Are All Biologics the Same? Optimal Treatment Strategies for Patients With Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: Systematic Review and Indirect Pairwise Meta-Analysis

Digital Therapeutics for Improving Effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Biological Products: Preclinical and Clinical Studies Supporting Development of Drug + Digital Combination Therapies for Chronic Diseases

Limitations of pharmaceutical drugs and biologics for chronic diseases (e.g., medication non-adherence, adverse effects, toxicity, or inadequate efficacy) can be mitigated by mobile medical apps, known as digital therapeutics (DTx). Authorization of adjunct DTx by the US Food and Drug Administration and draft guidelines on "prescription drug use-related software" illustrate opportunities to create drug + digital combination therapies, ultimately leading towards drug-device combination products (DTx has a status of medical devices). Digital interventions (mobile, web-based, virtual reality, and video game applications) demonstrate clinically meaningful benefits for people living with Alzheimer's disease, dementia, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, chronic pain, epilepsy, depression, and anxiety. In the respective animal disease models, preclinical studies on environmental enrichment and other non-pharmacological modalities (physical activity, social interactions, learning, and music) as surrogates for DTx "active ingredients" also show improved outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss how drug + digital combination therapies can impact translational research, drug discovery and development, generic drug repurposing, and gene therapies. Market-driven incentives to create drug-device combination products are illustrated by Humira® (adalimumab) facing a "patent-cliff" competition with cheaper and more effective biosimilars seamlessly integrated with DTx. In conclusion, pharma and biotech companies, patients, and healthcare professionals will benefit from accelerating integration of digital interventions with pharmacotherapies.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the safety of early interventional treatments in rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

To evaluate the safety of treatment strategies in patients with early RA.

Methods

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were conducted up to September 2020. Double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of licensed treatments conducted on completely naïve or MTX-naïve RA patients were included. Long-term extension studies, post-hoc and pooled analyses and RCTs with no comparator arm were excluded. Serious adverse events, serious infections and non-serious adverse events were extracted from all RCTs, and event rates in intervention and comparator arms were compared using meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA).

Results

From an initial search of 3423 studies, 20 were included, involving 9202 patients. From the meta-analysis, the pooled incidence rates per 1000 patient-years for serious adverse events were 69.8 (95% CI: 64.9, 74.8), serious infections 18.9 (95% CI: 16.2, 21.6) and non-serious adverse events 1048.2 (95% CI: 1027.5, 1068.9). NMA showed that serious adverse event rates were higher with biologic monotherapy than with MTX monotherapy, rate ratio 1.39 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.73). Biologic monotherapy rates were higher than those for MTX and steroid therapy, rate ratio 3.22 (95% CI: 1.47, 7.07). Biologic monotherapy had a higher adverse event rate than biologic combination therapy, rate ratio 1.26 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.54). NMA showed no significant difference between strategies with respect to serious infections and non-serious adverse events rates.

Conclusion

The study revealed the different risk profiles for various early RA treatment strategies. Observed differences were overall small, and in contrast to the findings of established RA studies, steroid-based regimens did not emerge as more harmful.

Long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of infliximab as first-line treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Early biological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may reverse the autoimmune response in some patients resulting in favorable long-term outcomes. Although the cost-effectiveness of this strategy has been questioned, biosimilar entries warrant the revision of clinical and pharmaco-economic evidence. Areas covered: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 24 May 2018 in Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL, comparing infliximab with non-biological therapy in patients with RA naïve to methotrexate. We performed meta-analyses for efficacy outcomes at month 6 and years 1 and 2. Six RCTs were identified, involving 1832 patients. At month 6 ACR70 response and remission, and at year 1 ACR20/ACR70 responses and remission were improved significantly with first-line infliximab versus control. The differences were not significant at year 2. We reviewed cost-utility studies, up to 31 October 2018 in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL and the CRD HTA databases. Four studies indicated that first-line use of originator infliximab calculated at 2005-2008 prices was not cost-effective. Expert opinion: We demonstrated the efficacy benefits of first-line infliximab therapy up to 1 year in methotrexate-naïve RA. We highlighted the need for standardized reporting of outcomes and conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of first-line biosimilar therapy in RA.

Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Treatment With Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor α Drugs in a Cohort of Colombian Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical response at 24 months and evaluate the adverse events (AEs) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with etanercept 50 (injectable solution 50 mg prefilled syringe), etanercept 25 (lyophilized 25 mg), infliximab, adalimumab, or golimumab.

