Comparative Effectiveness of Abatacept Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Are Anti-CCP Positive in the United States Corrona Registry

Anti-citrullinated protein antibody profiles predict changes in disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating biologics

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether an expanded antigen-specific ACPA profile predicts changes in disease activity in patients with RA initiating biologics.

METHODS

The study included participants from a prospective, non-randomized, observational RA cohort. For this sub-study, treatment groups of interest included biologic-naïve initiating anti-TNF, biologic-exposed initiating non-TNF, and biologic-naïve initiating abatacept. ACPAs to 25 citrullinated peptides were measured using banked enrolment serum. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed and associations of resulting principal component (PC) scores (in quartiles) and anti-CCP3 antibody (≤15, 16-250 or >250 U/ml) with EULAR (good/moderate/none) treatment response at 6 months were examined using adjusted ordinal regression models.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 1092) had a mean age of 57 (13) years and 79% were women. At 6 months, 68.5% achieved a moderate/good EULAR response. There were three PCs that cumulatively explained 70% of variation in ACPA values. In models including the three components and anti-CCP3 antibody category, only PC1 and PC2 were associated with treatment response. The highest quartile for PC1 (odds ratio [OR] 1.76; 95% CI: 1.22, 2.53) and for PC2 (OR 1.74; 95% CI: 1.23, 2.46) were associated with treatment response after multivariable adjustment. There was no evidence of interaction between PCs and treatment group in EULAR responses (P-value for interaction >0.1).

CONCLUSION

An expanded ACPA profile appears to be more strongly associated with biologic treatment response in RA than commercially available anti-CCP3 antibody levels. However, further enhancements to PCA will be needed to effectively prioritize between different biologics available for the treatment of RA.

Comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are ACPA and shared epitope positive

BACKGROUND

The HLA-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) is a risk factor for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the production of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) in RA patients. Our objective was to examine the real-world effectiveness of abatacept versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with RA who were SE and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (anti-CCP3) positive.

METHODS

Abatacept or TNFi initiators who were SE + and anti-CCP3+ (> 20 U/mL) at or prior to treatment and had moderate or high CDAI score (> 10) at initiation were identified. The primary outcome was mean change in CDAI score over six months. Analyses were conducted in propensity score (PS)-trimmed and -matched populations overall and a biologic-experienced subgroup. Mixed-effects models were used.

RESULTS

In the overall PS-trimmed (abatacept, n = 170; TNFi, n = 157) and PS-matched cohorts (abatacept, n = 111; TNFi, n = 111), there were numerically greater improvements in mean change in CDAI between abatacept and TNFi but were not statistically significant. Similar trends were seen for biologic-experienced patients, except that statistical significance was reached for mean change in CDAI in the PS-trimmed cohort (abatacept, 12.22 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 10.13 to 14.31]; TNFi, 9.28 [95%CI 7.08 to 11.48]; p = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

In this real world cohort, there were numerical improvements in efficacy outcomes with abatacept over TNFi in patients with RA who were SE + and ACPA+, similar to results from a clinical trial population The only statistically significant finding after adjusting for covariates was greater improvement in CDAI with abatacept versus TNFi in the bio-experienced PS-trimmed cohort..

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess real-world comparative effectiveness studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through a systematic review.

METHODS

We searched Medline for journal articles (2001-2021) and Embase® for abstracts presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 and 2021 annual meetings on non-randomized studies comparing the effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs using ACR-recommended disease activity measures, measures of functional status, and patient-reported outcomes (HAQ, PROMIS PF, patient pain, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of disease activity). Methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool.

RESULTS

Of 1283 records screened, 68 were selected for data extraction, of which 1 was excluded due to critical risk of bias. Most studies were multicenter observational cohort/registry studies (n = 60) and were published between 2011 and 2021 (n = 60). Mean or median reported RA duration was between 6 and 15 years. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (46 studies), Clinical Disease Activity Index (37 studies), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (32 studies) were the most common outcomes used in clinical practice, with regional differences identified. The most common comparison was between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFi bDMARDs (35 studies). There were no evident differences between b/tsDMARDs in clinical effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarizing real-world evidence from a very large number of global studies found there are many effective options for the treatment of RA, but relatively less evidence to support the use of any one b/tsDMARD or drug class over another. Treatment for patients with RA should be tailored to suit individual clinical profiles. Further research is needed to identify whether specific patient subgroups may benefit from specific drug classes.

