Efficacy of Abatacept and Adalimumab in Patients with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis With Multiple Poor Prognostic Factors: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (AMPLE)

Tailoring the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases by a better stratification and characterization of the clinical patient heterogeneity. Findings from a systematic literature review and experts' consensus

Inflammatory rheumatic diseases are different pathologic conditions associated with a deregulated immune response, codified along a spectrum of disorders, with autoinflammatory and autoimmune diseases as two-end phenotypes of this continuum. Despite pathogenic differences, inflammatory rheumatic diseases are commonly managed with a limited number of immunosuppressive drugs, sometimes with partial evidence or transferring physicians' knowledge in different patients. In addition, several randomized clinical trials, enrolling these patients, did not meet the primary pre-established outcomes and these findings could be linked to the underlying molecular diversities along the spectrum of inflammatory rheumatic disorders. In fact, the resulting patient heterogeneity may be driven by differences in underlying molecular pathology also resulting in variable responses to immunosuppressive drugs. Thus, the identification of different clinical subsets may possibly overcome the major obstacles that limit the development more effective therapeutic strategies for these patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. This clinical heterogeneity could require a diverse therapeutic management to improve patient outcomes and increase the frequency of clinical remission. Therefore, the importance of better patient stratification and characterization is increasingly pointed out according to the precision medicine principles, also suggesting a new approach for disease treatment. In fact, based on a better proposed patient profiling, clinicians could more appropriately balance the therapeutic management. On these bases, we synthetized and discussed the available literature about the patient profiling in regard to therapy in the context of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, mainly focusing on randomized clinical trials. We provided an overview of the importance of a better stratification and characterization of the clinical heterogeneity of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases identifying this point as crucial in improving the management of these patients.

Associations of disease duration and anti-citrullinated peptide antibody status with the effectiveness of abatacept in biologic-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Post hoc analysis of a multicentre, real-world observational study in Japan (ORIGAMI)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the article is to investigate the associations of disease duration and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) status with the effectiveness of abatacept in biologic-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We performed post hoc analyses of the Orencia® Registry in Geographically Assembled Multicenter Investigation (ORIGAMI) study of biologic-naïve RA patients aged ≥20 years with moderate disease activity who were prescribed abatacept. Changes in the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Japanese Health Assessment Questionnaire (J-HAQ) at 4, 24, and 52 weeks of treatment were analysed in patients divided according to ACPA serostatus (positive/negative), disease duration (<1/≥1 year), or both.

RESULTS

SDAI scores decreased from baseline in all groups. SDAI scores tended to decrease more in the ACPA-positive group and disease duration <1-year group than in the ACPA-negative group and disease duration ≥1-year group, respectively. In the disease duration <1-year group, SDAI tended to decrease more in the ACPA-positive group than in the ACPA-negative group. Disease duration was independently associated with the change in SDAI and SDAI remission at Week 52 in multivariable regression models.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that starting abatacept within 1 year of diagnosis was associated with greater effectiveness of abatacept in biologic-naïve patients with RA and moderate disease activity.

Comparative effectiveness of TNF inhibitor vs IL-6 receptor inhibitor as monotherapy or combination therapy with methotrexate in biologic-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An analysis from the CorEvitas RA Registry

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high disease activity and inadequate response/intolerance to methotrexate have shown interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor inhibitors (IL-6Ri) to be superior to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) as monotherapy. This observational study aimed to compare the effectiveness of TNFi vs IL-6Ri as mono- or combination therapy in biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) -experienced RA patients with moderate/high disease activity.

METHODS

Eligible b/ts-experienced patients from the CorEvitas RA registry were categorized as TNFi and IL-6Ri initiators, with subgroups initiating as mono- or combination therapy. Mixed-effects regression models evaluated the impact of treatment on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), patient-reported outcomes, and disproportionate pain (DP). Unadjusted and covariate-adjusted effects were reported.

RESULTS

Patients initiating IL-6Ri (n = 286) vs TNFi monotherapy (n = 737) were older, had a longer RA history and higher baseline CDAI, and were more likely to initiate as third-line therapy; IL-6Ri (n = 401) vs TNFi (n = 1315) combination therapy initiators had higher baseline CDAI and were more likely to initiate as third-line therapy. No significant differences were noted in the outcomes between TNFi and IL-6Ri initiators (as mono- or combination therapy).

CONCLUSION

This observational study showed no significant differences in outcomes among b/ts-experienced TNFi vs IL-6Ri initiators, as either mono- or combination therapy. These findings were in contrast with the previous RCTs in biologic-naïve patients and could be explained by the differences in the patient characteristics included in this study. Further studies are needed to help understand the reasons for this discrepancy in the real-world b/ts-experienced population.

