Effectiveness of TNF inhibitor switch in RA: results from the national Swedish register

Does the Type of Failure and the Choice of the Second Biologic Influence Response and Persistence on Medication in Rheumatoid Arthritis?

BACKGROUND

The type of failure may predict response to a second biologic. We evaluated the response to a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi in patients failing their initial TNFi, either primarily or secondarily.

METHODS

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were biologic-naive and had a Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10, who started their first TNFi for ≥3 months and then switched to a second biologic, were included in the study. Secondary failure was defined as 2 consecutive low-CDAI visits and then switching to a second biologic while they had moderate/severe CDAI. Primary failure was defined if it did not meet the definition of secondary failure, or if they had at least 1 moderate/severe CDAI after 3 months on treatment. We used multivariable logistic regression comparing primary versus secondary failure for achievement of CDAI ≤10 (primary outcome) and minimal clinically important differences (secondary outcome) at 6 months after switch.

RESULTS

Of the 462 patients included, 64.3% and 35.7% stopped the first TNFi because of a primary and secondary failure, respectively. Patients with primary failure had a more severe disease (CDAI mean, 26.39 vs. 21.61; p < 0.001). The likelihood of achieving CDAI ≤10 (odds ratio, 4.367; 95% confidence interval, 2.428-7.856) and minimal clinically important difference (odds ratio, 2.851; 95% confidence interval, 1.619-5.020) was significantly higher for secondary than primary failure regardless of choice of a second agent.

CONCLUSION

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis with secondary failure to a first TNFi responded better to a second biologic agent, regardless of the choice of biologic.

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.

Real-world effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a chronic systemic inflammatory autoimmune disease, is based on disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Typically, it starts with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), and depending on the patient’s response to the treatment and the adverse events experienced, biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) are initiated. bDMARDs are more specific to inflammatory factors than csDMARDs and more efficient in inducing remission and low disease activity. Thus, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in administrative health databases.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 21 October 2021, to identify observational studies that evaluated the effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using administrative databases and real-world data. The methodological quality was assessed by the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). A fixed or random-effects model estimated risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. The analysis was divided into four groups: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) versus non-TNFi; TNFi versus TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab versus infliximab); bDMARDs versus Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi); and bDMARDs monotherapy versus combination therapy (bDMARDs and MTX).

Results: Twenty-one records were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis; seven population-based cohorts, eight prospective, and six retrospective cohort studies. Overall, 182,098 rheumatoid arthritis patients were evaluated. In the meta-analysis, lower effectiveness was observed among TNFi users than in non-TNFi (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81–0.95; p < 0.01; I² = 94.0%) and bDMARDs than in JAKi (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79–0.94; p < 0.01; I² = 93.0%). Higher effectiveness among adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab than in infliximab (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.05–1.36; p < 0.01; I² = 96.0%) was found. No significant differences in the effectiveness of bDMARD monotherapy compared to combination therapy (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.68–1.00; p < 0.01; I² = 81.0%) was observed. E-value analysis indicated that the estimates were not robust against unmeasured confounding.

Conclusion: According to the available real-world data, our results suggest that biological therapy effectively treats patients with rheumatoid arthritis, indicating higher effectiveness with non-TNFi and JAKi than with TNFi.

Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID#CRD42020190838, identifier CRD42020190838.

Janus kinase versus TNF inhibitors: where we stand today in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

In recent decades, Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment landscape has evolved with the induction of new biological and targeted therapies that provide significant therapeutic benefits in patients with sustained disease.

AREAS COVERED

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were the first biologics used in the treatment of RA. Although they present a significant efficacy, an insufficient response of some patients led to further research and discovery of targeted therapies, such as Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), which act at a molecular level, regulating many cytokines. Clinical benefits have been seen with both TNFi and JAKi as monotherapy and combined with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Still, some significant side effects have been reported with JAKi, and several questions remain about their safety and selectivity in action. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the mechanism of action, the clinical efficacy, and safety of TNFi vs. JAKi.

EXPERT OPINION

TNFi and JAKi are particularly useful in treating inflammatory arthropathies. Both drug categories are recommended by ACR and EULAR institutions in RA patients suffering from moderate to severe disease. Safety data in long-term studies are required to determine the optimal benefit to the risk profile of JAKi use.

Comparison of long-term efficacy between biological agents following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor failure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective cohort study

Background:

Currently, there is contradictory evidence regarding the best strategy to follow after discontinuation of a first biological agent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to compare the long-term efficacy of switching to a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus biopharmaceuticals with other mechanisms of action (non-TNFi) in patients with RA who previously failed a first TNFi.

