

Attention should be given to RA patients with history of CVD, gastrointestinal disease, liver disease, or prior NSAIDs-use when considering MTX dose reduction to ensure benefits outweigh the risks of relapse.

Real-world effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a chronic systemic inflammatory autoimmune disease, is based on disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Typically, it starts with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), and depending on the patient's response to the treatment and the adverse events experienced, biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) are initiated. bDMARDs are more specific to inflammatory factors than csDMARDs and more efficient in inducing remission and low disease activity. Thus, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in administrative health databases. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 21 October 2021, to identify observational studies that evaluated the effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using administrative databases and real-world data. The methodological quality was assessed by the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). A fixed or random-effects model estimated risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. The analysis was divided into four groups: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) versus non-TNFi; TNFi versus TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab versus infliximab); bDMARDs versus Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi); and bDMARDs monotherapy versus combination therapy (bDMARDs and MTX). Results: Twenty-one records were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis; seven population-based cohorts, eight prospective, and six retrospective cohort studies. Overall, 182,098 rheumatoid arthritis patients were evaluated. In the meta-analysis, lower effectiveness was observed among TNFi users than in non-TNFi (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81-0.95; p < 0.01; I2 = 94.0%) and bDMARDs than in JAKi (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79-0.94; p < 0.01; I2 = 93.0%). Higher effectiveness among adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab than in infliximab (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.05-1.36; p < 0.01; I2 = 96.0%) was found. No significant differences in the effectiveness of bDMARD monotherapy compared to combination therapy (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.68-1.00; p < 0.01; I2 = 81.0%) was observed. E-value analysis indicated that the estimates were not robust against unmeasured confounding. Conclusion: According to the available real-world data, our results suggest that biological therapy effectively treats patients with rheumatoid arthritis, indicating higher effectiveness with non-TNFi and JAKi than with TNFi. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID#CRD42020190838, identifier CRD42020190838.

Predictors of Treatment Change Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with TNF Inhibitors as First-Line Biologic Agent in the USA: A Cohort Study from Longitudinal Electronic Health Records

BACKGROUND

Previous observational studies utilizing administrative claims data have largely been unable to consider clinical factors that may be related to patterns of drug use among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVE

To understand predictors of treatment changes following initiation of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) using nation-wide electronic health record (EHR) data in the USA.

METHODS

The Optum Immunology Condition EHR data (01/01/2011-09/30/2019) was used to identify a population of adult patients with RA initiating a TNFi as the first line biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD). The primary outcome was any treatment change during the 1-year post-index period defined as cycling to a different TNFi or switching to non-TNFi biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of TNFi cycling and switching, examined separately. To identify predictors of DMARD treatment changes, we used a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model. Model c-statistics and odds ratios (ORs, 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) of predictors were reported.

RESULTS

We identified 24,871 patients with RA who initiated a TNFi. The mean age was 55.5 (± 13.7) years and 77.2% were female. Among the TNFi initiators, 22.2% experienced TNFi cycling or switching during the 1-year follow-up time. Predictors that are associated with higher likelihood of TNFi cycling or switching included female gender (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.16-1.36) and glucocorticoid use (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.21-1.40). In contrast, inflammatory bowel disease (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48-0.78), psoriasis (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.95), recent use of methotrexate (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.97), and vitamin D intake (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.85-0.99) were negatively associated with TNFi cycling or switch.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender, glucocorticoid use, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, and vitamin D intake were identified as significant predictors of TNFi cycling or switching for TNFi initiators in the RA population. Predicting treatment change remains challenging even with large detailed EHR data. This study aimed to identify key determinants of treatment changes among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) as their first-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in routine care settings using a US nation-wide longitudinal electronic health record (EHR). Among 24,871 patients with RA who initiated a TNFi, 22.2% experienced TNFi cycling or switching during the 1-year follow-up time. Female patients and those who used glucocorticoids were more likely to experience TNFi cycling or switching, whereas inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, recent methotrexate use, and vitamin D intake were negatively associated with the outcome. However, predicting treatment change remains challenging even with larger detailed EHR data potentially due to unmeasured factors such as prescriber's preference or patient's belief in the medication.

Methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: Is the anchor drug still holding?

Treat-to-target (T2T) is currently the most fashionable strategy for treatment-naïve, early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. A T2T approach can lead to a complete and drug-free disease remission, whereas failure to obtain remission leads to damage early in the disease course. Hence, one should try to achieve high remission rates as early as possible, implementing the best therapeutic strategies available. Methotrexate (MTX) combined with glucocorticoid bridging is the mainstay of T2T. However, MTX is often used suboptimally in RA patients for many reasons, including poor tolerability, low compliance, and safety issues. Recent evidence has suggested that novel targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) such as the Janus-kinase (JAK) inhibitors in combination with glucocorticoids yielded better outcomes in early RA than conventional treatment. Such an approach may have advantages in terms of patients' outcomes, though some concerns about serious adverse events need to be addressed.