Real-world Comparative Effectiveness of Methotrexate-based Combinations for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend using disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after monotherapy. Little is known about the real-world comparative effectiveness of these MTX-DMARD combinations. This study compared the effectiveness of various MTX-based DMARD combinations for patients with RA initiating MTX-DMARD combination therapy using administrative claims database.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) with RA who initiated MTX combination treatment with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), non-TNFi bDMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) between July 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013 (index date), from the MarketScan Commercial Claims Data. Patients had continuous enrollment from the 6 months of preindex period until the 12 months of postindex period. The MTX-based DMARD combination therapy cohort was defined as ≥1 MTX prescription in the first 30 days from the index date and ≥14 days overlapping use of the prescription fills of the MTX and the index DMARD. Effectiveness was measured by using the claims algorithm (dosing, switching, addition, oral glucocorticoid use, or multiple glucocorticoid injection). Propensity score analysis with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (PS-IPTW), estimated by using the generalized boosted machine learning method, was used to balance the distribution of baseline variables between the combination groups. Multivariable logistic regression using PS-IPTW was conducted to compare the effectiveness of the combination groups. Sensitivity analysis evaluated the modified effectiveness algorithms or the time to the first treatment failure.

FINDINGS

A total of 3174 adult patients with RA starting an MTX-DMARD combination therapy were identified (mean [SD] age, 50 [9] years), including 1568 (49%) initiating a csDMARD + MTX, 1343 (42%) initiating TNFi + MTX, and 240 (8%) initiating non-TNFi bDMARD + MTX, and 23 (1%) initiating tsDMARD + MTX. Owing to the small sample, the tsDMARD combination group was not included in the comparative analysis. Algorithm-based therapy effectiveness was found in 9.95% of the csDMARD + MTX, 20.48% of the TNFi + MTX, and 20.83% of the non-TNFi + MTX groups. PS-IPTW showed that the csDMARD combination is less effective (adjusted odds ratio, 0.422; 95% CI, 0.341-0.524) than the TNFi combination; however, the non-TNFi biologic combination had similar effectiveness (aOR, 1.063; 95% CI, 0.680-1.662) compared to the TNFi combination. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the main results.

IMPLICATIONS

Among RA patients initiating MTX-DMARD combinations, both non-TNFi biologics and TNFi-based combinations with MTX were equally effective, but csDMARD + MTX was less effective than the TNFi plus MTX.

Tailored therapeutic decision of rheumatoid arthritis using proteomic strategies: how to start and when to stop?

Unpredictable treatment responses have been an obstacle for the successful management of rheumatoid arthritis. Although numerous serum proteins have been proposed, there is a lack of integrative survey to compare their relevance in predicting treatment outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. Also, little is known about their applications in various treatment stages, such as dose modification, drug switching or withdrawal. Here we present an in-depth exploration of the potential usefulness of serum proteins in clinical decision-making and unveil the spectrum of immunopathology underlying responders to different drugs. Patients with robust autoimmunity and inflammation are more responsive to biological treatments and prone to relapse during treatment de-escalation. Moreover, the concentration changes of serum proteins at the beginning of the treatments possibly assist early recognition of treatment responders. With a better understanding of the relationship between the serum proteome and treatment responses, personalized medicine in rheumatoid arthritis will be more achievable in the near future.

Evaluation of BMS-986142, a reversible Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, adaptive design study

BACKGROUND

Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is a promising biological target for rheumatoid arthritis treatment. This study examined safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of BMS-986142, an oral, reversible BTK inhibitor. The aim was to compare the efficacy of BMS-986142 with placebo on a background of methotrexate in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate.

