Optimizing treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis-a proof of principle and exploratory trial: is dose tapering practical in good responders?

Effect of the extended dosing interval of anti-TNF-α NANOBODY® compound ozoralizumab in patients with low disease activity rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to evaluate the effect of the extended dosing interval on the efficacy and safety of ozoralizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

In a long-term extension study (HOSHIZORA trial) for patients who had completed a phase II/III study with methotrexate or a phase III study without methotrexate, the dosing interval of ozoralizumab was allowed to extend from every 4 weeks (Q4W) to every 8 weeks (Q8W), at the physician's discretion, for patients who had maintained a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) <3.2 at the last two time points. The continuation rate, efficacy, and safety were examined in patients who had completed 24 weeks after the change in the dosing interval by the data cut-off point.

RESULTS

Of the 32 patients who maintained DAS28-ESR <3.2 and changed the interval from Q4W to Q8W, 28 (87.5%) remained on Q8W for 24 weeks. At Week 24, the percentages of patients who remained on Q8W and achieved DAS28-ESR <2.6 and <3.2 were 71.9% and 84.4%, respectively. No safety concerns were observed for 24 weeks in the Q8W group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with RA and maintained DAS28-ESR <3.2 with ozoralizumab, efficacy was sustained and well tolerated after the dosing interval was extended from Q4W to Q8W.

The Humira in Ocular Inflammations Taper (HOT) Study

PURPOSE

To assess factors that impact the risk of relapse in patients with noninfectious uveitis (NIU) who undergo adalimumab tapering after achieving remission.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, patients with NIU were treated with adalimumab and subsequently tapered. Patient demographics, type of NIU, onset and duration of disease, the period of inactivity before tapering adalimumab, and the tapering schedule were collected. The primary outcome measures were independent predictors of the rate of uveitis recurrence after adalimumab tapering.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-eight patients were included (54.6% female) with a mean age of 34.3 years. The mean time between disease onset and initiation of adalimumab therapy was 35.2 ± 70.1 weeks. Adalimumab tapering was commenced after a mean of 100.8 ± 69.7 weeks of inactivity. Recurrence was observed in 39.6% of patients at a mean of 44.7 ± 61.7 weeks. Patients who experienced recurrence were significantly younger than those without recurrence (mean 29.4 years vs 37.5 years, P = .0005), and the rate of recurrence was significantly higher in younger subjects (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88 per decade of increasing age, P = .01). The lowest rate of recurrence was among Asian subjects. A faster adalimumab taper was associated with an increased recurrence rate (HR = 1.23 per unit increase in speed, P < .0005). Conversely, a more extended period of remission before tapering was associated with a lower rate of recurrence (HR = 0.97 per 10-weeks longer period of inactivity, P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

When tapering adalimumab, factors that should be considered include patient age, race, and duration of disease remission on adalimumab. A slow tapering schedule is advisable.

Effect of tapered versus stable treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors on disease flares in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission: a randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVES

Many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) require treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to reach remission. It is debated whether tapering of TNFi to discontinuation should be considered in sustained remission. The aim of ARCTIC REWIND TNFi was to assess the effect of tapering TNFi to withdrawal compared with stable treatment on the risk of disease activity flares in patients with RA in remission ≥1 year.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at nine Norwegian rheumatology departments. Patients with RA in remission ≥12 months on stable TNFi therapy were allocated by computer-based block-randomisation to tapering to discontinuation of TNFi or stable TNFi. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic co-medication was unchanged. The primary endpoint was disease flare during the 12-month study period (non-inferiority margin 20%), assessed in the per-protocol population.

RESULTS

Between June 2013 and January 2019, 99 patients were enrolled and 92 received the allocated treatment strategy. Eighty-four patients were included in the per-protocol population. In the tapering TNFi group, 27/43 (63%) experienced a flare during 12 months, compared with 2/41 (5%) in the stable TNFi group; risk difference (95% CI) 58% (42% to 74%). The tapering strategy was not non-inferior to continued stable treatment. The number of total/serious adverse events was 49/3 in the tapering group, 57/2 in the stable group.

CONCLUSION

In patients with RA in remission for more than 1 year while using TNFi, an increase in flare rate was reported in those who tapered TNFi to discontinuation. However, most regained remission after reinstatement of full-dose treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

EudraCT: 2012-005275-14 and clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01881308.

