Evolution of radiographic joint damage in rituximab-treated versus TNF-treated rheumatoid arthritis cases with inadequate response to TNF antagonists

Etanercept is Effective and Halts Radiographic Progression in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Psoriatic Arthritis: Final Results from a German Non-interventional Study (PRERA)

INTRODUCTION

Etanercept (ETN) has been shown to slow radiographic progression of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in clinical trials. This real-world, non-interventional study assessed radiographic progression in patients with RA or PsA treated with ETN for ≤ 36 months in outpatient care in Germany (NCT01623752).

METHODS

Patients with RA or PsA attended ≤ 10 visits across two study phases (phase 1: seven visits, baseline to month 18; phase 2: three visits until month 36). Radiographs were taken at baseline (Rx1), months 12-18 (Rx2), and/or months 30-36 (Rx3). Historic radiographs (Rx0) taken 12-48 months pre-baseline were also evaluated (if available). The primary endpoint was the change in modified total Sharp score (mTSS). The erosion score (ES) and joint space narrowing score (JSN) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 1821 patients were enrolled (RA: n = 1378; PsA: n = 440). In patients with Rx1 and Rx2 (RA: n = 511; PsA: n = 167), the mean mTSS remained stable for both disease groups, and the annualized median change in mTSS was 0. In patients with Rx0, Rx1, and Rx2 (RA: n = 180; PsA: n = 47), annualized radiographic progression in mTSS, ES, and JSN was larger in the pre-ETN treatment phase than during ETN treatment in both disease groups. The percentage of patients with radiographic non-progression was higher during ETN treatment versus pre-ETN. Improvement in clinical disease activity and patient-reported outcomes was also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first real-world, non-interventional study to report systematically collected radiographic data in a large cohort of patients with RA or PsA under treatment with a biologic. In patients with available radiographic data, mean radiographic progression was lower and the proportion of patients without progression was greater during ETN treatment than in the pre-ETN period.

Recent advances in the opioid mu receptor based pharmacotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Opioids are used for severe forms of acute and cancer pain. Over the last years, their potential use in patients with noncancer pain such as those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been postulated. A recent population-based comparative study showed that chronic opioid use was 12% vs. 4% among RA and non-RA patients, respectively. Another study showed an increase from 7.4% to 16.9% (2002 to 2015). In general, there has been an increasing tendency to use opioids in recent years.

AREAS COVERED

The authors have performed an extensive literature search using PubMed for articles including noncancer pain and the use of the mu opioid receptor (MOR) agonists in patients with RA.

EXPERT OPINION

Data is not sufficient to support opioid use for the treatment of chronic pain in patients with RA. Data is scarce and inconclusive. Rheumatologists should think and ponder the question: Why is this patient in pain? Differential diagnosis should include a disease flare, degenerative changes of the musculoskeletal system, and fibromyalgia. And while there are new strategies for opioid administration currently being researched, unfortunately, they are far from being applied to human subjects in the everyday clinical setting, and are still being evaluated at an experimental level. CNS: Central nervous system; DORs: delta opioid receptor agonists; GI: Gastrointestinal; GPCRs: G protein-coupled receptors; IL: Interleukin; JAK: Janus kinase; KORs: kappa opioid receptor agonists; MCPs: Metacarpophalangeal joints; MORs: Mu opioid receptor agonists; MTPs: Metatarsophalangeal joints; NSAIDs: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugsOA: Osteoarthritis; ORs: Opioid receptors; PD: Pharmacodynamic; PIPs: Proximal interphalangeal joints; PK: Pharmacokinetic; PNS: Peripheral nervous system; RA: Rheumatoid arthritis; RGS: Regulator of G protein signaling; SSRIs: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; TNF: Tumor necrosis factor.

Synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis detected by grey scale ultrasound predicts the development of erosions over the next three years

Objectives

To evaluate grey scale US (GSUS) and power Doppler US synovitis (PDUS), separately or in combination (CombUS), to predict joint damage progression in RA.

Methods

In this cohort study nested in the Swiss RA register, all patients with sequential hand radiographs at their first US assessment were included. We analysed the summations of semi-quantitative GSUS, PDUS and CombUS assessments of both wrists and 16 finger joints (maximum 54 points) at their upper limit of normal, their 50th, 75th or 87.5th percentiles for the progression of joint damage (ΔXray). We adjusted for clinical disease activity measures at baseline, the use of biological DMARDs and other confounders.

