Outcomes of switching anti-TNF drugs in rheumatoid arthritis--a study based on observational data from the Finnish Register of Biological Treatment (ROB-FIN)

Real-world retention rates of biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Although biologics have their own characteristics, there are no clear criteria for selecting them to treat the patients with rheumatoid arthritis. To assist in selecting biologics, we investigated the retention rates of biologics at our institution. We examined retention rates, and reasons for dropout for biologics in 393 cases and 605 prescriptions (of which 378 prescriptions were as naive) at our hospital since October 2003. Throughout the entire course of the study, etanercept (ETN) was the most frequently used biologic, followed by adalimumab (ADA) and tocilizumab (TCZ). When narrowed down to the later period from 2010, ETN was still the most used, followed by TCZ and abatacept (ABT). When the retention rates were compared in biologic naive patients, the retention rates were TCZ, ABT, ETN, certolizumab pegol (CZP), golimumab (GLM), infliximab (IFX), and ADA, in that order. The retention rates were better with the first use of each biologic. The main reasons for dropout were primary ineffectiveness, secondary ineffectiveness, and infection. ETN was the most used biologic in our hospital, with an increasing trend toward the use of non-TNF inhibitors. Retention rates were higher in non-TNF inhibitors.

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.

Short interruptions of TNF-inhibitor treatment can be associated with treatment failure in patients with immune-mediated diseases

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of immune-mediated diseases has increased in the past decades and despite the use of biological treatments all patients do not achieve remission. The aim of this study was to characterise the reasons for short interruptions during treatment with two commonly used TNF-inhibitors infliximab and adalimumab and to analyse the possible effects of the interruptions on immunisation and switching the treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This case-control study was based on retrospective analyses of patient records and a questionnaire survey to clinicians. A total of 370 patients (194 immunised cases and 172 non-immunised controls, 4 excluded) were enrolled from eight hospitals around Finland. Eleven different diagnoses were represented, and the largest patient groups were those with inflammatory bowel or rheumatic diseases.

RESULTS

Treatment interruptions were associated with immunisation in patients using infliximab (p < .001) or adalimumab (p < .000001). Patients with treatment interruptions were more likely to have been treated with more than one biological agent compared to those without treatment interruptions. This was particularly prominent among patients with a rheumatic disease (p < .00001). The most frequent reason for a treatment interruption among the cases was an infection, whereas among the control patients it was remission. The median length of one interruption was one month (interquartile range 1-3 months).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the interruptions of the treatment with TNF-inhibitors expose patients to immunisation and increase the need for drug switching. These findings stress the importance of careful judgement of the need for a short interruption in the biological treatment in clinical work, especially during non-severe infections.

Janus kinase versus TNF inhibitors: where we stand today in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

In recent decades, Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment landscape has evolved with the induction of new biological and targeted therapies that provide significant therapeutic benefits in patients with sustained disease.

AREAS COVERED

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were the first biologics used in the treatment of RA. Although they present a significant efficacy, an insufficient response of some patients led to further research and discovery of targeted therapies, such as Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), which act at a molecular level, regulating many cytokines. Clinical benefits have been seen with both TNFi and JAKi as monotherapy and combined with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Still, some significant side effects have been reported with JAKi, and several questions remain about their safety and selectivity in action. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the mechanism of action, the clinical efficacy, and safety of TNFi vs. JAKi.

EXPERT OPINION

TNFi and JAKi are particularly useful in treating inflammatory arthropathies. Both drug categories are recommended by ACR and EULAR institutions in RA patients suffering from moderate to severe disease. Safety data in long-term studies are required to determine the optimal benefit to the risk profile of JAKi use.