Optimizing Medication Use in Older Adults With Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases: Deprescribing as an Approach When Less May Be More

The world population is aging, and the rheumatology workforce must be prepared to care for medically complex older adults. We can learn from our colleagues and experts in geriatrics about how to best manage multimorbidity, polypharmacy, geriatric syndromes, and shifting priorities of older adults in the context of delivering care for rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Polypharmacy, a common occurrence in an aging population with multimorbidity, affects half of older adults with RMDs and is associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. In addition, potentially inappropriate medications that should be avoided under most circumstances is common in the RMD population. In recent years, deprescribing, known as the process of tapering, stopping, discontinuing, or withdrawing drugs, has been introduced as an approach to improve appropriate medication use among older adults and the outcomes that are important to them. As the rheumatology patient population ages globally, it is imperative to understand the burden of polypharmacy and the potential of deprescribing to improve medication use in older adults with RMDs. We encourage the rheumatology community to implement geriatric principles, when possible, as we move toward becoming an age-friendly health care specialty.

Defining the relationship between pain intensity and disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a secondary analysis of six studies

Background

Pain is the main concern of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) while reducing disease activity dominates specialist management. Disease activity assessments like the disease activity score for 28 joints with the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) omit pain creating an apparent paradox between patients’ concerns and specialists’ treatment goals. We evaluated the relationship of pain intensity and disease activity in RA with three aims: defining associations between pain intensity and disease activity and its components, evaluating discordance between pain intensity and disease activity, and assessing temporal changes in pain intensity and disease activity.

Methods

We undertook secondary analyses of five trials and one observational study of RA patients followed for 12 months. The patients had early and established active disease or sustained low disease activity or remission. Pain was measured using 100-mm visual analogue scales. Individual patient data was pooled across all studies and by types of patients (early active, established active and established remission). Associations of pain intensity and disease activity were evaluated by correlations (Spearman’s), linear regression methods and Bland-Altman plots. Discordance was assessed by Kappa statistics (for patients grouped into high and low pain intensity and disease activity). Temporal changes were assessed 6 monthly in different patient groups.

Results

A total of 1132 patients were studied: 490 had early active RA, 469 had established active RA and 173 were in remission/low disease activity. Our analyses showed, firstly, that pain intensity is associated with disease activity in general, and particularly with patient global assessments, across all patient groups. Patient global assessments were a reasonable proxy for pain intensity. Secondly, there was some discordance between pain intensity and disease activity across all disease activity levels, reflecting similar discrepancies in patient global assessments. Thirdly, there were strong temporal relationships between changes in disease activity and pain intensity. When mean disease activity fell, mean pain intensity scores also fell; when mean disease activity increased, there were comparable increases in pain intensity.

Conclusions

These findings show pain intensity is an integral part of disease activity, though it is not measured directly in DAS28-ESR. Reducing disease activity is crucial for reducing pain intensity in RA.

Patient-individual tapering of DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a real-world setting

OBJECTIVE

We aim to provide real-world evidence on the effectiveness of patient-individual tapering of DMARDs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily clinical practice using medical records and claims data.

METHODS

We utilize data obtained through a controlled prospective cohort study in Germany conducted from July 2018 to March 2021. Participants consist of RA patients in sustained remission (>6 months) who were eligible for tapering at enrolment. Patients treated with individual tapering based on shared decision making (n = 200) are compared with patients without any dose-reduction (n = 237). The risk of loss of remission and the risk of flare is assessed with risk-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimators and Cox-Regressions. We evaluate differences in costs one year before and after baseline based on claims data for the subgroup of patients insured at one major sickness fund in Germany (n = 76).

RESULTS

The risk of flare (HR 0.88 95%-CI: 0.59-1.30) or loss of remission (HR 1.04 95%-CI: 0.73, 1.49) was not statistically different between the individual tapering group and the continuation group. Minor increases of disease activity and decreases of quality of life were observed 12 months after baseline, again with no statistically significant difference. Drug costs decreased by 1,017€in the individual tapering group while increased by 1,151€in the continuation group (p< 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Individual tapering of DMARDs does not increase the average risk of experiencing flares or loss of remission. Encouraging rheumatologists and patients to apply tapering in shared decision may be a feasible approach to allow individualisation of treatment in RA.