METHODS

This phase 2, randomised, double-blind, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, adaptive design study was conducted across 14 countries and 79 clinical sites. We recruited people aged 18 years or older with a documented diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis at least 16 weeks before screening with an inadequate response to methotrexate with or without inadequate response to up to two tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to oral BMS-986142 (100 mg, 200 mg, or 350 mg) or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system and stratified by prior treatment status and geographical region. All participants, care providers, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Co-primary endpoints were 20% and 70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 and ACR70) at week 12. Primary endpoints were assessed in the efficacy analysis population (all randomised patients who received at least one dose of the study drug and did not discontinue the study). Safety endpoints were analysed in the as-treated analysis population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug (patients were grouped according to the treatment they actually received vs the treatment to which they were randomised). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02638948.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 24, 2016 and May 3, 2018, 248 patients were randomised (73 in the BMS-986142 100 mg group, 73 in the 200 mg group, 26 in the 350 mg group, and 75 in the placebo group; one post-randomisation exclusion); mean age was 56·7 years (SD 12·7); 214 (87%) of 247 were women, 33 (13%) were men, and 188 (76%) were White. Pre-specified interim analysis resulted in discontinuation of the 350 mg BMS-986142 dose due to elevated liver enzymes and absence of benefit versus placebo. Co-primary endpoints were not met. Response rates for ACR20 (placebo: 23 [31%] of 75; 100 mg: 26 [36%] of 73; 200 mg: 31 [42%] of 73) and ACR70 (placebo: three [4%] of 75; 100 mg: three [4%] of 73; 200 mg: seven [10%] of 73) were not significantly different to placebo; estimate of difference versus placebo for ACR20 was 4·9 (95% CI -10·2 to 20·1; p=0·52) for 100 mg and 11·8 (-3·6 to 27·2; p=0·14) for 200 mg, and for ACR70 the estimate of difference was 0·1 (-16·0 to 16·5; nominal p=1·00) for 100 mg and 5·6 (-10·5 to 21·9; nominal p=0·21) for 200 mg. Six patients experienced serious adverse events (four in the placebo group [mouth ulceration, open globe injury, rheumatoid arthritis flare, and endometrial adenocarcinoma] and two in the BMS-986142 100 mg group [angina pectoris and intestinal obstruction]); there were no deaths.

INTERPRETATION

Further investigation of BMS-986142 in people with rheumatoid arthritis is not warranted. An absence of clinical benefit in this study, together with other study results, highlights the need for additional research on the extent of BTK inhibition, treatment duration, and adequacy of drug distribution to inflammation sites, to understand the potential utility of BTK inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for rheumatoid arthritis.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers Squibb.

Comparative Effectiveness of Abatacept vs. Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients who are CCP

INTRODUCTION

Currently there is limited data to drive clinical decision making regarding  the choice of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD); thus, head-to-head comparisons are needed to help guide prescribing. In recent years, significant advancements have helped clarify the mechanistic basis of the clinical associations of autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study evaluated the effectiveness of abatacept versus tofacitinib in anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP+) patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

CorEvitas (formerly known as CORRONA) Registry patients aged ≥ 18 years, who were CCP+ before initiating abatacept or tofacitinib (December 2012 onwards through October 2019), had 6-month follow-up data (baseline and 6-month Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]), and were not in remission at index were included. Patients were frequency matched 1:1 by prior biologic use before propensity score matching (PSM). Primary (mean change [D] in CDAI) and secondary outcomes 6 months after index were compared using mixed-effects models adjusted for variables that remained unbalanced after PSM.

RESULTS

Following PSM, most baseline characteristics for 291 patient pairs were well balanced between treatments, although fewer patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib received prior non-TNFi biologic DMARDs, and patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib had a higher physician global assessment score, patient-reported fatigue, and modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ). In adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in mean [D] from baseline in CDAI at 6 months with abatacept versus tofacitinib (P = 0.936). Patients naïve for b/tsDMARDs initiating abatacept had a numerically greater mean [D] in CDAI at 6 months versus tofacitinib, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.662). There were no significant differences for any secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In adjusted analyses, CCP+ patients with RA initiating treatment with abatacept versus tofacitinib did not show a statistically significant difference in reducing disease activity or improving patient-reported outcomes.