Ozoralizumab, a Humanized Anti-TNFα NANOBODY® Compound, Exhibits Efficacy Not Only at the Onset of Arthritis in a Human TNF Transgenic Mouse but Also During Secondary Failure of Administration of an Anti-TNFα IgG

Although the introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors represented a significant advance in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), traditional anti-TNFα antibodies are somewhat immunogenic, and their use results in the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) and loss of efficacy (secondary failure). Ozoralizumab is a trivalent, bispecific NANOBODY^® compound that differs structurally from IgGs. In this study we investigated the suppressant effect of ozoralizumab and adalimumab, an anti-TNFα IgG, on arthritis and induction of ADAs in human TNF transgenic mice. Ozoralizumab markedly suppressed arthritis progression and did not induce ADAs during long-term administration. We also developed an animal model of secondary failure by repeatedly administering adalimumab and found that switching from adalimumab to ozoralizumab was followed by superior anti-arthritis efficacy in the secondary-failure animal model. Moreover, ozoralizumab did not form large immune complexes that might lead to ADA formation. The results of our studies suggest that ozoralizumab, which exhibited low immunogenicity in the animal model used and has a different antibody structure from that of IgGs, is a promising candidate for the treatment of RA patients not only at the onset of RA but also during secondary failure of anti-TNFα treatment.

Comparison of long-term efficacy between biological agents following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor failure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective cohort study

Background:

Currently, there is contradictory evidence regarding the best strategy to follow after discontinuation of a first biological agent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to compare the long-term efficacy of switching to a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus biopharmaceuticals with other mechanisms of action (non-TNFi) in patients with RA who previously failed a first TNFi.

Methods:

This prospective cohort study analyzed data from 127 patients who discontinued a previous TNFi between 1999 and 2016. Disease activity was assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months (m-6, m-12, m-24) after switching. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving good/moderate EULAR response (E-resp). Factors associated with clinical outcomes were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.

Results:

Seventy-seven (61%) patients received a second TNFi and 50 (39%) switched to a non-TNFi. At m-6 and m-12, no differences were observed between groups; nevertheless, at m-24, the proportion of patients with E-resp was higher in the non-TNFi group (49% TNFi group versus 77% non-TNFi group; p = 0.002). In regression models, switching to a non-TNFi was significantly associated with E-resp at m-24 (odds ratio = 3.21; p = 0.01). When assessing the response to the second biological agent based on the reason for discontinuation of the first TNFi, similar results were obtained; at m-24, patients who discontinued the first TNFi due to inefficacy (either primary or secondary) experienced a better E-resp if they had switched to a non-TNFi (primary inefficacy: 52% TNFi group versus 79% non-TNFi group, p = 0.09; secondary inefficacy: 50% versus 76%, p = 0.03).

Conclusion:

In our cohort of RA patients who discontinued a first TNFi, those who switched to a non-TNFi were three times more likely to attain a sustained clinical response, regardless of whether they had discontinued the first biologic due to a primary or secondary inefficacy.

Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review

Background: The practice of non-medical switch (NMS) from a reference biological (originator) to a biosimilar is widely accepted in some countries. However, there is little documentation on the impact of NMS from one originator to another originator. Objectives: To assess the consequences for patients of NMS from one biological originator to another, based on existing literature. The focus was on efficacy and cost of treatment with TNF-α-inhibitors in three disease areas. Methods: A literature search was conducted in Ovid (PubMed, EMBASE) and abstracts from meetings in key therapeutic areas, to identify studies reporting efficacy, safety or costs by switching between originator biologics. Results: 167 references were identified and abstracts screened; 36 papers reviewed in full text, and 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three clinical studies of NMS had very small sample sizes, but suggested that NMS is beneficial. The remaining three studies used administrative data with little clinical information, indicating that NMS was disadvantageous and associated with increased health care utilization and costs. Conclusions: There is very limited documentation on NMS from one originator biological to another, and the literature suffers from methodological limitations. The results are mixed and preclude drawing an overriding conclusion. Future studies, are warranted.

