Biological Dose Tapering in Daily Clinical Practice: A 10 Year Follow-up Study

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Tapering biologic DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis

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

Discontinuation of biologic DMARDs in a real-world population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission: outcome and risk factors

OBJECTIVES

Data from randomized controlled trials have shown the feasibility of discontinuation of bDMARD therapy in patients with RA that have reached remission. Criteria for selecting patients that are likely to remain in remission are still incompletely defined.We aimed to identify predictors of successful discontinuation of bDMARD therapy in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management (SCQM) registry, a real-world cohort of RA patients.

METHODS

RA patients in DAS28-ESR remission who stopped bDMARD/tsDMARD treatment were included. Loss of remission was defined as a DAS28-ESR > 2.6 or restart of a bDMARD/tsDMARD. Time to loss of remission was the main outcome. Kaplan-Meier methods were applied and cox regression was used for multivariable analyses adjusting for confounding factors. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation.

RESULTS

318 patients in a bDMARD/tsDMARD-free remission were followed between 1997 and 2017. 241 patients (76%) lost remission after a median time of 0.9 years (95%CI 0.7-1.0). The time to loss of remission was shorter in women, in patients with a longer disease duration >4yrs and in patients who did not meet CDAI remission criteria at baseline. Remission was longer in patients with csDMARD therapy during b/tsDMARD free remission (HR 0.8, p= 0.05, 95%CI 0.6-1.0).

CONCLUSION

In a real-world patient population the majority of patients who discontinued b/tsDMARD treatment lost remission within <1 year. Our study confirms that fulfilment of more rigorous remission criteria and csDMARD treatment increases the chance of maintaining b/tsDMARD free remission.

Treat-To-Target and Treat-To-Budget in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Measuring the Value of Individual Therapeutic Interventions

Treat-to-target (T2T) and dose tapering after obtaining the therapeutic objective (called "treat-to-budget"-T2B-in this Commentary) are the two most commonly used therapeutic strategies in rheumatoid arthritis. In theory, both strategies could add value to the healthcare system, although they are focused on different objectives: T2T strategy improves outcomes but increases short-term costs, while the cost savings obtained through T2B are associated with higher relapse rates. The systematic implementation of both strategies must be founded on solid evidence of their effectiveness and efficiency. However, the level of evidence between guidelines and individual studies is inconsistent for both strategies and the number and the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses is scarce. Raising the level of evidence requires a move from generalization to individualization by conducting randomized clinical trials that assess each of the many strategies that fall under the umbrella of the overall T2T and T2B concepts. In addition, such studies should consider the therapeutic goals and impact of the disease from the perspective of individual patients, which is only possible by promoting shared decision-making. FUNDING: Lilly Spain.

Can we wean patients with inflammatory arthritis from biological therapies?

Biological therapies have represented a cornerstone in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Their advent combined with implementation of a treat-to-target approach has meant that remission or low disease activity are now realistic targets for treatment achieved by a significant number of patients. However, biologicals are not risk free and their elevated costs continue to present an important economic burden to national healthcare services. "Can we wean patients with inflammatory arthritis from biological therapies?" Over the last decade this question has become increasingly important as to define the best management strategies in terms of efficacy, safety and economic outcomes. Not surprisingly this has generated an interesting debate as to whether reasons to taper biologics outweigh reasons not to taper and evidence in support of either of these schools of thought is persistently growing. AIM: In this article we reviewed the contents of the relevant session from the 2019 Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity meeting in Florence.