De-escalation of Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Agents and Reduction in Adverse Effects: A Systematic Review

Background: The long-term use of anti-TNF-α agents can lead to adverse effects, such as infections and immune-mediated cutaneous reactions. Whether de-escalation by dose reduction or interval lengthening reduces these adverse effects is uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare the incidence of infections and skin manifestations after anti-TNF-α dose de-escalation with standard dosing. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 14 January 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing anti-TNF-α de-escalation strategies with standard dosing among patients with inflammatory conditions, that report on infections, skin manifestations, or both, were included. The risk of bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane risk-of bias tool (RCTs) or the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (non-RCTs). Results: Fourteen RCTs and six observational studies (or 2706 patients) were included. Eight RCTs had low risk of bias or some concerns. Four non-RCTs were of good methodological quality. The studies described patients with axial spondyloarthritis (8 studies, 780 patients), rheumatoid arthritis (7 studies, 1458 patients), psoriasis (3 studies, 332 patients), or inflammatory bowel disease (2 studies, 136 patients). De-escalation strategies included interval lengthening (12 studies, 1317 patients), dose reduction (6 studies, 1130 patients), or both (2 studies, 259 patients). Overall, the occurrence of infections and skin manifestations did not differ between standard treatment and de-escalation. The disappearance of infections or skin manifestations after de-escalation was only reported in two studies. The majority of studies focused on etanercept and adalimumab. Heterogeneity in reporting of infections and skin manifestations precluded meta-analysis. Conclusion: We found that anti-TNF-α de-escalation does not reduce infections or skin reactions. A de-escalation strategy should not be recommended for the sole purpose of reducing drug-related adverse effects. The meticulous documentation of adverse effects is recommended to further address this question. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021252977.

Risk of flare after tapering or withdrawal of b-/tsDMARDs in patients with RA or axSpA: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate flare risk when tapering or withdrawing biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b-/tsDMARDs) compared to continuation in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) in sustained remission or low disease activity.

METHODS

Articles were identified in Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Eligible trials were randomised, controlled trials comparing tapering and/or withdrawal of b- and/or tsDMARDs with standard dose in IA. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed with risk ratio (RR), or Peto's Odds Ratio (POR) for sparse events, and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis comprised 22 trials: 11 assessed tapering and 7 addressed withdrawal (4 assessed both). Only trials with a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) population were identified. An increased flare risk was demonstrated when b-/tsDMARD tapering was compared to continuation, RR = 1.45 (95%CI: 1.19 to 1.77, I2 = 42.5%), and potentially increased for persistent flare, POR = 1.56 (95%CI: 0.97 to 2.52, I2 = 0%). Comparing tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) withdrawal to continuation, a highly increased flare risk (RR = 2.28, 95%CI: 1.78 to 2.93, I2 = 78%) and increased odds of persistent flare (POR = 3.41, 95%CI: 1.91 to 6.09, I2 = 49%) was observed. No clear difference in flare risk between RA or axSpA was observed.

CONCLUSION

A high risk for flare and persistent flare was demonstrated for TNFi withdrawal whereas an increased risk for flare but not for persistent flare was observed for b-/tsDMARD tapering. Thus, tapering seems to be the more favourable approach.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42019136905).

Tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: an overview for daily practice

In this Review, we discuss the possibility of drug tapering in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission or low disease activity, for glucocorticoids and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. We review international guidelines and recommendations, as well as remaining uncertainties, and provide an overview of the current literature. Three strategies of tapering are discussed: (1) tapering by discontinuation of one of the drugs in combination therapy regimens, (2) tapering by reducing the dose of one of the drugs in combination therapy regimens, and (3) tapering by dose reduction of monotherapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. We discuss the outcomes and robustness of evidence of trials and observational cohorts, and we give a trajectory for further research and drug tapering in daily practice.

Selective Expression of a SNARE-Cleaving Protease in Peripheral Sensory Neurons Attenuates Pain-Related Gene Transcription and Neuropeptide Release