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

Cost-utility analysis of treatment options after initial tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy discontinuation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND: For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who discontinued initial treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), 2 approaches are commonly used: cycling to another TNFi or switching to a drug with another mechanism of action. Currently, there is no consensus on which approach to use first. A report from the IBM MarketScan Research administrative claims database showed adalimumab (cycling strategy) and abatacept (switching strategy) were more commonly prescribed after the first TNFi discontinuation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of adalimumab versus abatacept in patients with RA whose initial TNFi therapy failed. METHODS: A probabilistic cost-utility microsimulation state-transition model was used. Our target population was commercially insured adults with RA, the time horizon was 10 years, and we used a payer perspective. Patients not responding to adalimumab or abatacept were moved to the next drug in a sequence of 3 and, finally, to conventional synthetic therapy. Incremental cost-utility ratios (2016 USD per quality-adjusted-life-year gained [QALY)] were calculated. Utilities were derived from a formula based on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and age-adjusted comorbidity score. RESULTS: Switching to abatacept after the first TNFi showed an incremental cost of just more than $11,300 over 10 years and achieved a QALY benefit of 0.16 compared with adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $68,950 per QALY. Scenario analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range of $44,573 per QALY to $148,558 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that switching to abatacept after TNFi therapy failure had an 80.6% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to abatacept is a cost-effective strategy for patients with RA whose discontinue initial therapy with TNFi. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this project was provided by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award (principal investigator: Maria A. Lopez-Olivo). Karpes Matusevich's work was supported by a Doctoral Dissertation Research Award from the University of Texas, School of Public Health Office of Research. Lal reports competing interests outside of the submitted work (employed by Optum). Suarez-Almazor reports competing interests outside of the submitted work (consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Agile Therapeutics, Amag Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead). Chan, Swint, and Cantor have nothing to disclose.

Effect of Golimumab Dose Escalation in Japanese Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Post-Hoc Analysis of Post-Marketing Surveillance Data

Introduction

While dose escalation of golimumab has been used for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who demonstrate an inadequate response to the standard dose, its effectiveness has not been fully evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome observed by dose escalation of golimumab for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the daily clinical setting.

Methods

A post hoc analysis was performed of data from the 24-week post-marketing surveillance conducted in Japan (n = 5154). A total of 301 patients with moderate or high disease activity at baseline who underwent dose escalation of golimumab were assessed for effectiveness at 24 weeks based on several variables, such as DAS28-CRP, SDAI, and CDAI, as well as for medication persistence through 24 weeks. In addition, the study population was stratified by the time to dose escalation, and effectiveness was likewise evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with a moderate/good EULAR response to golimumab at 24 weeks.

Results

Patients with golimumab dose escalation showed significant improvement of the clinical signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis at 24 weeks, as indicated by reduction of the DAS28-CRP (∆0.89), SDAI (∆8.64), and CDAI (∆8.28) scores. This result was relatively consistent across the subgroups stratified by the timing of dose escalation. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, 78.1% of the patients continued to receive golimumab at 24 weeks, and this was also similar among the subgroups stratified by the time to dose escalation. Multivariate analysis identified male sex and previous biologic therapy as factors that were significantly associated with the clinical response at 24 weeks.

Conclusion

In real-world clinical practice, improvement of disease activity was observed after uptitration of golimumab from 50 to 100 mg regardless of the timing. Male patients and biologic-naive patients were more likely to respond to dose escalation of golimumab.

Trial Registration

UMIN-CTR, Identifier: UMIN000015895.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40744-020-00198-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introducing Patterns of Variability for Overcoming Compensatory Adaptation of the Immune System to Immunomodulatory Agents: A Novel Method for Improving Clinical Response to Anti-TNF Therapies

Primary lack of response and secondary loss of response (LOR) are major obstacles to the use of anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-based therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or inflammatory bowel disease. Here, we review the mechanisms and methods for predicting LOR and the currently used methods for overcoming the ineffectiveness of anti-TNFs. The complex functions of TNF and anti-TNF antibodies, which can promote both pro- or anti-inflammatory actions, and the factors that affect the induction of immune tolerance to their effects are presented. The lack of rules and the continuous dynamics of the immune processes partly underlie the unpredictability of the response to anti-TNFs. Variability is inherent to biological systems, including immune processes, and intra/inter-patient variability has been described in the response to drugs. This variability is viewed as a compensatory adaptation mechanism of the immune system in response to drugs and may contribute to treatment LOR. Dose reductions and drug holidays have been tested in patients treated with anti-TNFs. Regular dose-based regimens may be incompatible with physiological variability, further contributing to treatment inefficacy. We present the concept of overcoming immune system adaptation to anti-TNFs by introducing patient-tailored patterns of variability to treatment regimens.