Methods:

This prospective cohort study analyzed data from 127 patients who discontinued a previous TNFi between 1999 and 2016. Disease activity was assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months (m-6, m-12, m-24) after switching. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving good/moderate EULAR response (E-resp). Factors associated with clinical outcomes were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.

Results:

Seventy-seven (61%) patients received a second TNFi and 50 (39%) switched to a non-TNFi. At m-6 and m-12, no differences were observed between groups; nevertheless, at m-24, the proportion of patients with E-resp was higher in the non-TNFi group (49% TNFi group versus 77% non-TNFi group; p = 0.002). In regression models, switching to a non-TNFi was significantly associated with E-resp at m-24 (odds ratio = 3.21; p = 0.01). When assessing the response to the second biological agent based on the reason for discontinuation of the first TNFi, similar results were obtained; at m-24, patients who discontinued the first TNFi due to inefficacy (either primary or secondary) experienced a better E-resp if they had switched to a non-TNFi (primary inefficacy: 52% TNFi group versus 79% non-TNFi group, p = 0.09; secondary inefficacy: 50% versus 76%, p = 0.03).

Conclusion:

In our cohort of RA patients who discontinued a first TNFi, those who switched to a non-TNFi were three times more likely to attain a sustained clinical response, regardless of whether they had discontinued the first biologic due to a primary or secondary inefficacy.

Predictors of drug survival: A cohort study comparing anti-tumour necrosis factor agents using the Swedish inflammatory bowel disease quality register

BACKGROUND

Whether long-term effectiveness differs between anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents is unknown.

AIMS

To examine drug survival of first-line anti-TNF agents and identify predictors of discontinuation. To reduce channelling bias, we also compared drug survival of the second anti-TNF.

METHODS

Biologic-naïve patients (N = 955) recorded in the Swedish IBD Quality Register (SWIBREG) were examined. We used propensity score matching, comparing drug survival over up to three years of follow-up. Cox regression estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

In Crohn's disease, discontinuation because of lack/loss of response was 32% [95%CI = 26%-38%] for infliximab versus 16% [95%CI = 11%-21%] for adalimumab. Infliximab [vs adalimumab; aHR = 1.96; 95%CI = 1.20-3.21] and colonic disease (L2) [vs no L2; aHR = 2.17; 95% CI = 1.26-3.75] were associated with higher discontinuation rates, whereas normalised CRP at three months [aHR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.19-0.81] with a lower rate. Consistently, patients who switched from adalimumab to infliximab (vs infliximab to adalimumab) had earlier discontinuation (P = 0.04). Concomitant use of immunomodulators was associated with a lower adverse drug reaction-mediated discontinuation rate [aHR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.28-0.77], in part explained by fewer infusion reactions [aHR = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.08-0.89]. In ulcerative colitis, the probability of discontinuation because of lack/loss of response was 40% [95% CI = 33%-47%] for infliximab versus 37% [95% CI = 21%-53%] for adalimumab. Disease duration ≥10 years [aHR = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.10-0.58] and normalised CRP after three months [aHR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.18-0.84] were associated with lower discontinuation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical characterisation of patients may aid decision-making on anti-TNF treatment. The consistently shorter drug survival for infliximab (vs adalimumab) in Crohn's disease, suggests a potential difference between the two drugs.

Adherence and persistence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis at an integrated health system specialty pharmacy