Results

After a median of 35 months, 69 of 250 patients with CombUS (28%), 73 of 259 patients with PDUS (28%) and 75 of 287 patients with available GSUS data (26%) demonstrated joint damage progression. PDUS beyond upper limit of normal (1/54), GSUS and CombUS each at their 50th (9/54 and 10/54) and their 75th percentiles (14/54 and 15/54) were significantly associated with ΔXray in crude and adjusted models. In subgroup analyses, GSUS beyond 14/54 and CombUS higher than 15/54 remained significantly associated with ΔXray in patients on biological DMARDs, while clinical disease activity measures had no significant prognostic power in this subgroup.

Conclusion

Higher levels of GSUS and CombUS are associated with the development of erosions. GSUS appears to be an essential component of synovitis assessment and an independent predictor of joint damage progression in patients on biological DMARDs.

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.

Imputing missing data of function and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis registers: what is the best technique?

Objective

To compare several methods of missing data imputation for function (Health Assessment Questionnaire) and for disease activity (Disease Activity Score-28 and Clinical Disease Activity Index) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

Methods

One thousand RA patients from observational cohort studies with complete data for function and disease activity at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months were selected to conduct a simulation study. Values were deleted at random or following a predicted attrition bias. Three types of imputation were performed: (1) methods imputing forward in time (last observation carried forward; linear forward extrapolation); (2) methods considering data both forward and backward in time (nearest available observation—NAO; linear extrapolation; polynomial extrapolation); and (3) methods using multi-individual models (linear mixed effects cubic regression—LME3; multiple imputation by chained equation—MICE). The performance of each estimation method was assessed using the difference between the mean outcome value, the remission and low disease activity rates after imputation of the missing values and the true value.

Results

When imputing missing baseline values, all methods underestimated equally the true value, but LME3 and MICE correctly estimated remission and low disease activity rates. When imputing missing follow-up values at 6, 12, or 24 months, NAO provided the least biassed estimate of the mean disease activity and corresponding remission rate. These results were not affected by the presence of attrition bias.

Conclusion

When imputing function and disease activity in large registers of active RA patients, researchers can consider the use of a simple method such as NAO for missing follow-up data, and the use of mixed-effects regression or multiple imputation for baseline data.

Alternative tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or abatacept or rituximab following failure of initial TNFi in rheumatoid arthritis: the SWITCH RCT

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the most common autoimmune disease in the UK, is a chronic systemic inflammatory arthritis that affects 0.8% of the UK population.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not an alternative class of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are comparable to rituximab in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with RA in whom initial tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD and methotrexate (MTX) therapy failed because of inefficacy.

DESIGN

Multicentre, Phase III, open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative TNFi and abatacept with that of rituximab (and background MTX therapy). Eligible consenting patients were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio using minimisation incorporating a random element. Minimisation factors were centre, disease duration, non-response category and seropositive/seronegative status.

SETTING

UK outpatient rheumatology departments.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with RA and were receiving MTX, but had not responded to two or more conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapies and had shown an inadequate treatment response to a first TNFi.

INTERVENTIONS

Alternative TNFi, abatacept or rituximab (and continued background MTX).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was absolute reduction in the Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS28) at 24 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures over 48 weeks were additional measures of disease activity, quality of life, cost-effectiveness, radiographic measures, safety and toxicity.

LIMITATIONS

Owing to third-party contractual issues, commissioning challenges delaying centre set-up and thus slower than expected recruitment, the funders terminated the trial early.

RESULTS

Between July 2012 and December 2014, 149 patients in 35 centres were registered, of whom 122 were randomised to treatment (alternative TNFi, n = 41; abatacept, n = 41; rituximab, n = 40). The numbers, as specified, were analysed in each group [in line with the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle]. Comparing alternative TNFi with rituximab, the difference in mean reduction in DAS28 at 24 weeks post randomisation was 0.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 1.05] in the ITT patient population and -0.58 (95% CI -1.72 to 0.55) in the per protocol (PP) population. Corresponding results for the abatacept and rituximab comparison were 0.04 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.79) in the ITT population and -0.15 (95% CI -1.27 to 0.98) in the PP population. General improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life and the patients' general health was apparent over time, with no notable differences between treatment groups. There was a marked initial improvement in the patients' global assessment of pain and arthritis at 12 weeks across all three treatment groups. Switching to alternative TNFi may be cost-effective compared with rituximab [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £5332.02 per quality-adjusted life-year gained]; however, switching to abatacept compared with switching to alternative TNFi is unlikely to be cost-effective (ICER £253,967.96), but there was substantial uncertainty in the decisions. The value of information analysis indicated that further research would be highly valuable to the NHS. Ten serious adverse events in nine patients were reported; none were suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions. Two patients died and 10 experienced toxicity.