Single-Arm Study of Etanercept in Adult Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Failed Adalimumab Treatment

Introduction

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of etanercept treatment in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who failed to respond (primary failure) or lost a satisfactory response (secondary failure) to adalimumab.

Methods

All patients discontinued prior adalimumab treatment and continued methotrexate with etanercept 50 mg once weekly for 24 weeks. The primary study endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 12.

Results

Eighty-five patients (mean age 56.6 years; female 80.0%) were evaluated for safety and 84 for efficacy. Thirty (35.7%) patients achieved ACR20 at week 12; the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI; 25.6, 46.9) was greater than the prespecified goal of 24% based on previous research. Improvements from baseline in clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes were observed at each study visit. In planned subgroup analyses, patients with anti-adalimumab antibodies and secondary adalimumab failure had the highest ACR20 response to etanercept at week 12 (11/17 patients; 64.7%). Among the patients with secondary adalimumab failure, those with anti-adalimumab antibodies were fivefold more likely to have an ACR20 response to etanercept than those without anti-adalimumab antibodies (odds ratio 5.2; 95% CI 2.0, 13.5; P < 0.001). Adverse events were reported for 62 (72.9%) patients and were consistent with previous studies of etanercept. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.

Conclusion

Switching to etanercept is a therapeutic option in patients with RA who fail adalimumab treatment. The presence of anti-adalimumab antibodies may provide additional support for switching to etanercept, particularly in patients with secondary adalimumab failure.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01927757.

Treatment with Biologicals in Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Overview

Management and therapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been revolutionized by the development and approval of the first biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α at the end of the last century. Today, numerous efficacious agents with different modes of action are available and achievement of clinical remission or, at least, low disease activity is the target of therapy. Early therapeutic interventions aiming at a defined goal of therapy (treat to target) are supposed to halt inflammation, improving symptoms and signs, and preserving structural integrity of the joints in RA. Up to now, bDMARDs approved for therapy in RA include agents with five different modes of action: TNF inhibition, T cell co-stimulation blockade, IL-6 receptor inhibition, B cell depletion, and interleukin 1 inhibition. Furthermore, targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) inhibiting Janus kinase (JAK) and biosimilars also are approved for RA. The present review focuses on bDMARDs and tsDMARDS regarding similarities and possible drug-specific advantages in the treatment of RA. Furthermore, compounds not yet approved in RA and biosimilars are discussed. Following the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations, specific treatment of the disease will be discussed with respect to safety and efficacy. In particular, we discuss the question of favoring specific bDMARDs or tsDMARDs in the two settings of insufficient response to methotrexate and to the first bDMARD, respectively.

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.

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.

Clinical Outcomes and Biologic Costs of Switching Between Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in US Veterans with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and drug/administration costs of treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) agents in US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating TNFi therapy. The analysis compared patients initiating and continuing a single TNFi with patients who subsequently switched to a different TNFi.

Methods

Data from patients enrolled in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) registry who initiated treatment with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab from 2003 to 2010 were analyzed. Outcomes included duration of therapy, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28), and direct drug and drug administration costs.

Results

Of 563 eligible patients, 262 initiated a single TNFi therapy, 142 restarted their initial TNFi after a ≥90-day gap in treatment (interrupted therapy), and 159 switched to a different TNFi. Patients who switched had higher mean DAS28 before starting TNFi therapy than patients with single or interrupted therapy: 5.3 vs 4.5 or 4.6, respectively. Mean duration of the first course was 34.3 months for single therapy, 18.3 months for interrupted therapy, and 17.7 months for switched therapy. Mean post-treatment DAS28 was highest for patients who switched TNFi. Mean annualized costs for first course were $13,800 for single therapy, $13,200 for interrupted therapy, and $14,200 for switched therapy; mean annualized costs for second course were $12,800 for interrupted therapy and $15,100 for switched therapy.

Conclusion

Patients who switched TNFi had higher pre-treatment DAS28 and higher overall costs than patients who received the same TNFi as either single or interrupted therapy.

Funding

This research was funded by Immunex Corp., a fully owned subsidiary of Amgen Inc., and by VA HSR&D Grant SHP 08-172.