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) improve symptoms and delay progression of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but adherence is often sub-optimal and many patients change medication (either "switching" to a medication with a different mechanism of action or "cycling" to a medication with the same mechanism of action) during the first year of therapy. Some integrated health-system specialty pharmacies embed pharmacists in clinics to help patients access and adhere to specialty medication. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed DMARD switching, cycling, adherence, and persistence at an outpatient rheumatology clinic with an integrated health-system specialty pharmacy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with RA, naïve to biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs, who filled ≥ 2 biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD prescriptions within 12 months. Adherence was measured using proportion of days covered (PDC); persistence was computed at 12 months. Univariate analyses compared adherence and persistence between patients with and without a medication change. Ordinal logistic regression examined whether PDC was associated with patient age, gender, race, insurance type, and medication change. RESULTS: We included 772 patients: 79% female/21% male, 89% White/11% non-White, median age 56 years (interquartile range = 48-63). Most patients (84%) did not change medication during the study period, 5% cycled medication one or more times (but did not switch), 9% switched medication one or more times (but did not cycle), and 2% of patients both switched and cycled during the study period. Median PDC of the sample was 0.94 and 73% of patients were persistent. Patients with a medication change had lower PDC than those without (0.89 vs 0.95, P = 0.004), but rate of persistence did not significantly differ between groups (77 vs 72%, P = 0.300). Odds of higher PDC was more likely for men (Odds ratio [OR] = 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-2.48, P < 0.001) and less likely for patients who changed medication (OR = 0.65, CI: 0.47-0.91, P = 0.011); age, race, and insurance type were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA demonstrated high medication adherence and persistence, and low rates of switching and cycling. Findings support evidence that integrated health-system specialty pharmacies with clinical pharmacists embedded in outpatient clinics help patients overcome barriers to medication adherence to persist on therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi, Inc. James and J. Choi were employed by Sanofi, Inc., at the time of this study. Peter, Zuckerman, DeClercq, L. Choi, and Tanner, received research funding from Sanofi, Inc., for work on this study. Tanner has also received advisory board/speaker bureau fees from Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Aventis. This study was presented as a poster at AMCP Nexus in October 2019 at National Harbor, MD.

Cycling of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors versus switching to different mechanism of action therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Introduction:

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), main options include cycling onto a different TNFi or switching to a biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug with a different mechanism of action (MOA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed comparative clinical efficacy of cycling versus switching.

Methods:

We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Outcomes included proportion of patients with 20%, 50%, or 70% response to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 response), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) score below 2.6 or between 2.6 and 3.2, mean change in DAS28 score, mean reduction in and proportion of patients achieving a clinically meaningful reduction (⩾0.22) in Health Assessment Questionnaire score, number of serious adverse events (AEs), and withdrawals for any reason/due to AEs/lack of treatment efficacy. To account for the wide range of study populations and designs, we developed three models to conduct the NMA: fixed-effect, random-effects, and hierarchical Bayesian. PROSPERO ID: CRD42019122993.

Results:

We identified nine randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies. The fixed-effect model suggested a 0.99 probability that switch was the better strategy for increasing odds of a clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 [odds ratio (OR): 1.35 (95% credible interval (CI): 0.96–1.81)]. The fixed-effect model also suggested that switch was associated with lower rates of withdrawal for any reasons [OR: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40–0.68)]. The random-effects and hierarchical Bayesian models suggested additional uncertainty as they considered more variability than the fixed-effect model.

Discussion:

Results suggest that switching to a drug with a different MOA is more effective and associated with lower rates of withdrawal than cycling to a different TNFi after failure of first-line TNFi. Further trials that directly compare cycling with switching are warranted to better assess comparative efficacy.

Plain language summary

Assessment of the effectiveness of different drug treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of the published literature

Effectiveness of a Second Biologic After Failure of a Non-tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor As First Biologic in Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), evidence regarding the effectiveness of a second biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients whose first-ever bDMARD was a non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD is limited. The objective of this study was therefore to assess the outcome of a second bDMARD (non-TNFi: rituximab [RTX], abatacept [ABA], or tocilizumab [TCZ], separately; and TNFi) after failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD.

METHODS

We identified patients with RA from the 5 Nordic biologics registers who started treatment with a non-TNFi as first-ever bDMARD but switched to a second bDMARD. For the second bDMARD, we assessed drug survival (at 6 and 12 months) and primary response (at 6 months).

RESULTS

We included 620 patients starting a second bDMARD (ABA 86, RTX 40, TCZ 67, and TNFi 427) following failure of a first non-TNFi bDMARD. At 6 and 12 months after start of their second bDMARD, approximately 70% and 60%, respectively, remained on treatment, and at 6 months, less than one-third of patients were still on their second bDMARD and had reached low disease activity or remission according to the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. For those patients whose second bMDARD was a TNFi, the corresponding proportion was slightly higher (40%).

CONCLUSION

The drug survival and primary response of a second bDMARD in patients with RA switching due to failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD is modest. Some patients may benefit from TNFi when used after failure of a non-TNFi as first bDMARD.

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.

Anti-TNF biosimilars in rheumatology: the end of an era?

INTRODUCTION

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Whilst extremely efficacious, the original TNFi also carried a high acquisition cost that limited their use. 'Biosimilar' TNFi's, developed on expiry of the patents for the biooriginators, have comparable efficacy and safety, are less expensive and provide the potential to improve access to these effective therapies in a more cost-effective manner.