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 the efficacy and risk of discontinuation between non-TNF-targeted treatment and a second TNF inhibitor in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after first TNF inhibitor failure

Objectives:

Despite improved care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, many still experience treatment failure with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs [tsDMARDs; typically Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi)], and eventually switch to other agents. We compared the efficacy of a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and non-TNF-targeted treatment as the second-line treatment in patients showing an insufficient response to the first TNFi.

Methods:

Patients were included if they had received at least one prescription for a TNFi, and at least one follow-up prescription for a second TNFi or non-TNF-targeted treatment after discontinuation of the first drug. In total, 209 patients were analyzed, including 69 with a second TNFi and 140 with a non-TNF-targeted treatment (106 non-TNFi biologics and 34 JAKi). Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for discontinuation.

Results:

The mean follow-up period after switching was 28.0 (range: 0–80) months and 24.4% of the 209 patients switched or discontinued the second drug. In multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis, the non-TNF-targeted treatment group had a lower likelihood of discontinuing their treatment than the second TNFi group [HR = 0.326, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.170–0.626, p = 0.001]. When analyzed separately, the risk of discontinuation was significantly lower in both the non-TNFi biologic (HR = 0.318, 95% CI: 0.160–0.633, p = 0.001) and JAKi (HR = 0.356, 95% CI: 0.129–0.980, p = 0.046) groups than in the second TNFi group.

Conclusion:

Our study supported switching to a non-TNF-targeted treatment instead of TNF cycling in patients with RA showing an inadequate response to initial TNFi.

Baseline Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibody Status and Response to Abatacept or Non-TNFi Biologic/Targeted-Synthetic DMARDs: US Observational Study of Patients with RA

INTRODUCTION

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may respond to treatments differently based on their underlying serology and biomarker status, but real-world data comparing treatment responses to abatacept versus other non-TNFi biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs by anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) status remain limited. We assessed the association between ACPA status and response to treatment in patients with RA.

METHODS

Adults from CorEvitas' RA Registry were identified who initiated abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib, and had ACPA measured at/prior to treatment initiation and at the 6-month follow-up visit. Three cohorts were included: abatacept/rituximab (2006-2019), abatacept/tocilizumab (2010-2019), and abatacept/tofacitinib (2012-2019). Patient characteristics at initiation were compared by ACPA status (positive [+], anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 [anti-CCP2] ≥ 20 U/ml; negative [-], anti-CCP2 < 20 U/ml). Outcomes over 6 months: changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ), patient global assessment (PGA) scores, and proportion of patients achieving a clinical response. Adjusted mean differences and odds ratios were estimated using mixed-effects linear regression models.

RESULTS

Overall, 982 abatacept, 246 rituximab, 404 tocilizumab, and 429 tofacitinib initiators were identified. ACPA+ (vs. ACPA-) patients had longer disease duration and more erosive disease. During most time periods adjusted mean changes in CDAI, mHAQ, and PGA scores and the proportion of patients achieving a clinical response were significantly higher for ACPA+ versus ACPA- patients initiating abatacept. Adjusted mean change in PGA score and patient fatigue were significantly higher for ACPA+ versus ACPA- patients initiating rituximab. No significant differences were seen by ACPA status for patients initiating tocilizumab or tofacitinib.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who initiated abatacept or rituximab and were ACPA+ had a greater clinical response at 6-month follow-up post index compared to patients who were ACPA- treated with the same biologic.

Comparative effectiveness and persistence of TNFi and non-TNFi in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a large paediatric rheumatology centre in the USA

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the persistence and effectiveness of TNF inhibitors (TNFi) vs non-TNFi among newly diagnosed JIA patients after initiation of biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

METHODS

Using longitudinal patient-level data extracted from electronic medical records in a large Midwestern paediatric hospital from 2009 to 2018, we identified JIA patients initiating TNFi and non-TNFi treatment. Treatment effectiveness was assessed based on disease activity. Inverse probability of treatment weighting of propensity score was used to estimate the treatment effectiveness and Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted to assess persistence.