Whole genome analysis on the genetic backgrounds associated with the secondary failure to etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Etanercept is effective for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, some of the patients eventually lose efficacy (secondary failure) despite the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We aimed to explore single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with secondary failure.

METHODS

We recruited RA patients given etanercept at 50 mg/week for ≥6 months from the Matsubara Mayflower Hospital RA registry. They were assigned to responders, secondary failure patients, and non-responders according to Disease Activity Score. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) was performed using Illumina HumanHAP300k BeadChips and the results were analyzed with Plink software. Clinical backgrounds were compared by ANOVA and contingency table analysis. The protocol was approved by IRB and written informed consent was obtained.

RESULTS

Ninety, 27 and 17 patients were assigned to responders, secondary failure patients, and non-responders, respectively. No significant differences were observed regarding clinical backgrounds among the groups. GWAS revealed that six and 37 SNPs may be associated with secondary failure to etanercept with p< 10^-6 and <10^-5, respectively.

CONCLUSION

While our preliminary results with borderline significance should be validated by studies with a greater population size, some of the SNPs detected by our GWAS may be involved in the development of secondary failure to etanercept.

Consistency and Utility of Data Items Across European Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Cohorts and Registers

OBJECTIVE

To identify overlaps, discrepancies, and perceived utility of the currently collected data in European clinical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cohorts and registers. Heterogeneity of data collection and data representation may limit comparative and collaborative RA research. Defining data standards is important and should be informed by which data items are currently collected and their perceived utility in scientific analyses.

METHODS

A web survey was sent to 27 European RA registers/clinical cohorts, requesting information on which specific data items were collected, how and with what frequency they were collected, how often data were missing, and if the items collected were regarded as useful for research.

RESULTS

Twenty-five of 27 contacted RA cohorts/registers from 16 different European countries, totaling 189,633 patients (range 130-55,000), completed the survey. Items collected by the majority of data sources and used frequently for research were composite disease activity scores, acute-phase reactants, joint counts, information on RA-specific treatments, physical function, and patient global assessment of disease activity. Many of the collected items showed large variability in terms of measurement and time point of collection. Among all items collected, disease activity, RA treatment, and joint counts were regarded as the most important. When not collected, smoking, imaging, and comorbidities were the top-ranked variables felt to have been worth collecting.

CONCLUSION

Even though certain items are regularly collected, the mode of data collection and the data definition are heterogeneous. Harmonization of data collection across European clinical RA data sources is therefore pivotal for future collaborative studies.

Cost-effectiveness of routine measuring of serum drug concentrations and anti-drug antibodies in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis patients with TNF-α blockers

Monitoring of anti-drug antibodies (ADAbs) or serum concentrations of biologicals in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis could provide an explanation for a loss of efficacy and help in the choice of subsequent medication. Current clinical practices do not generally include such monitoring of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α blockers on a routine basis. The main aims of this study were to estimate the probabilities of optimal and nonoptimal treatment decisions if infliximab or adalimumab drug trough level (DL) and ADAbs are tested or not in rheumatoid arthritis, and to model cost-effectiveness of performing such monitoring on a routine basis. Data on DLs and ADAbs concentrations were obtained in Finland from clinically requested monitoring analyses of 486 and 1,137 samples from patients on adalimumab and infliximab, respectively. DL was within the target range in 42% of samples from adalimumab- and 50.4% of infliximab-treated patients. ADAbs were detected in approximately 20% and 13.5% of samples from adalimumab- and infliximab-treated patients, respectively. ADAbs were found in 52.3% and 41.3% of those with low adalimumab or infliximab DLs, respectively. The monitoring data were incorporated into probabilities for making the optimal treatment decision. Economic impact of clinical decision-making was modeled in a short-term (3–6 months) scenario with 100 hypothetical patients. In the model, the combined measurement of DLs and ADAbs was cost-saving compared to the nontesting scenario when the monitoring results affected the treatment decision in at least 2–5 of 100 patients, a proportion which is easily exceeded in real-life clinical practice. This study indicates that routine monitoring of drug level and ADAbs is cost-beneficial in clinical practice, thereby improving the decision-making process in using TNF-α blockers.