METHODS

A cohort study was carried out in patients with RA, in treatment with etanercept (injectable solution 50 mg prefilled syringe or lyophilized 25 mg), infliximab, adalimumab, or golimumab. Duration of study: follow-up was carried out for 24 months. The difference of initial and final 28-joint Disease Activity Score, remission incidence, difference of initial and final Health Assessment Questionnaire score, disability recovery, and AE rate were evaluated.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 435 patients (108 adalimumab, 107 infliximab, 92 etanercept 25 mg, 81 etanercept 50 mg, and 47 golimumab). For etanercept 50, the median difference between basal and at the end of follow-up 28-joint Disease Activity Score was 1.7. For golimumab, it was 1.4; for adalimumab, it was 1.1; for etanercept 25, it was 1.02; and for infliximab, it was 0.96 (p = 0.001). The median difference between basal and final Health Assessment Questionnaire ranged was 1.66 for etanercept 50, 1.34 for etanercept 25, 1.3 for golimumab, 1.24 for adalimumab, and 1.07 for infliximab (p = 0.0005). Comparatively, etanercept 50 presented the highest cumulative incidence (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 67%-86%) and remission incidence (64 cases per 100 person-months; 95% CI, 4.9-8.1 cases per 100 person-months) and the lowest AE rate (8.6 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 5.3-15 per 100 person-years).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with RA treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor α drugs, the highest incidence of remission and the lowest rate of AEs were documented for the cohort exposed to etanercept 50 mg.

Long-Term Efficacy of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors for the Treatment of Methotrexate-Naïve Rheumatoid Arthritis: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Synthesis of evidence on the long-term use of first-line biologic therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is required. We compared the efficacy of up to 5 years' treatment with first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) versus other treatment strategies in this population.

METHODS

Previous systematic reviews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving treatment of methotrexate-naïve RA patients with first-line TNFis. Literature was synthesized qualitatively, and a meta-analysis conducted to evaluate American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, clinical remission defined by any standard measure, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ) at Years 2 and/or 5.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs involving 4306 patients [first-line TNFi, n = 2234; other treatment strategies (control), n = 2072] were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies were double-blind for the first 2 years, while seven were partly/completely open label during this period. Five studies reported data at Year 5; all were open label at this time point. At Year 2, ACR50 response, ACR70 response and remission rates were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus control in double-blind RCTs [log-odds ratio (OR) 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02, 0.62; p = 0.035], log-OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.20, 0.77; p = 0.001), and log-OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.13, 0.74; p = 0.005), respectively], but not in open-label studies. No significant between-group differences were observed in mean HAQ at Year 2 in double-blind or open-label RCTs or in ACR response or remission outcomes at Year 5.

CONCLUSION

In double-blind studies, 2-year efficacy outcomes were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus other treatment strategies in patients with MTX-naïve RA. No significant differences in these outcomes were observed when data from open-label RCTs were considered on their own. Further data on the efficacy of TNFi therapy over ≥ 2 years in patients with methotrexate-naïve RA are required. Plain language summary available for this article.

A Bayesian mixed treatment comparison of efficacy of biologics and small molecules in early rheumatoid arthritis

The current paradigm in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is to treat patients in the early stage of the disease (ERA). Previous meta-analysis-based mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs), aimed to identify the most effective drugs in ERA, are biased by the wide "window" of early definition, ranging from 6 months to 2 years. The aim of this study was to estimate through a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis which biologics or small molecules are more likely to achieve a 1-year good clinical response in ERA patients with disease duration < 1 year. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biologic agents and small molecules in combination with MTX to treat patients affected with ERA lasting < 1 year were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov between 1990 and September 2017. The outcome of interest was the achievement of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 and ACR 70 response at 1 year. WinBUGS 1.4 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) was used to perform the analyses, using a fixed effect model. Fourteen studies were included in the analysis. Tofacitinib (64.83%) followed by Etanercept (23.26%) were the drugs with the highest probability of achieving ACR50 response. Rituximab showed the highest probability of inducing ACR70 response (52.81%) followed by Etanercept (26.85%). This is the first MTC involving only RCTs on ERA patients with disease duration < 1 year. Tofacitinib and rituximab were the drugs ranked first in inducing 1-year ACR50 and ACR70 response, respectively.

Comparing the effectiveness of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs using real-world data

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) by analyzing claims data of 13 Japanese national university hospitals.