RESULTS

Of 667 JIA patients, most (92.0%) were prescribed one of the class of TNFi as their initial biologic treatment. Etanercept was the most frequently prescribed (67.1%) treatment, followed by adalimumab (27.5%). Only around 5% of patients were prescribed off-label bDMARDs as their first-course treatment; however, >20% were prescribed off-label biologics as their second-course therapy. Some 7.2% of patients received four or more bDMARDs. The median persistence of the first-course bDMARD is 320 days, with TNFi being significantly longer than the non-TNFi (395 vs 320 days, P = 0.010). The clinical Juvenile Disease Activity Score (cJADAS) reduction of TNFi users (6.6, 95% CI 5.7, 7.5) was significant greater compared with non-TNFi users (3.0, 95% CI 1.5, 4.6, P < 0.0001) at 6-month follow-up visit.

CONCLUSION

Persistence was significantly longer among patients initiating TNFi as their first biologic therapy than those receiving non-TNFi. Patients receiving TNF therapy had significant greater reduction of cJADAS at the 6-month follow-up visit compared with patients in the non-TNF cohort.

Association Between Baseline Anti-cyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibodies and 6-Month Clinical Response Following Abatacept or TNF Inhibitor Treatment: A Real-World Analysis of Biologic-Experienced Patients with RA

INTRODUCTION

Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) antibodies are associated with poor prognosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Previous data from randomized controlled trials and clinical practice have shown anti-CCP-positive (+) patients had a better response to treatment with abatacept or tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment than those who were anti-CCP negative. This study assessed the association between baseline anti-CCP2 [a surrogate for anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)] concentration and 6-month treatment responses to abatacept or TNFi in patients with RA.

METHODS

This real-world analysis included biologic-experienced patients from CERTAIN (Comparative Effectiveness Registry to study Therapies for Arthritis and Inflammatory CoNditions) who initiated abatacept or TNFi, had prior biologic disease-modifying drug exposure and baseline anti-CCP2 concentration/serostatus and serum samples (baseline and 6 months). Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were compared. Change from baseline at 6 months in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score and patient-reported outcomes [PROs: pain, fatigue, patient global assessment (PtGA), modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) score], by baseline anti-CCP2 quartile and binary cut-off (> 10-250 and > 250 U/ml), were evaluated separately in the abatacept and TNFi groups using a linear regression model adjusted for age, sex, CDAI/PROs, comorbidity index, and methotrexate use.

RESULTS

Included were 138 abatacept and 137 TNFi initiators who were anti-CCP2+. At baseline, there were significant differences between anti-CCP2 quartiles and mean CDAI, swollen joint count 28, C-reactive protein (CRP), Disease Activity Score 28 (CRP), rheumatoid factor (RF), mHAQ and physician global assessment among abatacept initiators, and in mean RF, mHAQ, and PtGA among TNFi initiators. Among abatacept (but not TNFi) initiators, CDAI numerically improved (p = 0.208) and PROs significantly improved (p < 0.05) with increasing baseline anti-CCP2.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients treated with abatacept, not TNFi, higher anti-CCP2 concentrations at baseline were associated with numerically greater improvements in CDAI and significant improvements in PROs after 6 months.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

NCT01625650.

Associations between an expanded autoantibody profile and treatment responses to biologic therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Although biologics represent a major advance in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), many patients fail to achieve adequate responses to these agents. We examined whether combined positivity to three well-characterized autoantibodies predicts treatment response among RA patients initiating biologics.