Chronic pain is a leading health and socioeconomic problem and an unmet need exists for long-lasting analgesics. SNAREs (soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptors) are required for neuropeptide release and noxious signal transducer surface trafficking, thus, selective expression of the SNARE-cleaving light-chain protease of botulinum neurotoxin A (LCA) in peripheral sensory neurons could alleviate chronic pain. However, a safety concern to this approach is the lack of a sensory neuronal promoter to prevent the expression of LCA in the central nervous system. Towards this, we exploit the unique characteristics of Pirt (phosphoinositide-interacting regulator of TRP), which is expressed in peripheral nociceptive neurons. For the first time, we identified a Pirt promoter element and cloned it into a lentiviral vector driving transgene expression selectively in peripheral sensory neurons. Pirt promoter driven-LCA expression yielded rapid and concentration-dependent cleavage of SNAP-25 in cultured sensory neurons. Moreover, the transcripts of pain-related genes (TAC1, tachykinin precursor 1; CALCB, calcitonin gene-related peptide 2; HTR3A, 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 3A; NPY2R, neuropeptide Y receptor Y2; GPR52, G protein-coupled receptor 52; SCN9A, sodium voltage-gated channel alpha subunit 9; TRPV1 and TRPA1, transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1 and subfamily A member 1) in pro-inflammatory cytokines stimulated sensory neurons were downregulated by viral mediated expression of LCA. Furthermore, viral expression of LCA yielded long-lasting inhibition of pain mediator release. Thus, we show that the engineered Pirt-LCA virus may provide a novel means for long lasting pain relief.

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management.

Objectives

To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials.

Design

Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis.

Setting

Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions).

Participants

Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs.

Interventions

Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care.

Main outcome measures

Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments.

Results

Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial.

Limitations

The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’.

Conclusion

The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission.

Future work

Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Switching from TNFα inhibitor to tacrolimus as maintenance therapy in rheumatoid arthritis after achieving low disease activity with TNFα inhibitors and methotrexate: 24-week result from a non-randomized, prospective, active-controlled trial

Background

Tapering or stopping biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs has been proposed for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in remission, but it frequently results in high rates of recurrence. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus (TAC) as maintenance therapy in patients with established RA in remission after receiving combination therapy with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

This 24-week, prospective, open-label trial included patients who received TNFi and MTX at stable doses for ≥24 weeks and had low disease activity (LDA), measured by Disease Activity Score-28 for ≥12 weeks. Patients selected one of two arms: maintenance (TNFi plus MTX) or switched (TAC plus MTX). The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of patients maintaining LDA at week 24, which was assessed using a logistic regression model. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study period.

Results

In efficacy analysis, 80 and 34 patients were included in the maintenance and switched arms, respectively. At week 24, LDA was maintained in 99% and 91% of patients in the maintenance and switched arms, respectively (odds ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.01–1.59). Drug-related adverse effects tended to be more common in the switched arm than in the maintenance arm (20.9% versus 7.1%, respectively) but were well-tolerated.

Conclusion

This controlled study tested a novel treatment strategy of switching from TNFi to TAC in RA patients with sustained LDA, and the findings suggested that TNFi can be replaced with TAC in most patients without the patients experiencing flare-ups for at least 24 weeks.

Trial registration

Korea CDC CRIS, KCT0005868. Registered 4 February 2021—retrospectively registered

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-021-02566-z.

Tapering Biologic Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Qualitative Study of Patient Perspectives

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Biologic therapies are cost effective for active rheumatoid arthritis but have adverse effects and are costly. Tapering of biologics is emerging as an important consideration when sustained remission is achieved. Recent trials have highlighted the clinical feasibility of tapering, but there is little evidence on how proposed tapering would be received by patients. The aim of this study was to explore factors influencing hypothetical decisions of patients with rheumatoid arthritis on tapering their biologics and their perspectives on remission and flare when considering the possibility of tapering.

METHODS

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis with diverse experiences of biologics with different modes of administration were purposively sampled to participate in one of six focus groups (n = 43) or an individual interview (n = 2). Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Five overarching themes on what influences a participant's decision to taper their biologic were identified. First, participants were fearful of uncertain outcomes of tapering, especially flare and joint damage. Second, participants prioritized quality of life from continuing biologics over the risk of adverse effects. Third, tapering biologics was seen as providing relief from the inconvenience of taking biologics regularly. Fourth, participants wanted assurance of prompt access to healthcare if their rheumatoid arthritis were to flare when tapering. Fifth, preferences for involvement in decision making varied, but fulfilling information needs was desired to aid a patient's preferred role in decision making on tapering.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides novel insight into the perspectives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis on tapering biologics when sustained remission is achieved at a crucial juncture in global affordability for healthcare systems. These patient perspectives can inform the planning of decision aids and clinical trials of decision-making processes when tapering is proposed.