Effectiveness and Drug Survival of TNF Inhibitors in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Prospective Cohort Study

Objective.

The aim of this research was to describe the effectiveness and drug survival of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and to analyze the effect of concomitant treatment with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Methods.

Patients with AS identified from the National Register for Biologic Treatment in Finland starting their first TNF inhibitor treatment between July 2004 and December 2011 were included. Treatment response was measured as an improvement of 50% (or 20 mm) after 6 months of treatment onset compared to the baseline Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score. Treatment response and 2-year drug survival were modeled with logistic regression and time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models, respectively.

Results.

The study comprised 543 patients, of whom 123 also commenced a second TNF inhibitor during the followup. Treatment was discontinued within 24 months by 25% and 28% of the users of the first and the second TNF inhibitors, respectively. BASDAI response at 6 months was achieved by 52% and 25% of the users of the first and the second TNF inhibitors, respectively. Etanercept (ETN; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29–0.62) and adalimumab (ADA; HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30–0.77) were associated with better drug survival in comparison to infliximab (IFX). Also, concurrent use of sulfasalazine (SSZ; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49–0.99) decreased the hazard for treatment discontinuation.

Conclusion.

TNF inhibitors are equipotent in the treatment of AS; however, ETN and ADA were found superior to IFX in drug survival. The use of SSZ improves treatment continuation.

Medication adherence and persistence in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with adalimumab and etanercept. Six years of analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate medication adherence and persistence of patients treated with Etanercept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis, also giving economic evaluations on therapy costs for Received Daily Dose (RDD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study took into account 6 years from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2012. Medication adherence was quantified utilizing the ratio between RDD and Prescribed Daily Dose (PDD). Persistence has been reckoned taking into account the actual days of therapy comparing posology with supplied dose. The persistence has been graphed according to Kaplan-Meier method. The cost per RDD was reckoned starting from the expense incurred by Pescara General Hospital.

RESULTS

Medication adherence gave results in values between 0.88-0.97 for Etanercept and 0.83-0.90 for Adalimumab. The value of persistence was 100% for Etanercept and 90% for Adalimumab for the first year, and 70% for Etanercept and 80% for Adalimumab for the second year. In the 3rd year the persistence for Etanercept was 50% while for Adalimumab it was 60%. In the fourth year the persistence for Etanercept was 21% while for Adalimumab it was 27%. The statistical analysis was conducted using the Log rank test. The average cost per RDD was €32.97 for Etanercept and for Adalimumab it was €32.00 as an average of 6 years.

CONCLUSION

The medication adherence was good for both Etanercept and Adalimumab. The rate of persistence decreased strictly in the fourth year of treatment. This data suggests the need for continuous monitoring of patients in treatment with TNF blockers.

Effects of infliximab retreatment after consecutive discontinuation of infliximab and adalimumab in refractory Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Switches between anti-tumor necrosis factor agents in the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) occur in case of treatment failure, intolerance, or patient preference. No data are currently available on the usefulness of a second infliximab treatment after earlier discontinuation and previous switch to an alternative anti-tumor necrosis factor agent. In this study, we evaluated the clinical benefit of infliximab retreatment in patients with CD after sequential use of both infliximab and adalimumab.

METHODS

Twenty-nine patients with CD who had received earlier treatments with sequential infliximab and adalimumab and were then restarted on infliximab were retrieved from a multicenter registry designed for the follow-up of adalimumab treatment for CD. Short-term and sustained effects of infliximab retreatment were evaluated retrospectively by reviewing clinical records. Follow-up was 18 months for all patients.

RESULTS

In 13/29 (45%) patients, infliximab was reintroduced at intensified dosing schedule (>5 mg/kg or <8 wk) for 23/29 (79%) of patients similar to the schedule who were on at time of previous discontinuation. During the second infliximab treatment course, dosing was further intensified in 11 out of 29 (38%) patients. After 18 months 18/29 (62%), patients were still on continued therapy of their second infliximab treatment. Infliximab was discontinued (after a median of 7 mo) in 11 out of 29 patients for loss of response (n = 7 [24%]), intolerance (n = 3 [10%]), or non-compliance (n = 1 [3%]). Use of induction schedule or concomitant immunomodulators were not significantly associated with treatment benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients with CD benefit from a second treatment with infliximab after previous treatment with infliximab and adalimumab, which offer a meaningful therapeutic option in often highly refractory patients.