Persistence with Early-Line Abatacept versus Tumor Necrosis Factor-Inhibitors for Rheumatoid Arthritis Complicated by Poor Prognostic Factors

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by joint swelling and destruction that leads to severe disability. There are no clear guidelines regarding the order of therapies. Gathering data on treatment patterns outside of a clinical trial setting can provide useful context for clinicians. Objectives: To assess real-world treatment persistence in early-line abatacept versus tumor necrosis factor-inhibitors (TNFi) treated patients with RA complicated by poor prognostic factors (including anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies [ACPA] and rheumatoid factor [RF] seropositivity). Methods: We performed a multi-center retrospective medical record review. Adult patients with RA complicated by poor prognostic factors were treated with either abatacept or TNFis as the first biologic treatment at the clinic. Poor prognostic factors included ACPA+, RF+, increased C-reactive protein levels, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate levels, or presence of joint erosions. We report 12-month treatment persistence, time to discontinuation, reasons for discontinuation, and risk of discontinuation between patients on abatacept versus TNFi. Select results among the subgroup of ACPA+ and/or RF+ patients are presented. Results: Data on 265 patients (100 abatacept, 165 TNFis) were collected. At 12 months, 83% of abatacept patients were persistent versus 66.1% of TNFi patients (P=0.003). Median time to discontinuation was 1423 days for abatacept versus 690 days for TNFis (P=0.014). In adjusted analyses, abatacept patients had a lower risk of discontinuing index treatment due to disease progression (0.3 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1-0.6], P=0.001). Among the subgroup of ACPA+ and/or RF+ patients (55 abatacept, 108 TNFis), unadjusted 12-month treatment persistence was greater (83.6% versus 64.8%, P=0.012) and median time to discontinuation was longer (961 days versus 581 days, P=0.048) in abatacept versus TNFi patients. Discussion: Patients with RA complicated by poor prognostic factors taking abatacept, including the subgroup of patients with ACPA and RF seropositivity, had statistically significantly higher 12-month treatment persistence and a longer time to discontinuation than patients on TNFis. Conclusions: In a real-world setting, RA patients treated with abatacept were more likely to stay on treatment longer and had a lower risk of discontinuation than patients treated with TNFis.

Etanercept or Methotrexate Withdrawal in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in Sustained Remission

OBJECTIVE

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom remission is achieved following combination therapy with methotrexate plus etanercept face an ongoing medication burden. This study was undertaken to investigate whether sustained remission achieved on combination therapy can be maintained with either methotrexate or etanercept monotherapy, as assessed following discontinuation of one or the other medication from the combination.

METHODS

Of the 371 adult patients with RA who received combination therapy with methotrexate plus etanercept, remission (defined as a Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI] score of ≤3.3) was sustained in 253 patients through a 24-week open-label period. These 253 patients then entered a 48-week, double-blind period and were randomized to receive either 1) methotrexate monotherapy (n = 101), 2) etanercept monotherapy (n = 101), or 3) methotrexate plus etanercept combination therapy (n = 51). Patients who subsequently experienced disease-worsening received rescue therapy with the combination regimen at the same dosages as used in the initial run-in period. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in whom SDAI-defined remission was maintained without disease-worsening at week 48 in the etanercept monotherapy group as compared to the methotrexate monotherapy group. Secondary end points included time to disease-worsening, and the proportion of patients in whom SDAI-defined remission was recaptured after initiation of rescue therapy.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the RA patients were similar across the treatment groups. At week 48, SDAI-defined remission was maintained in significantly more patients in the etanercept monotherapy group than in the methotrexate monotherapy group (49.5% versus 28.7%; P = 0.004). Moreover, as a secondary end point, sustained SDAI-defined remission was achieved in significantly more patients who received combination therapy than in those who received methotrexate monotherapy (52.9% versus 28.7%; P = 0.006). Time to disease-worsening was shorter in those who received methotrexate monotherapy than in those who received etanercept monotherapy or those who received combination therapy (each P < 0.001 versus methotrexate monotherapy). Among the patients who received rescue therapy, SDAI-defined remission was recaptured in 70-80% in each treatment group. No new safety signals were reported.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of etanercept monotherapy was superior to that of methotrexate monotherapy and similar to that of combination therapy in maintaining remission in patients with RA. SDAI-defined remission was recaptured in most of the patients who were given rescue therapy. These data could inform decision-making when withdrawal of therapy is being considered to reduce treatment burden in patients with well-controlled RA.