Reduction of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The effects of dose reduction or spacing of all types of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis has not been consistently assessed in systematic reviews. We aimed to assess the effects of biologics reduction compared with dose maintenance in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in low disease activity or remission. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis according to a previously registered protocol (PROSPERO registration: CRD42017069080); and searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and trial registers up to July, 2020. Two researchers selected, extracted and assessed the risk of bias of controlled trials that randomized patients to reduction/spacing or dose maintenance of biologics. Low disease activity, disability and other clinically important outcomes were summarized in random effect meta-analyses. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We included ten studies (n = 1331 patients), which assessed reduction or spacing of abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, or tocilizumab. Risk of bias was high in over half of trials, mainly due to lack of blinding. No statistically significant difference was found in low disease activity (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.78-1.04; I² = 60%, very low certainty), and other outcomes. Subgroup analysis of blinded studies led to homogeneous results, which remained heterogeneous in open-label studies. Reduction or spacing biologics did not affect disease activity and other important outcome. Changes in the doses regimen should consider patient preferences, considering the low certainty of evidence.

Efficacy of pharmacological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature research (SLR) to investigate the efficacy of any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) (conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD, biological (b) and biosimilar DMARD, targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD) or glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in patients with RA was done by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2016 and 8 March 2019.

RESULTS

234 abstracts were selected for detailed assessment, with 136 finally included. They comprised the efficacy of bDMARDs versus placebo or other bDMARDs, efficacy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) across different patient populations and head-to-head of different bDMARDs versus JAKi or other bDMARDs. Switching of bDMARDs to other bDMARDs or tsDMARDs, strategic trials and tapering studies of bDMARDs, csDMARDs and JAKi were assessed. The drugs evaluated included abatacept, adalimumab, ABT-122, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, SBI-087, CNTO6785, decernotinib, etanercept, filgotinib, golimumab, GCs, GS-9876, guselkumab, hydroxychloroquine, infliximab, leflunomide, mavrilimumab, methotrexate, olokizumab, otilimab, peficitinib, rituximab, sarilumab, salazopyrine, secukinumab, sirukumab, tacrolimus, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, tregalizumab, upadacitinib, ustekinumab and vobarilizumab. The efficacy of many bDMARDs and tsDMARDs was shown. Switching to another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi bDMARDs after TNFi treatment failure is efficacious. Tapering of DMARDs is possible in patients achieving long-standing stringent clinical remission; in patients with residual disease activity (including patients in LDA) the risk of flares is increased during the tapering. Biosimilars are non-inferior to their reference products.

CONCLUSION

This SLR informed the task force regarding the evidence base of various therapeutic regimen for the development of the update of EULAR's RA management recommendation.

Impact of tapering targeted therapies (bDMARDs or JAKis) on the risk of serious infections and adverse events of special interest in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis: a systematic analysis of the literature and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the impact of tapering targeted therapies (bDMARDs or JAKis) on the risk of serious infections and severe adverse events (SAEs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in remission or low disease activity (LDA) state.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A meta-analysis based on a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, until August 2019, as well as relevant databases of international conferences, was used to evaluate the risk difference (RD) at 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of incidence density of serious infections, SAEs, malignancies, cardiovascular adverse events (CV AEs), or deaths after tapering (dose reduction or spacing) compared to continuation of targeted therapies.

RESULTS

Of the 1957 studies initially identified, 13 controlled trials (9 RA and 4 SpA trials) were included in the meta-analysis. 1174 patient-years were studied in the tapering group (TG) versus 1086 in the usual care group (UC). There were 1.7/100 patient-year (p-y) serious infections in TG versus 2.6/100 p-y in UC (RD (95% CI) 0.01 (0.00 to 0.02), p = 0.13) and 7.4/100 p-y SAEs in TG versus 6.7/100 p-y in UC (RD 0.00 (- 0.02 to 0.02), p = 0.82). The risk of malignancies, CV AEs, or deaths did not differ between the tapering and the usual care groups. Subgroup analysis (RA and SpA) detected no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

We could not show significant impact of tapering bDMARD or JAKi over continuation concerning the risk of serious infections, SAEs, malignancies, CV AEs, or deaths in RA and SpA patients in remission or LDA state.

Clinical characteristics associated with drug-free sustained remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Data from Korean Intensive Management of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (KIMERA)

OBJECTIVES

There is limited information on treatment withdrawal in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study investigated the clinical course after stopping disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with well-controlled RA and the clinical features associated with disease flare.