METHODS

We evaluated 4970 cases of rheumatoid arthritis treated with bDMARDs from the Clinical Information Statistical Analysis database, which has collected and integrated 13 Japanese national university hospitals' claims data for 10 years. We surveyed the medications and calculated the retention rates of bDMARDs using the Kaplan-Meier method and differentiated the effectiveness between the two bDMARDs by comparing the retention rates after switching from one drug to another.

RESULTS

Of the 4970 cases, 1364 switched bDMARDs at least once. Tocilizumab (TCZ) reported the highest retention rate, whereas abatacept (ABT) revealed a similar rate compared with only naïve cases. The retention rate curves were higher in cases on TCZ that switched from the other bDMARDs than those in the reversed cases. Following TCZ, ABT and etanercept indicated better results than the other bDMARDs.

CONCLUSION

We could compare the effectiveness among bDMARDs by differentiating the retention rates from big claims data. TCZ reported higher retention rates in both naïve and switched cases than other bDMARDs.

Head-to-head comparison of aggressive conventional therapy and three biological treatments and comparison of two de-escalation strategies in patients who respond to treatment: study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-assessor, phase 4 study

BACKGROUND

New targeted therapies and improved treatment strategies have dramatically improved the outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, it is unknown whether different early aggressive interventions can induce stable remission or a low-active disease state that can be maintained with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) therapy, and whether they differ in efficacy and safety. The Nordic Rheumatic Diseases Strategy Trials And Registries (NORD-STAR) study will assess and compare (1) the proportion of patients who achieve remission in a head-to-head comparison between csDMARD plus glucocorticoid therapy and three different biological DMARD (bDMARD) therapies with different modes of action and (2) two de-escalation strategies in patients who respond to first-line therapy.

METHODS/DESIGN

In a pragmatic, 80-160-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded, phase 4 study, 800 patients with early RA (symptom duration less than 24 months) are randomized 1:1:1:1 to one of four different treatment arms: (1) aggressive csDMARD therapy with methotrexate + sulphasalazine + hydroxychloroquine + i.a. glucocorticoids (arm 1A) or methotrexate + prednisolone p.o. (arm 1B), (2) methotrexate + certolizumab-pegol, (3) methotrexate + abatacept, or (4) methotrexate + tocilizumab. The primary clinical endpoint is the proportion of patients reaching Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission at week 24. Patients in stable remission over 24 consecutive weeks enter part 2 of the study earliest after 48 weeks. Patients not achieving sustained CDAI remission over 24 consecutive weeks, exit the study after 80 weeks. In part 2, patients are re-randomized to two different de-escalation strategies, either immediate or delayed (after 24 weeks) tapering, followed by cessation of study medication. All patients remain on stable doses of methotrexate. The primary clinical endpoint in part 2 is the proportion of patients in remission (CDAI ≤2.8) 24 weeks after initiating treatment de-escalation. Radiographic assessment will be performed regularly throughout the trial, and blood and urine samples will be stored in a biobank for later biomarker analyses.

DISCUSSION

NORD-STAR is the first investigator-initiated, randomized, early RA trial to compare (1) csDMARD and three different bDMARD therapies head to head and (2) two different de-escalation strategies. The trial has the potential to identify which treatment strategy to apply in early RA to achieve the best possible outcomes for both patients and society.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01491815 and NCT02466581 . Registered on 8 December 2011 and May 2015, respectively. EudraCT: 2011-004720-35.

The Challenge of Treating Early-Stage Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Contribution of Mixed Treatment Comparison to Choosing Appropriate Biologic Agents

BACKGROUND

Use of biologic drugs is approved for treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), both in established disease and at the early stage of RA (ERA). Identification of ERA and an early therapeutic strategy would lead to greater clinical improvement. Only a few indirect comparisons of the efficacy of different biologic agents in established RA have been performed and, to date, no studies reporting direct comparisons have been performed in ERA.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare, by use of a mixed treatment comparison (MTC), the efficacy profiles of biologic agents in ERA.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed to identify results of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating biologic agents at licensed doses to treat patients affected by ERA. The primary end points for the analysis were the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses from baseline to various times of follow-up. WinBUGS 1.4 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) was used to perform the analyses. The MTC results are reported as the relative risk of a response for every single treatment coadministered with methotrexate, versus methotrexate plus placebo, which was used as a comparator in all RCTs.