Managing inadequate response to initial anti-TNF therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: optimising treatment outcomes

Anti-tumour necrosis factors (anti-TNFs) are established as first-line biological therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with over two decades of accumulated clinical experience. Anti-TNFs have well established efficacy/safety profiles along with additional benefits on various comorbidities. However, up to 40% of patients may respond inadequately to an initial anti-TNF treatment because of primary non-response, loss of response, or intolerance. Following inadequate response (IR) to anti-TNF treatment, clinicians can consider switching to an alternative anti-TNF (cycling) or to another class of targeted drug with a different mechanism of action, such as Janus kinase inhibitors, interleukin-6 receptor blockers, B-cell depletion agents, and co-stimulation inhibitors (swapping). While European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for pharmacotherapeutic management of RA, published in 2020, are widely regarded as helpful guides to clinical practice, they do not provide any clear recommendations on therapeutic choices following an IR to first-line anti-TNF. This suggests that both cycling and swapping treatment strategies are of equal value, but that the treating physician must take the patient’s individual characteristics into account. This article considers which patient characteristics influence clinical decision-making processes, including the reason for treatment failure, previous therapies, comorbidities, extra-articular manifestations, pregnancy, patient preference and cost-effectiveness, and what evidence is available to support decisions made by the physician.

Efficacy of Abatacept Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Anti-citrullinated Protein Antibody-Positive Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from a Korean Nationwide Biologics Registry

INTRODUCTION

To compare the efficacy of abatacept and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in patients with anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and identify those who benefit most from abatacept over TNFi.

METHODS

This observational study identified RA patients who were ACPA-positive and initiated abatacept or TNFi from the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics and Targeted therapy registry. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed to balance baseline confounding in abatacept- or TNFi-treated patients. The major endpoints were changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and achievement of CDAI remission/low disease activity after 1 year of treatment. Subgroup analysis was mainly performed stratified by prior biologics use.

RESULTS

A total of 291 PS-matched, ACPA-positive RA patients who initiated abatacept (n = 97) and TNFi (n = 194) were included. From baseline CDAI scores of 26.52 in the abatacept group and 26.38 in the TNFi group, the mean changes after 1 year were - 16.78 and - 13.61, respectively (difference - 3.17, p = 0.020). The proportion of patients achieving CDAI remission/low disease activity was 68.0% with abatacept and 52.6% with TNFi (p = 0.013). In the subgroup analysis, patients that were biologics-naïve had better improvement in CDAI after treatment with abatacept than TNFi (difference - 3.35, p = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world study suggests that abatacept may have better clinical response compared to TNFi in patients with established ACPA-positive RA, especially in those that were biologics-naïve.

Comparison of Adalimumab to Other Targeted Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Few studies compared adalimumab to other targeted therapies in head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but multiple comparisons are not available. This Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis evaluated which targeted therapy is more likely to achieve ACR50 response with good safety at 24 weeks of treatment in RA. A systematic literature review was conducted for head-to-head phase 3 RCTs that compared adalimumab to other targeted therapies in combination with methotrexate (MTX) or as monotherapy to treat RA patients, and searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrial.gov. The outcomes of interest were ACR50 response and withdrawals due to adverse events at 24 weeks. WinBUGS 1.4 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) was used to perform the analyses, using a random effect model. Sixteen studies were included in the analysis. The most favorable SUCRA for the ACR50 response rate at 24 weeks of treatment in combination with MTX was ranked by upadacitinib, followed by baricitinib, tofacitinib and filgotinib. As monotherapy, the highest probability was ranked by tocilizumab followed by sarilumab. No significant differences in safety profile among treatment options were found. Jak-inhibitors in combination with MTX and interleukin-6 antagonism as monotherapy showed the highest probability to achieve ACR50 response after 24 weeks of treatment. None of assessed targeted therapies were associated to risk of withdrawal due to adverse events. Key messages: Direct and indirect comparison between adalimumab and other targeted therapies demonstrated some differences in terms of efficacy that may help to drive RA treatment. Jak-inhibitors and interleukine-6 antagonists ranked as first in the probability to achieve ACR50 response after 24 weeks of treatment in combination with methotrexate or monotherapy, respectively.

HLA-DRB1 risk alleles for RA are associated with differential clinical responsiveness to abatacept and adalimumab: data from a head-to-head, randomized, single-blind study in autoantibody-positive early RA

Background

Certain risk alleles associated with autoantibody-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been linked to poorer prognoses. In patients with autoantibody-positive RA, abatacept shows differential efficacy to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Our aim was to investigate the relationship between clinical response to abatacept and to adalimumab and presence of risk alleles encoding human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) in RA.

Methods

In this head-to-head study, biologic-naïve adults with early (≤ 12 months), moderate-to-severe RA and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR), autoantibody-positive for both anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide 2 and rheumatoid factor, were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg weekly or subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks with stable, weekly oral MTX. An open-label period to 48 weeks followed, during which adalimumab-treated patients were switched to abatacept. Patients were genotyped for HLA-DRB1 alleles and classified as SE-positive (≥ 1 SE allele) or SE-negative (no SE alleles). Efficacy was assessed at weeks 24 and 48.