Rituximab versus an alternative TNF inhibitor in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who failed to respond to a single previous TNF inhibitor: SWITCH-RA, a global, observational, comparative effectiveness study

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness of rituximab versus an alternative tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to one previous TNFi.

Methods

SWITCH-RA was a prospective, global, observational, real-life study. Patients non-responsive or intolerant to a single TNFi were enrolled ≤4 weeks after starting rituximab or a second TNFi. Primary end point: change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints excluding patient's global health component (DAS28-3)–erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) over 6 months.

Results

604 patients received rituximab, and 507 an alternative TNFi as second biological therapy. Reasons for discontinuing the first TNFi were inefficacy (n=827), intolerance (n=263) and other (n=21). A total of 728 patients were available for primary end point analysis (rituximab n=405; TNFi n=323). Baseline mean (SD) DAS28-3–ESR was higher in the rituximab than the TNFi group: 5.2 (1.2) vs 4.8 (1.3); p<0.0001. Least squares mean (SE) change in DAS28-3–ESR at 6 months was significantly greater in rituximab than TNFi patients: −1.5 (0.2) vs −1.1 (0.2); p=0.007. The difference remained significant among patients discontinuing the initial TNFi because of inefficacy (−1.7 vs −1.3; p=0.017) but not intolerance (−0.7 vs −0.7; p=0.894). Seropositive patients showed significantly greater improvements in DAS28-3–ESR with rituximab than with TNFi (−1.6 (0.3) vs −1.2 (0.3); p=0.011), particularly those switching because of inefficacy (−1.9 (0.3) vs −1.5 (0.4); p=0.021). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the rituximab and TNFi groups.

Conclusions

These real-life data indicate that, after discontinuation of an initial TNFi, switching to rituximab is associated with significantly improved clinical effectiveness compared with switching to a second TNFi. This difference was particularly evident in seropositive patients and in those switched because of inefficacy.

Safety and effectiveness of adalimumab in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients: postmarketing surveillance report of 7740 patients

OBJECTIVES

To confirm the safety and effectiveness of adalimumab and to evaluate the influence of the concomitant use of methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

Postmarketing surveillance of 7740 Japanese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients was performed. All patients who received adalimumab in the registration period were followed for 28 weeks after starting treatment for safety and 24 weeks for effectiveness. Effectiveness was measured by duration of morning stiffness, swollen and tender joint counts (28 joints), patient global assessment of disease activity, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and serum C-reactive protein.

RESULTS

Comparable rates of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported in this study and in the interim analysis. Age, pulmonary disease history or comorbidity, co-existing diabetes mellitus, concomitant MTX at doses of > 8 mg/week and concomitant glucocorticoids at doses of > 5 mg/day were risk factors for infections. All mean values of effectiveness measurements improved. Relatively lower disease activity at baseline, biologic-naïve, concomitant MTX use and early RA stage/low functional class were background factors contributing to the effectiveness. The combination of adalimumab with MTX improved the response to adalimumab treatment.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab, especially with concomitant use of MTX, provided significant improvement in disease activity, without any unexpected ADRs in Japanese RA patients.

Clinical outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis switched to tocilizumab after etanercept or infliximab failure