RESULTS

Ten scientific papers met the study inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Data on the use of infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, abatacept, golimumab, and rituximab were included. No studies reported on the use of certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab in ERA. All biologic agents coadministered with methotrexate proved to be more efficacious than methotrexate plus placebo in inducing ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses. The biologic agent characterized by the highest probability of inducing an ACR70 response was adalimumab (33.28%). Etanercept was the biologic agent with the highest probability of inducing ACR20 and ACR50 responses, in comparison with all other biologic agents, with probability rates of 62.95 and 37.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In our analysis, adalimumab proved to be the biologic agent with the highest probability of inducing an ACR70 response in patients affected by ERA, while etanercept was the biologic agent with the highest probability of inducing ACR50 and ACR20 responses.

Early rheumatoid arthritis treated with tocilizumab, methotrexate, or their combination (U-Act-Early): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, strategy trial

BACKGROUND

For patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, treatment aim is early, rapid, and sustained remission. We compared the efficacy and safety of strategies initiating the interleukin-6 receptor-blocking monoclonal antibody tocilizumab with or without methotrexate (a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD]), versus initiation of methotrexate monotherapy in line with international guidelines.

METHODS

We did a 2-year, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, strategy study at 21 rheumatology outpatient departments in the Netherlands. We included patients who had been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis within 1 year before inclusion, were DMARD-naive, aged 18 years or older, met current rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria, and had a disease activity score assessing 28 joints (DAS28) of at least 2·6. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to start tocilizumab plus methotrexate (the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm), or tocilizumab plus placebo-methotrexate (the tocilizumab arm), or methotrexate plus placebo-tocilizumab (the methotrexate arm). Tocilizumab was given at 8 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks with a maximum of 800 mg per dose. Methotrexate was started at 10 mg per week orally and increased stepwise every 4 weeks by 5 mg to a maximum of 30 mg per week, until remission or dose-limiting toxicity. We did the randomisation using an interactive web response system. Masking was achieved with placebos that were similar in appearance to the active drug; the study physicians, pharmacists, monitors, and patients remained masked during the study, and all assessments were done by masked assessors. Patients not achieving remission on their initial regimen switched from placebo to active treatments; patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm switched to standard of care therapy (typically methotrexate combined with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor). When sustained remission was achieved, methotrexate (and placebo-methotrexate) was tapered and stopped, then tocilizumab (and placebo-tocilizumab) was also tapered and stopped. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving sustained remission (defined as DAS28 <2·6 with a swollen joint count ≤four, persisting for at least 24 weeks) on the initial regimen and during the entire study duration, compared between groups with a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Analysis was based on an intention-to-treat method. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01034137.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 13, 2010, and July 30, 2012, we recruited and assigned 317 eligible patients to treatment (106 to the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm, 103 to the tocilizumab arm, and 108 to the methotrexate arm). The study was completed by a similar proportion of patients in the three groups (range 72-78%). The most frequent reasons for dropout were adverse events or intercurrent illness: 27 (34%) of dropouts, and insufficient response: 26 (33%) of dropouts. 91 (86%) of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm achieved sustained remission on the initial regimen, compared with 86 (84%) of 103 in the tocilizumab arm, and 48 (44%) of 108 in the methotrexate arm (relative risk [RR] 2·00, 95% CI 1·59-2·51 for tocilizumab plus methotrexate vs methotrexate, and 1·86, 1·48-2·32 for tocilizumab vs methotrexate, p<0·0001 for both comparisons). For the entire study, 91 (86%) of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm, 91 (88%) of 103 in the tocilizumab arm, and 83 (77%) of 108 in the methotrexate arm achieved sustained remission (RR 1·13, 95% CI 1·00-1·29, p=0·06 for tocilizumab plus methotrexate vs methotrexate, 1·14, 1·01-1·29, p=0·0356 for tocilizumab vs methotrexate, and p=0·59 for tocilizumab plus methotrexate vs tocilizumab). Nasopharyngitis was the most common adverse event in all three treatment groups, occurring in 38 (36%) of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm, 40 (39%) of 103 in the tocilizumab arm, and 37 (34%) of 108 in the methotrexate arm. The occurrence of serious adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups (17 [16%] of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm vs 19 [18%] of 103 in the tocilizumab arm and 13 [12%] of 108 in the methotrexate arm), and no deaths occurred during the study.

INTERPRETATION

For patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, strategies aimed at sustained remission by immediate initiation of tocilizumab with or without methotrexate are more effective, and with a similar safety profile, compared with initiation of methotrexate in line with current standards.

FUNDING

Roche Nederland BV.