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.

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.

The clinical efficacy of Rituximab administration in autoimmunity disorders, primary immunodeficiency diseases and malignancies

Rituximab (RTX), as a monoclonal antibody-based immunotherapeutic intervention targeting CD20 on B cells, has proven efficacy in the treatment of patients with some immune-mediated diseases. In the present review, we provided information on the immunobiological mechanisms of signaling for RTX and its clinical applications, according to the immune-pathophysiology involved in the microenvironment of multiple diseases. We highlighted combination therapy, dose schedules, and laboratory monitoring, as well as the associated common and rare side effects to avoid. We also discussed the efficacy and safety of RTX-based therapeutic strategies and whether RTX therapy can be used as a promising treatment regimen for autoimmune diseases, primary immunodeficiency diseases, and malignancies. Our review highlights and supports the importance of collaboration between basic medical researchers and clinical specialists when considering the use of RTX in the treatment of various immune-mediated disorders.

Biologic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Context of Biosimilars, Genetics, Epigenetics and COVID-19 Treatment

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects around 1.2% of the adult population. RA is one of the main reasons for work disability and premature retirement, thus substantially increasing social and economic burden. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were shown to be an effective therapy especially in those rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, who did not adequately respond to conventional synthetic DMARD therapy. However, despite the proven efficacy, the high cost of the therapy resulted in limitation of the widespread use and unequal access to the care. The introduction of biosimilars, which are much cheaper relative to original drugs, may facilitate the achievement of the therapy by a much broader spectrum of patients. In this review we present the properties of original biologic agents based on cytokine-targeted (blockers of TNF, IL-6, IL-1, GM-CSF) and cell-targeted therapies (aimed to inhibit T cells and B cells properties) as well as biosimilars used in rheumatology. We also analyze the latest update of bDMARDs' possible influence on DNA methylation, miRNA expression and histone modification in RA patients, what might be the important factors toward precise and personalized RA treatment. In addition, during the COVID-19 outbreak, we discuss the usage of biologicals in context of effective and safe COVID-19 treatment. Therefore, early diagnosing along with therapeutic intervention based on personalized drugs targeting disease-specific genes is still needed to relieve symptoms and to improve the quality of life of RA patients.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To summarise, by a systematic literature review (SLR), the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA), informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of D2T RA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.

RESULTS

Two hundred seven (207) papers studied therapeutic strategies. Limited evidence was found on effective and safe disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with comorbidities and other contraindications that limit DMARD options (patients with obesity, hepatitis B and C, risk of venous thromboembolisms, pregnancy and lactation). In patients who previously failed biological (b-)DMARDs, all currently used b/targeted synthetic (ts-)DMARDs were found to be more effective than placebo. In patients who previously failed a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), there was a tendency of non-TNFi bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFis. Generally, effectiveness decreased in patients who previously failed a higher number of bDMARDs. Additionally, exercise, psychological, educational and self-management interventions were found to improve non-inflammatory complaints (mainly functional disability, pain, fatigue), education to improve goal setting, and self-management programmes, educational and psychological interventions to improve self-management.The identified evidence had several limitations: (1) no studies were found in patients with D2T RA specifically, (2) heterogeneous outcome criteria were used and (3) most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR underscores the scarcity of high-quality evidence on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of patients with D2T RA. Effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs decreased in RA patients who had failed a higher number of bDMARDs and a subsequent b/tsDMARD of a previously not targeted mechanism of action was somewhat more effective. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found for improvement of non-inflammatory complaints, goal setting and self-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.

Reasons for Biologic and Targeted Synthetic Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Cessation and Persistence of Second-line Treatment in a Rheumatoid Arthritis Dataset

OBJECTIVE

To provide real-world evidence about the reasons why Australian rheumatologists cease biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) when treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to assess (1) the primary failure rate for first-line treatment, and (2) the persistence on second-line treatments in patients who stopped first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

METHODS

This is a multicenter retrospective, noninterventional study of patients with RA enrolled in the Australian Optimising Patient outcome in Australian RheumatoLogy (OPAL) dataset with a start date of b/tsDMARD between August 1, 2010, and June 30, 2017. Primary failure was defined as stopping treatment within 6 months of treatment initiation.