METHODS

Among patients in the Korean Intensive Management of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (KIMERA) cohort, discontinuation of DMARDs was determined by a shared decision between patient and rheumatologist. Drug-free remission was defined as (1) non-use of DMARDs and corticosteroids, (2) Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) <2.6, and (3) no evidence of synovitis. The maintenance rate of drug-free remission and the predictors for flare were evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Of 234 patients, 50 patients discontinued DMARDs. All but one using etanercept were treated with conventional synthetic DMARDs. The median follow-up duration was 30 months, and 31 patients (62%) experienced disease flare after stopping DMARDs. The maintenance rate of drug-free remission was 94.0%, 86.7%, and 46.1% at 12, 24, and 48 months, respectively. Disease flare was correlated with longer time to remission, failure of initial DMARDs, and longer duration of disease and higher disease activity at DMARD withdrawal (P = 0.001, 0.022, 0.010 and 0.037, respectively). In multivariate analyses, longer duration of disease (>24 months) and higher disease activity (DAS28 >2.26) at DMARD withdrawal was independently associated with disease flare.

CONCLUSION

Drug-free remission was feasible in selected patients with well-controlled RA. Patients with early RA and lower disease activity at DMARD withdrawal are more likely to maintain the drug-free remission.

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.

Dose down-titration of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in daily clinical practice: Shared decision-making and patient treatment preferences in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis

AIM

To determine characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in Japan who received the same biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for at least 6 months and to identify factors associated with successful down-titration of bDMARDs dependent on shared decision-making.

METHODS

We included consecutive RA patients who received the same bDMARD with low disease activity or remission for at least 6 months in our two university hospitals. Patients treated with the bDMARD standard dose were defined as SD, while those treated with bDMARD down-titration were defined as DT. We retrospectively reviewed clinical charts and compared data between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 288 patients with RA, 204 (70.8%) and 84 (29.2%) continued standard dose treatment and underwent down-titration treatment, respectively. Sixty-six of 84 (78.6%) down-titration-treated patients continued to show low disease activity or remission, whereas 18 (21.4%) relapsed 18.9 ± 24.4 months after bDMARD down-titration was started. Univariate predictor analysis showed that the probable factors of down-titration were no history of bDMARD treatment (P = .001) and low initial Disease Activity Assessment of 28 joint score (P = .048). Other clinical characteristics had no significant relationship with successful down-titration.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, bDMARD-naïve patients and those with low initial disease activity are more likely to agree to attempt down-titration. However, the timing and method of down-titration should be made in shared decision-making between patients and rheumatologists.

Protective effects of Clematichinenoside AR against inflammation and cytotoxicity induced by human tumor necrosis factor-α

Clematichinenoside AR (AR), a major active ingredient extracted from traditional Chinese herb Clematis chinensis Osbeck, has been demonstrated to possess anti-inflammatory and immune-modulatory activities in the treatment of experimental rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The therapeutic potential of AR was supposed to be closely correlated to its ability against tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). Therefore, we aimed to explore the protective effects of Clematichinenoside AR against inflammation and cytotoxicity induced by human TNF-α. AR treatment significantly decreased IL-6 and IL-8 secretion, and attenuated MMP-1 production in human RA-derived fibroblast-like synoviocyte MH7A cells stimulated by recombinant human TNF-α (rhTNF-α). AR might antagonize rhTNF-α-induced responses in MH7A cells through inhibiting p38 and ERK MAPKs signal activation. In TNF-α-sensitive murine fibroblast L929 cells, AR treatment attenuated the proliferation inhibition ratio induced by rhTNF-α/ActD and antagonized rhTNF-α-induced cytotoxicity. The cellular and nuclear morphological alterations in apoptotic characteristics induced by rhTNF-α/ActD in L929 cells were observed to be attenuated by the pretreatment with AR under a phase-contrast and fluorescence microscopy, respectively. The Annexin V-FITC/PI double-staining assay was performed to confirm that AR pretreatment obviously decreased the cell death. The antagonistic effects of AR against rhTNF-α-induced cytotoxicity might be potentially attributed to the degeneration of reactive oxygen species and the increasing of mitochondrial membrane potential, along with the suppression of durative phosphorylation of c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK). Collectively, our results indicated that AR antagonizes the inflammatory and cytotoxic activities induced by human TNF-α effectively in vitro, which provided further evidence for a novel mechanism underlying AR for treating RA correlating with excessive TNF-α production.