METHODS

The study included biologic-naïve patients initiating anti-TNF treatment, biologic-exposed patients switching to rituximab or tocilizumab, and patients (biologic naïve or exposed) initiating abatacept. Rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody, and IgG antibodies to malondialdehyde-acetaldehyde (MAA) were measured using banked enrollment serum. The relationship between the number of autoantibodies positive (0-3) and treatment response (absolute improvement in 28-joint Disease Activity Score [DAS28-CRP] or improvement > 1.2) at 6 months was examined using multivariable linear and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 1,229 patients initiating biologics, 79% were women; 89% were Caucasian. The number of baseline RA-related autoantibodies positive was associated with improved treatment response in a dose-dependent fashion. Compared to patients seronegative for all autoantibodies, adjusting for covariates, those positive for all three were more than twice (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.57-3.51) as likely to achieve DAS28 improvement > 1.2 units. Associations of autoantibody positivity with biologic treatment response were strongest for anti-CCP antibody, persisted in analyses limited to biologic naïve patients, and did not appear to differ markedly among different agents examined.

CONCLUSION

An expanded autoantibody profile appears to significantly predict RA treatment response to biologic treatment in a dose-dependent fashion. Incorporating these serologic profiles with additional biomarkers or other informative patient characteristics could provide an opportunity to personalize RA management.

Improving rheumatoid arthritis comparative effectiveness research through causal inference principles: systematic review using a target trial emulation framework

OBJECTIVES

Target trial emulation is an intuitive design framework that encourages investigators to formulate their comparative effectiveness research (CER) question as a hypothetical randomised controlled trial (RCT). Our aim was to systematically review CER studies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to provide examples of design limitations that could be avoided using target trial emulation, and how these limitations might introduce bias.

METHODS

We searched for head-to-head CER studies of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA. Study designs were reviewed for seven components of the target trial emulation framework: eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, assignment procedures, follow-up period, outcome, causal contrasts of interest (ie, intention-to-treat (ITT) or per-protocol effect) and analysis plan. Hypothetical trials corresponding to the reported methods were assessed to identify design limitations that would have been avoided with an explicit target trial protocol. Analysis of the primary effectiveness outcome was chosen where multiple analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We found 31 CER studies, of which 29 (94%) had at least one design limitation belonging to seven components. The most common limitations related to: (1) eligibility criteria: 19/31 (61%) studies used post-baseline information to define baseline eligibility; (2) causal contrasts: 25 (81%) did not define whether ITT or per-protocol effects were estimated and (3) assignment procedures: 13 (42%) studies did not account for confounding by indication or relied solely on statistical confounder selection.

CONCLUSIONS

Design limitations were found in 94% of observational CER studies in RA. Target trial emulation is a structured approach for designing observational CER studies that helps to avoid potential sources of bias.

A budget impact analysis for making treatment decisions based on anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing in rheumatoid arthritis

Aim: Given that rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) titer values respond well to abatacept, the aim of this study was to estimate the annual budget impact of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing and treatment selection based on anti-CCP test results.Materials and methods: Budget impact analysis was conducted for patients with moderate-to-severe RA on biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) treatment from a hypothetical US commercial payer perspective. The following market scenarios were compared: (1) 90% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing do not impact the treatment selection; (2) 100% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing have an impact on treatment selection such that an increased proportion of patients with high titer of ACPA receive abatacept. A hypothetical assumption was made that the use of abatacept would be increased by 2% in Scenario 2 versus 1. Scenario analyses were conducted by varying the target population and rebate rates.Results: In a hypothetical health plan with one million insured adults, 2,181 patients would be on a biologic or JAKi treatment for moderate-to-severe RA. In Scenario 1, the anti-CCP test cost was $186,155 and annual treatment cost was $101,854,295, totaling to $102,040,450. In Scenario 2, the anti-CCP test cost increased by $20,684 and treatment cost increased by $160,467, totaling an overall budget increase of $181,151. This was equivalent to a per member per month (PMPM) increase of $0.015. The budget impact results were consistently negligible across the scenario analyses.Limitations: The analysis only considered testing and medication costs. Some parameters used in the analysis, such as the rebate rates, are not generalizable and health plan-specific.Conclusions: Testing RA patients to learn their ACPA status and increasing use of abatacept among high-titer ACPA patients result in a small increase in the total budget (<2 cents PMPM).