Results

Forty patients each received abatacept (9 SE-negative, 30 SE-positive, one unknown) or adalimumab (9 SE-negative, 31 SE-positive). Mean age and disease duration were 46.0 years and 5.5 months, respectively. At week 24, a greater percentage of abatacept patients achieved 50% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR50) compared with adalimumab patients (73% vs 45%, respectively) and estimate of difference (95% confidence interval [CI]), 28 (5, 48). In SE-positive patients, ACR50 estimate of difference (95% CI) was 32 (7, 55). During the open-label period, responses were sustained in the abatacept non-switch group and showed trends toward further improvement in the adalimumab-to-abatacept switch group at week 48, in both the overall and the SE-positive subpopulation. No new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions

In MTX-IR patients with early, autoantibody-positive RA, abatacept resulted in numerically higher efficacy responses versus adalimumab after 24 weeks, with more pronounced treatment differences in SE-positive patients. After 48 weeks, responses were sustained in patients who continued abatacept while those who switched to abatacept showed further clinical improvement, overall, and in SE-positive patients. This supports co-stimulation blockade as an effective treatment strategy for patients with early, autoantibody-positive RA, particularly among SE-positive patients.

Trial registration

NIH US National Library of Medicine, NCT02557100. Registered on September 23, 2015.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-021-02607-7.

Efficacy of novel bispecific antibody targeting TNF-α/CXCL10 in the treatment of experimental arthritis

This study was aimed at generating and investigating the efficacy of a novel monoclonal bispecific antibody (BsAb) for the combined inhibition of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and CXCL10 as a treatment option for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A novel BsAb targeting TNF-α and CXCL10 was generated by conjugating a single-chain variable fragment (scFv) of the anti-CXCL10 monoclonal antibody to the Fc region of adalimumab (ADA). The effects of the BsAb on the inflammatory response in the in vitro and in vivo development of arthritis and joint destruction were evaluated in human TNF transgenic (hTNF-Tg) mice, and K/BxN serum transfer arthritis models. The BsAb inhibited CXCL10-mediated CD8⁺ T cell migration. The binding affinity of the BsAb to TNF-α was comparable to that of ADA and suppressed TNF-α induced cell death and inhibited TNF-α induced ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 in RA fibroblast-like synoviocytes (FLSs). The BsAb decreased the expression of TNFSF11 and the production of IL-6 in RA-FLS cells stimulated with TNF-α and CXCL10. Treatment with the BsAb attenuated the development of arthritis in hTNF-Tg mice and suppressed LPS-induced bone erosion. In the K/BxN serum transfer model, BsAb effectively attenuated ankle swelling, synovial inflammation, cartilage damage, and bone destruction, reducing the activation of osteoclasts. The additional neutralization of TNF-α and CXCL10 from treatment with the novel BsAb was more effective than TNF-α inhibition alone in the in vitro and in vivo models of RA. Thus, the BsAb, targeting both TNF-α and CXCL10, may provide a new therapeutic opportunity for RA patients who fail to respond to the blockade of a single cytokine.

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.

The impact of seropositivity on the effectiveness of biologic anti-rheumatic agents: results from a collaboration of 16 registries

OBJECTIVES

RF and ACPA are used as diagnostic tools and their presence has been associated with clinical response to some biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in RA. This study compared the impact of seropositivity on drug discontinuation and effectiveness of bDMARDs in patients with RA, using head-to-head comparisons in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We conducted a pooled analysis of 16 observational RA registries. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of RA, initiation of treatment with rituximab (RTX), abatacept (ABA), tocilizumab (TCZ) or TNF inhibitors (TNFis) and available information on RF and/or ACPA status. Drug discontinuation was analysed using Cox regression, including drug, seropositivity, their interaction, adjusting for concomitant and past treatments and patient and disease characteristics and accounting for country and calendar year of bDMARD initiation. Effectiveness was analysed using the Clinical Disease Activity Index evolution over time.

RESULTS

Among the 27 583 eligible patients, the association of seropositivity with drug discontinuation differed across bDMARDs (P for interaction <0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios for seropositive compared with seronegative patients were 1.01 (95% CI 0.95, 1.07) for TNFis, 0.89 (0.78, 1.02)] for TCZ, 0.80 (0.72, 0.88) for ABA and 0.70 (0.59, 0.84) for RTX. Adjusted differences in remission and low disease activity rates between seropositive and seronegative patients followed the same pattern, with no difference in TNFis, a small difference in TCZ, a larger difference in ABA and the largest difference in RTX (Lundex remission difference +5.9%, low disease activity difference +11.6%).

CONCLUSION

Seropositivity was associated with increased effectiveness of non-TNFi bDMARDs, especially RTX and ABA, but not TNFis.