RESULTS

Data from 7740 patients were analyzed; 6914 patients received first-line b/tsDMARD. First-line treatment was stopped in 3383 (49%) patients; 1263 (37%) were classified as primary failures. The most common reason was "lack of efficacy" (947/2656, 36%). Of the patients who stopped first-line TNFi, 43% (1111/2560) received second-line TNFi, which resulted in the shortest median time to stopping second-line treatment (11 months, 95% CI 9-12) compared with non-TNFi. The longest second-line median treatment duration after first-line TNFi was for patients receiving rituximab (39 months, 95% CI 27-74).

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of patients who stopped first-line TNFi therapy received another TNFi despite evidence for longer treatment persistence on second-line b/tsDMARD with a different mode of action. Lack of efficacy was recorded as the most common reason for making a switch in first-line treatment of patients with RA.

Abatacept Monotherapy Versus Abatacept Plus Methotrexate for Treatment-Refractory Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate combination therapy improves abatacept efficacy as a first-line biologic agent for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but it is unclear when abatacept is used later on, particularly after non-TNF inhibitor (TNFi) failure.

STUDY QUESTION

The objective of this study was to determine whether treatment response after non-TNFi inadequate response is different in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept in combination with or not with methotrexate.

METHODS

Patients treated with abatacept monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate after non-TNFi failure were included.

RESULTS

Data from 46 patients aged 56 years [49-61] with 12 years [8-16] of disease duration were examined. Rituximab was the treatment used in the previous line for 75.0% of the combination therapy group (15/20) and 34.6% (9/26) in the monotherapy group. At 12 months, 38.5% (10/26) of patients were in good-to-moderate EULAR response in the monotherapy group compared with 25.0% (5/20) in the combination therapy group (P = 0.33). Treatment persistence at 12 months was 61.5% (16/26) in the monotherapy group and 35.0% (7/20) in the combination therapy group (P = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding methotrexate to abatacept did not improve treatment response in patients with RA after non-TNFi inadequate response.

Efficacy and safety profile of intravenous tocilizumab versus intravenous abatacept in treating female Saudi Arabian patients with active moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab with those of abatacept in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis not responding to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy.

METHODS

A prospective, open-label study was carried out on adult females with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous tocilizumab or abatacept treatment. History taking, clinical examination, and laboratory evaluation were done at baseline and during a 24-week period of follow-up. Disease activity was calculated using the DAS28-ESR score. The incidence of accompanying adverse events was evaluated and all statistical analyses were performed by InStat.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled and classified randomly into the tocilizumab (n = 68) and abatacept (n = 64) groups. By week 24, the mean DAS28-ESR was significantly reduced in both groups (P < 0.0001) in association with significant reductions in CRP, ESR, and HAQ scores. No significant difference in the incidence rate of adverse effects appeared between both study groups. However, there were marked declines in the hemoglobin levels (P = 0.003) and neutrophil count (P = 0.002) together with significant elevations in systolic blood pressure (P = 0.002), liver enzymes (P = 0.001), total cholesterol (P = 0.001), and high-density lipoproteins (P = 0.002) in the tocilizumab group compared with the abatacept group.

CONCLUSION

Both intravenous abatacept and tocilizumab significantly decreased the disease activity and improved the physical function in rheumatoid arthritis patients who failed to respond to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Although the efficacy of both drugs was similar, abatacept showed a more promising short-term safety profile since it was associated with less adverse effects and better laboratory outcomes.

Comparative effectiveness of rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab in adults with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to TNF inhibitors: prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of three non-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors (rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

DESIGN

Population based prospective study.

SETTING

53 university and 54 non-university clinical centres in France.

PARTICIPANTS

3162 adults (>18 years) with rheumatoid arthritis according to 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria, enrolled in one of the three French Society of Rheumatology registries; who had no severe cardiovascular disease, active or severe infections, or severe immunodeficiency, with follow-up of at least 24 months.