Considerations for Optimal Trial Design for Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention Studies

The field of rheumatology has made major contributions to medicine through the identification of cellular and molecular targets and with the development of therapies for the treatment of an impressive range of immune-mediated rheumatic diseases. In recent years new milestones have been achieved. These include the recognition of an "at risk" state, defined by distinct clusters of characteristics, including disease-specific autoantibodies in serum and symptom complexes that include inflammatory joint pain. Studies seeking to prevent high-risk individuals from progressing to a state of clinically apparent arthritis have been initiated. Here, exploiting the current evidence base, an experimental framework to inform trial design is described, taking into consideration study patient phenotypes and highlighting the impact of risk stratification and the options available for therapeutic intervention according to the different phases of the preclinical syndrome. Pragmatic primary end points and suggestions for a set of risk-focused trial outcome measures are proposed, including both clinical assessments and patient-reported outcome measures. Rheumatoid arthritis prevention studies provide an important experimental framework for generating deeper insights into risk stratification and for refining trial design in the future. To this end, a research agenda is suggested, together with some considerations for imaging and for biological sampling. This commentary concludes with some of the operational issues that arise from such studies and addresses some of the challenges associated with recruitment and retention of the at-risk trial participant.

Down-titration and discontinuation strategies of tumour necrosis factor-blocking agents for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with low disease activity

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in treating people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but are associated with (dose-dependent) adverse effects and high costs. To prevent overtreatment, several trials have assessed the effectiveness of down-titration compared with continuation of the standard dose. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, or disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents on disease activity, functioning, costs, safety, and radiographic damage compared with usual care in people with RA and low disease activity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL (29 March 2018) and four trial registries (11 April 2018) together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We screened conference proceedings (American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism 2005-2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) to usual care/no down-titration in people with RA and low disease activity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

One previously included trial was excluded retrospectively in this update because it was not an RCT/CCT. We included eight additional trials, for a total of 14 studies (13 RCTs and one CCT, 3315 participants in total) reporting anti-TNF down-titration. Six studies (1148 participants) reported anti-TNF dose reduction compared with anti-TNF continuation. Eight studies (2111 participants) reported anti-TNF discontinuation compared with anti-TNF continuation (three studies assessed both anti-TNF discontinuation and dose reduction), and three studies assessed disease activity-guided anti-TNF dose tapering (365 participants). These studies included data on all anti-TNF agents, but primarily adalimumab and etanercept. Thirteen studies were available in full text, one was available as abstract. We assessed the included studies generally at low to moderate risk of bias; our main concerns were bias due to open-label treatment and unblinded outcome assessment. Clinical heterogeneity between the trials was high. The included studies were performed at clinical centres around the world and included people with early as well as established RA, the majority of whom were female with mean ages between 47 and 60. Study durations ranged from 6 months to 3.5 years.We found that anti-TNF dose reduction leads to little or no difference in mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 26 to 52 weeks (high-certainty evidence, mean difference (MD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.24, absolute risk difference (ARD) 1%) compared with continuation. Also, anti-TNF dose reduction does not result in an important deterioration in function after 26 to 52 weeks (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)) (high-certainty evidence, MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.19, ARD 3%). Next to this, anti-TNF dose reduction may slightly reduce the proportion of participants switched to another biologic (low-certainty evidence), but probably slightly increases the proportion of participants with minimal radiographic progression after 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence, risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.95, ARD 2% higher). Anti-TNF dose reduction may cause little or no difference in serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and proportion of participants with persistent remission (low-certainty evidence).Results show that anti-TNF discontinuation probably slightly increases the mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 28 to 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence, MD 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.25, ARD 14%), and that the RR of persistent remission lies between 0.16 and 0.77 (low-certainty evidence). Anti-TNF discontinuation increases the proportion participants with minimal radiographic progression after 52 weeks (high-certainty evidence, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.59, ARD 7%) and may lead to a slight deterioration in function (HAQ-DI) (low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether anti-TNF discontinuation influences the number of serious adverse events (due to very low-certainty evidence) and the number of withdrawals due to adverse events after 28 to 52 weeks probably increases slightly (moderate-certainty evidence, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.84, ARD 1% higher).Anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering may result in little or no difference in mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 72 to 78 weeks (low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering results in little or no difference in the proportion of participants with persistent remission after 18 months (high-certainty evidence, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06, ARD -9%) and may result in little or no difference in switching to another biologic (low-certainty evidence). Anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering may slightly increase proportion of participants with minimal radiographic progression (low-certainty evidence) and probably leads to a slight deterioration of function after 18 months (moderate-certainty evidence, MD 0.2 higher, 0.02 lower to 0.42 higher, ARD 7% higher), It is uncertain whether anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering influences the number of serious adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that fixed-dose reduction of anti-TNF, after at least three to 12 months of low disease activity, is comparable to continuation of the standard dose regarding disease activity and function, and may be comparable with regards to the proportion of participants with persistent remission. Discontinuation (also without disease activity-guided adaptation) of anti-TNF is probably inferior to continuation of treatment with respect to disease activity, the proportion of participants with persistent remission, function, and minimal radiographic damage. Disease activity-guided dose tapering of anti-TNF is comparable to continuation of treatment with respect to the proportion of participants with persistent remission and may be comparable regarding disease activity.Caveats of this review are that available data are mainly limited to etanercept and adalimumab, the heterogeneity between studies, and the use of superiority instead of non-inferiority designs.Future research should focus on the anti-TNF agents infliximab and golimumab; assessment of disease activity, function, and radiographic outcomes after longer follow-up; and assessment of long-term safety, cost-effectiveness, and predictors for successful down-titration. Also, use of a validated flare criterion, non-inferiority designs, and disease activity-guided tapering instead of fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation would allow researchers to better interpret study findings and generalise to clinical practice.