FUTURE WORK

The results will add to the randomised evidence base and could be included in future meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

How to manage first-line TNFi treatment failures remains unresolved. Had the trial recruited to target, more credible evidence on whether or not either of the interventions were non-inferior to rituximab may have been provided, although this remains speculative.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89222125 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295151.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Long-term efficacy and safety of add-on tacrolimus for persistent, active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors

AIM

To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of adding tacrolimus for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy with methotrexate.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who were treated with adding tacrolimus onto anti-TNF therapy with methotrexate for active RA despite anti-TNF therapy with methotrexate, were retrospectively analyzed in terms of treatment response, achieving remission, subsequent treatment tapering and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients could be analyzed. Median symptom duration was 2.9 years and prior duration of anti-TNF therapy was 40 weeks. Median value of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints was 4.6. Five, eight and two were on infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab at the onset of tacrolimus, respectively. At 2 years, the proportions of patients achieving responses of American College of Rheumatology 50, 70 and 90, were 80%, 73% and 40%, respectively, and those achieving remission as defined by Simplified Disease Activity Index ≤ 3.3 were 67%. All patients could discontinue oral glucocorticoids and 10 had been successfully withdrawn from anti-TNF therapy for more than 1 year at the final observation.

CONCLUSION

Adding tacrolimus onto anti-TNF therapy is a promising therapeutic option with sustained benefit for refractory RA patients despite treatment with anti-TNF therapy combined with methotrexate.

Rituximab done: what's next in rheumatoid arthritis? A European observational longitudinal study assessing the effectiveness of biologics after rituximab treatment in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of biologics after rituximab (RTX) treatment in RA.

METHODS

The effectiveness of TNF-α inhibitors (TNFi), abatacept (ABA) or tocilizumab (TCZ) was examined in patients previously treated with RTX using clinical data collected in the Collaborative Registries for the Evaluation of Rituximab in RA Collaborative registry. Patients had stopped RTX 6 months or less prior to the new biologic and had a baseline visit within 21 days of starting the new biologic.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty-five patients were analysed after 6 months of treatment. Patients on TCZ (n = 86) had a greater decline of DAS28-ESR and clinical disease activity index than patients on TNFi (n = 89) or ABA (n = 90). This effect was also seen after adjusting for baseline prednisone use and the number of previous biologics. The mean DAS28-ESR scores in patients on TCZ were 1.0 (95% CI: 0.2, 1.7) and 1.8 (95% CI: 1.0, 2.5) points lower than in patients on TNFi or ABA, respectively. In patients on TCZ, the clinical disease activity index was 9.4 (95% CI: 1.7, 16.1) and 8.1 (95% CI: 0.9, 15.3) points lower than on TNFi and ABA, respectively. Patients on TCZ more frequently had good EULAR responses than patients on TNFi or ABA (66 vs 31 vs 14%, P < 0.001). The HAQ disability index improved in all treatment groups (P < 0.001), but did not differ between biologics, as did drug retention rates. The reasons for discontinuation of RTX and the number of previous biologics had no influence on outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In this observational cohort of patients who discontinued RTX, TCZ provided a better control of RA than ABA or TNFi.

Joint damage progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical remission: do biologics perform better than synthetic antirheumatic drugs?

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled studies have demonstrated protective advantages of biologic therapies over the synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in slowing joint damage progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This effect appears to be largely independent of the clinical disease control. We measured the rate of radiographic progression in patients with RA in clinical remission treated with synthetic versus biologic DMARD.

METHODS

This is an observational cohort study of patients with RA in clinical remission, nested within the Swiss Clinical Quality Management in Rheumatoid Arthritis (SCQM-RA) Registry. The primary study outcome was the rate of radiographic progression (Ratingen erosion score), and a secondary outcome was functional disability [Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI)] progression. We compared the rate of progression between synthetic and biologic DMARD using a multivariate regression model for longitudinal data, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 2055 patients in the SCQM-RA registry were in remission at least once from 1999 to 2012 and met the study inclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics of patients in remission receiving synthetic and biologic DMARD were not significantly different in terms of prognostic factors for joint damage progression. During followup, erosion progression differed significantly between the 2 groups [1.4% (95% CI: 1.1-1.6) vs 0.9% (95% CI: 0.5-1.2) of progression over 3 years, respectively, p < 0.001], with less damage progression in patients treated with biologic DMARD than with synthetic DMARD. This difference remained significant after adjusting for confounding factors. The evolution of the HAQ-DI score was also statistically better in the biologic group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This observational study confirms that the rate of structural damage progression in clinical remission is decreased taking biologics compared to synthetic DMARD. However, while the difference is statistically significant it is probably not relevant from a clinical perspective.

Advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The intense pursuit of novel therapies in rheumatoid arthritis has provided physicians with an assorted set of biologic drugs to treat patients with moderate to severe disease activity. Nine different biologic therapies are currently available: seven inhibitors of pro-inflammatory cytokines (five targeting tumor necrosis factor [TNF], one interleukin [IL]-1 and one IL-6), as well as a T- and a B-lymphocyte targeting agent. All these drugs have roughly similar efficacy profiles and are approved as first- or second-line therapy in patients who failed to respond to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and in most cases for first line use in rheumatoid arthritis as well. Despite the irrefutable clinical and radiological benefits of biologic therapies, there are still low rates of patients achieving stable remission. Therefore, the quest for new and more effective biologic therapies continues and every year new drugs are tested. Simultaneously, optimal use of established agents is being studied in different ways. Recently, the approval of the first small molecule targeting intracellular pathways has opened a new chapter in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Other emerging treatment strategies include the activation of regulatory T cells as well as new cytokine-targeting therapies.

Rituximab versus an alternative TNF inhibitor in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who failed to respond to a single previous TNF inhibitor: SWITCH-RA, a global, observational, comparative effectiveness study

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness of rituximab versus an alternative tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to one previous TNFi.

Methods

SWITCH-RA was a prospective, global, observational, real-life study. Patients non-responsive or intolerant to a single TNFi were enrolled ≤4 weeks after starting rituximab or a second TNFi. Primary end point: change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints excluding patient's global health component (DAS28-3)–erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) over 6 months.

Results

604 patients received rituximab, and 507 an alternative TNFi as second biological therapy. Reasons for discontinuing the first TNFi were inefficacy (n=827), intolerance (n=263) and other (n=21). A total of 728 patients were available for primary end point analysis (rituximab n=405; TNFi n=323). Baseline mean (SD) DAS28-3–ESR was higher in the rituximab than the TNFi group: 5.2 (1.2) vs 4.8 (1.3); p<0.0001. Least squares mean (SE) change in DAS28-3–ESR at 6 months was significantly greater in rituximab than TNFi patients: −1.5 (0.2) vs −1.1 (0.2); p=0.007. The difference remained significant among patients discontinuing the initial TNFi because of inefficacy (−1.7 vs −1.3; p=0.017) but not intolerance (−0.7 vs −0.7; p=0.894). Seropositive patients showed significantly greater improvements in DAS28-3–ESR with rituximab than with TNFi (−1.6 (0.3) vs −1.2 (0.3); p=0.011), particularly those switching because of inefficacy (−1.9 (0.3) vs −1.5 (0.4); p=0.021). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the rituximab and TNFi groups.

Conclusions

These real-life data indicate that, after discontinuation of an initial TNFi, switching to rituximab is associated with significantly improved clinical effectiveness compared with switching to a second TNFi. This difference was particularly evident in seropositive patients and in those switched because of inefficacy.

Anaemia may add information to standardised disease activity assessment to predict radiographic damage in rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Anaemia in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is prototypical of the chronic disease type and is often neglected in clinical practice. We studied anaemia in relation to disease activity, medications and radiographic progression.

METHODS

Data were collected between 1996 and 2007 over a mean follow-up of 2.2 years. Anaemia was defined according to WHO (♀ haemoglobin<12 g/dl, ♂: haemoglobin<13 g/dl), or alternative criteria. Anaemia prevalence was studied in relation to disease parameters and pharmacological therapy. Radiographic progression was analysed in 9731 radiograph sets from 2681 patients in crude longitudinal regression models and after adjusting for potential confounding factors, including the clinical disease activity score with the 28-joint count for tender and swollen joints and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28ESR) or the clinical disease activity index (cDAI), synthetic antirheumatic drugs and antitumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy.

RESULTS

Anaemia prevalence decreased from more than 24% in years before 2001 to 15% in 2007. Erosions progressed significantly faster in patients with anaemia (p<0.001). Adjusted models showed these effects independently of clinical disease activity and other indicators of disease severity. Radiographic damage progression rates were increasing with severity of anaemia, suggesting a 'dose-response effect'. The effect of anaemia on damage progression was maintained in subgroups of patients treated with TNF blockade or corticosteroids, and without non-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

CONCLUSIONS

Anaemia in RA appears to capture disease processes that remain unmeasured by established disease activity measures in patients with or without TNF blockade, and may help to identify patients with more rapid erosive disease.