INTERVENTION

Initiation of intravenous rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was drug retention without failure at 24 months. Failure was defined as all cause death; discontinuation of rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab; initiation of a new biologic or a combination of conventional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs; or increase in corticosteroid dose >10 mg/d compared with baseline at two successive visits. Because of non-proportional hazards, treatment effects are presented as life expectancy difference without failure (LED_wf), which measures the difference between average duration of survival without failure.

RESULTS

Average durations of survival without failure were 19.8 months for rituximab, 15.6 months for abatacept, and 19.1 months for tocilizumab. Average durations were greater with rituximab (LED_wf 4.1, 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 5.2) and tocilizumab (3.5, 2.1 to 5.0) than with abatacept, and uncertainty about tocilizumab compared with rituximab was substantial (-0.7, -1.9 to 0.5). No evidence was found of difference between treatments for mean duration of survival without death, presence of cancer or serious infections, or major adverse cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSION

Among adults with refractory rheumatoid arthritis followed-up in routine practice, rituximab and tocilizumab were associated with greater improvements in outcomes at two years compared with abatacept.

No difference in cardiovascular risk of tocilizumab versus abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: A multi-database cohort study

OBJECTIVES

While tocilizumab may increase serum lipid levels, recent studies do not suggest a link between tocilizumab use and clinical cardiovascular risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

To compare cardiovascular safety of tocilizumab with abatacept, we conducted a cohort study using data from Medicare (2010-2013), IMS PharMetrics (2011-2014) and MarketScan (2011-6/2015). RA patients aged ≥18 years who newly started tocilizumab or abatacept entered the cohort on the day of their first use of tocilizumab or abatacept after a continuous enrollment period for ≥365 days. The primary outcome was a composite cardiovascular endpoint of hospitalization for myocardial infarction or stroke. To control for more than 60 confounders, tocilizumab starters were propensity score (PS)-matched to abatacept starters with a variable ratio of 1:3 within each database. A fixed-effects model combined database-specific hazard ratios (HR).

RESULTS

We included 6237 tocilizumab starters PS-matched to 14,685 abatacept starters in all three databases. Mean age was 72 years in Medicare, 51 in PharMetrics and 53 in MarketScan. The incidence rate of the composite cardiovascular events per 100 person-years ranged from 0.37 (PharMetrics) to 1.64 (Medicare) in the tocilizumab group and from 0.59 (PharMetrics) to 1.69 (Medicare) in the abatacept group. The risk of the composite cardiovascular events was similar between the two groups across all three databases, with a combined HR of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.55-1.22) in tocilizumab versus abatacept starters.

CONCLUSIONS

This multi-database cohort study found no difference in the risk of cardiovascular events in RA patients who newly started tocilizumab versus abatacept.

Second-line biologic therapy optimization in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE

The Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO) reviewed the most consistent literature to indicate the best strategy for the second-line biologic choice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature to identify English-language articles on efficacy of second-line biologic choice in RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data were extracted from available randomized, controlled trials, national biologic registries, national healthcare databases, post-marketing surveys, and open-label observational studies.

RESULTS

Some previously stated variables, including the patients׳ preference, the indication for anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monotherapy in potential childbearing women, and the intravenous route with dose titration in obese subjects resulted valid for all the three rheumatic conditions. In RA, golimumab as second-line biologic has the highest level of evidence in anti-TNF failure. The switching strategy is preferable for responder patients who experience an adverse event, whereas serious or class-specific side effects should be managed by the choice of a differently targeted drug. Secondary inadequate response to etanercept (ETN) should be treated with a biologic agent other than anti-TNF. After two or more anti-TNF failures, the swapping to a different mode of action is recommended. Among non-anti-TNF targeted biologics, to date rituximab (RTX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) have the strongest evidence of efficacy in the treatment of anti-TNF failures. In PsA and AS patients failing the first anti-TNF, the switch strategy to a second is advisable, taking in account the evidence of adalimumab efficacy in patients with uveitis. The severity of psoriasis, of articular involvement, and the predominance of enthesitis and/or dactylitis may drive the choice toward ustekinumab or secukinumab in PsA, and the latter in AS.

CONCLUSION

Taking in account the paucity of controlled trials, second-line biologic therapy may be reasonably optimized in patients with RA, SpA, and PsA.