Recent advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) continue to expand rapidly. The purpose of this review is to discuss novel treatment options, including biosimilars, that are available, as well as to highlight promising agents in development. The purpose is also to discuss new emerging safety signals associated with these drugs and to discuss strategies in tapering therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are several novel RA therapies. These include the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor blocker sarilumab, which was approved in 2017. In aggregate, the sarilumab studies show that it is effective in RA, including patients with incomplete responses to methotrexate and anti-tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, and showing superior efficacy when used in higher dose (200 mg every 2 weeks) to standard-dose adalilumab. Other drugs that are currently being studied include the IL-6 cytokine blocker sarikumab, the small targeted molecule filgotinib, and many new biosimilars. Baracitinib failed to achieve approval by the Food and Drug Administration primarily over perceived safety concerns. The two biosimilar drugs currently approved are CT-P13 and SB2, which are based on the reference product infliximab. Although this review summarizes trials examining biologic tapering, additional data are needed to guide clinicians in regards to treatment de-escalation in RA.

SUMMARY

With the greatly expanded armamentarium of RA treatment options available, it is important for clinicians to understand the data regarding drug efficacy and safety. With remission increasingly attainable, effective drug tapering strategies are needed. Although tapering trials do exist, more studies will be needed to help guide clinical practice.

Mental health, fatigue and function are associated with increased risk of disease flare following TNF inhibitor tapering in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an exploratory analysis of data from the Optimizing TNF Tapering in RA (OPTTIRA) trial

Background

Tapering of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy appears feasible, safe and effective in selected patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Depression is highly prevalent in RA and may impact on flare incidence through various mechanisms. This study aims to investigate if psychological states predict flare in patients' dose tapering their anti-TNF therapy.

Methods

This study is a post-hoc analysis of the Optimizing TNF Tapering in RA trial, a multicentre, randomised, open-label study investigating anti-TNF tapering in RA patients with sustained low disease activity. Patient-reported outcomes (Health Assessment Questionnaire, EuroQol 5-dimension scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy fatigue scale (FACIT-F), 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36)) were collected at baseline. The primary outcome was flare, defined as an increase in 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28) ≥0.6 and ≥1 swollen joint. Discrete-time survival models were used to identify patient-reported outcomes that predict flare.

Results

Ninety-seven patients were randomised to taper their anti-TNF dose by either 33% or 66%. Forty-one patients flared. Higher baseline DAS28 score was associated with flare (adjusted HR 1.96 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.24), p=0.01). Disability (SF-36 physical component score), fatigue (FACIT-F) and mental health (SF-36 mental health subscale (MH)) predicted flare in unadjusted models. In multivariate analyses, only SF-36 MH remained a statistically significant predictor of flare (adjusted HR per 10 units 0.74 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.93), p=0.01).

Conclusions

Baseline DAS28 and mental health status are independently associated with flare in patients who taper their anti-TNF therapy. Fatigue and function also associate with flare but the effect disappears when adjusting for confounders. Given these findings, mental health and functional status should be considered in anti-TNF tapering decisions in order to optimise the likelihood of success.

Trial registration numbers

EudraCT Number: 2010-020738-24; ISRCTN: 28955701; Post-results.