The present study retrospectively assessed the efficacy of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who failed to respond to treatment with etanercept or infliximab. A retrospective study of 33 RA patients who did not respond to etanercept or infliximab was conducted. Responses of subjects switching from etanercept to tocilizumab (n = 17) were compared with those switching from infliximab to tocilizumab (n = 16). Treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs before the switch, especially methotrexate (MTX), was maintained. Disease activity was assessed by the Disease Activity Score 28-C Reactive Protein (DAS28-CRP), the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). Patients who switched from etanercept were significantly less likely to have used MTX and were significantly older than patients who switched from infliximab. In both groups, there was a significant reduction from baseline in DAS28-CRP, SDAI, and CDAI values at 24 weeks with no significant differences between groups. However, at week 52, DAS28-CRP, SDAI, and CDAI values in the group switched from etanercept were significantly worse than those in the group switched from infliximab. All patients switched from infliximab were using MTX. In the evaluation between patients who switched from etanercept monotherapy, etanercept plus MTX, and infliximab plus MTX, a significant improvement from baseline was seen in DAS28-CRP, SDAI, and CDAI for all patients at 24 weeks with no significant differences between groups. Disease activity was maintained at 52 weeks in the group that switched from etanercept plus MTX and infliximab plus MTX. However, the efficacy of tocilizumab was decreased in the group that switched from etanercept monotherapy. Switching from etanercept plus MTX or from infliximab plus MTX to tocilizumab plus MTX improved response to therapy, but switching from etanercept monotherapy to tocilizumab monotherapy did not improve response to therapy.

Long-term outcome of a third anti-TNF monoclonal antibody after the failure of two prior anti-TNFs in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of patients with IBD lose response to anti-TNF therapies. There is limited knowledge of the long-term outcomes of those who have failed two anti-TNF agents and commenced a third.

AIM

To examine the safety and efficacy of third anti-TNF treatment after failure of two prior anti-TNF agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all IBD patients [Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC)] treated with a third anti-TNF agent after loss of response or intolerance to two prior anti-TNF agents at a single tertiary North American centre. Disease activity, drug therapy and Montreal phenotypes were noted at disease onset and commencement of the third anti-TNF agent. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to calculate the probability of remaining on the third anti-TNF agent and to identify predictors of long-term clinical response.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients (64% women, 57 CD and 6 UC) were included in the analysis. The mean disease duration at initiation of third anti-TNF was 12 years. Thirty-five (55.6%) patients discontinued the third anti-TNF after a mean of 13.2 months. Probability of remaining on the third anti-TNF was 0.69, 0.55, 0.37 and 0.25 at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months respectively. Prior primary nonresponders to the first anti-TNF agent [hazard ratio (HR) 6.4, 95% CI 2.5-16.1] and persistent disease activity at 3 months after commencement of a third anti-TNF (HR 3.2, 95% CI 1.3-7.8) predicted poorer response.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, initiated on a third anti-TNF agent after failure of two prior anti-TNF drugs, are able to remain on the third anti-TNF at 1 year.

Clinical response, drug survival and predictors thereof in 432 ankylosing spondylitis patients after switching tumour necrosis factor α inhibitor therapy: results from the Danish nationwide DANBIO registry

OBJECTIVE

To investigate frequencies and reasons for switching, treatment responses and drug survival in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) switching tumour-necrosis-factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) treatment in routine clinical care.

METHODS

AS patients were identified in the Danish nationwide DANBIO registry. Disease activity, treatment responses (50% or 20 mm reduction in Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI)), duration and rates of drug survival and predictors thereof were studied in patients receiving ≥2 different biological drugs.

RESULTS

Of 1436 AS patients starting TNFi treatment, 432 patients (30%) switched to a second and 137 (10%) to a third biological drug. Compared with non-switchers, switchers were more frequently women (33%/22%), had shorter disease duration (3 years/5 years) and higher BASDAI (62(52-76) mm/56(43-69) mm (median(interquartile-range))), Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) (54(39-71) mm/47(31-65) mm) and visual-analogue-scale (VAS) global, pain and fatigue scores when they started the first TNFi (all p<0.01). Main reason for switching was lack of response (56%). During the first, second and third treatment BAS- and VAS scores had decreased after 6 months' treatment (all p<0.05). Median drug survivals were 3.1, 1.6 and 1.8 years respectively (p<0.001). After 2 years of treatment 52% of switchers and 63% of non-switchers had achieved response (number needed to treat 1.9 and 1.6, respectively, p=0.01). Drug survivals were similar regardless of the reason for switching. Male gender and low BASFI predicted drug survival of the second TNFi.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly one-third of AS patients in clinical practice switched biological treatment. Response rates and drug survivals were lower among switchers, however, half of switchers achieved treatment response.