AREAS COVERED

The background and development of TNFis, their biosimilars and follow on 'copycat' drugs are discussed, together with their use in both developed and developing countries, focusing on the potential to enhance access to effective targeted therapies.

EXPERT OPINION

Bridging the economic gap to facilitate universal access to anti-TNF biosimilars has been largely unsuccessful, driving the development of copycat mimics in developing countries. Meanwhile, the more recent introduction of targeted synthetic disease-modifying drugs has provided cheaper, equally effective treatments for rheumatic diseases that are conveniently delivered by mouth. We review the TNF biosimilars in rheumatic diseases, their role in a rapidly evolving treatment landscape, and speculate about the future for this iconic therapeutic class.

Effectiveness of golimumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to first-line biologic therapy: Results from a Japanese post-marketing surveillance study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the real-world effectiveness of golimumab in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had previously received first-line biologic therapy.

METHODS

A post-hoc analysis of post-marketing surveillance was performed. The effectiveness of golimumab was assessed in 731 patients with an inadequate response to first-line biologic therapy stratified by their prior biologic agents. Outcome variables included DAS28-CRP, DAS28-ESR, SDAI and CDAI, and medication persistence. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with the likelihood of achieving a DAS28-CRP response (good/moderate) after 24 weeks of golimumab treatment.

RESULTS

Patients demonstrated significant improvement in the clinical signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis at 24 weeks, as indicated by the reduction of DAS28-CRP (Δ0.87), DAS28-ESR (Δ0.85), SDAI (Δ7.32), and CDAI (Δ6.98) scores. This result was consistent across the subgroups stratified by previous biologic therapy. Multivariate analysis failed to identify any factors associated with response to golimumab.

CONCLUSION

In the real-world clinical setting, switching to golimumab was effective for Japanese patients with an inadequate response to first-line biologic therapy regardless of the biologic agent, including both TNF and non-TNF inhibitors.

Effect of Golimumab Dose Escalation in Japanese Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Post-Hoc Analysis of Post-Marketing Surveillance Data

Introduction

While dose escalation of golimumab has been used for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who demonstrate an inadequate response to the standard dose, its effectiveness has not been fully evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome observed by dose escalation of golimumab for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the daily clinical setting.

Methods

A post hoc analysis was performed of data from the 24-week post-marketing surveillance conducted in Japan (n = 5154). A total of 301 patients with moderate or high disease activity at baseline who underwent dose escalation of golimumab were assessed for effectiveness at 24 weeks based on several variables, such as DAS28-CRP, SDAI, and CDAI, as well as for medication persistence through 24 weeks. In addition, the study population was stratified by the time to dose escalation, and effectiveness was likewise evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with a moderate/good EULAR response to golimumab at 24 weeks.

Results

Patients with golimumab dose escalation showed significant improvement of the clinical signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis at 24 weeks, as indicated by reduction of the DAS28-CRP (∆0.89), SDAI (∆8.64), and CDAI (∆8.28) scores. This result was relatively consistent across the subgroups stratified by the timing of dose escalation. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, 78.1% of the patients continued to receive golimumab at 24 weeks, and this was also similar among the subgroups stratified by the time to dose escalation. Multivariate analysis identified male sex and previous biologic therapy as factors that were significantly associated with the clinical response at 24 weeks.

Conclusion

In real-world clinical practice, improvement of disease activity was observed after uptitration of golimumab from 50 to 100 mg regardless of the timing. Male patients and biologic-naive patients were more likely to respond to dose escalation of golimumab.

Trial Registration

UMIN-CTR, Identifier: UMIN000015895.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40744-020-00198-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis: survival on drug, clinical outcomes, and their predictors-data from a large national quality register

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding efficacy of abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outside clinical trials. Quality registers have been useful for observational studies on tumor necrosis factor inhibition in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical efficacy and tolerability of abatacept in RA, using a national register.

METHODS

RA patients that started abatacept between 2006 and 2017 and were included in the Swedish Rheumatology Quality register (N = 2716) were investigated. Survival on drug was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good response and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) response (improvement of ≥ 0.3) rates (LUNDEX corrected for drug survival) at 6 and at 12 months were assessed. Predictors of discontinuation were investigated by Cox regression analyses, and predictors of clinical response by logistic regression. Significance-based backward stepwise selection of variables was used for the final multivariate models.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in drug survival by previous biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) exposure (p < 0.001), with longer survival in bionaïve patients. Men (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.98) and methotrexate users (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.95) were less likely to discontinue abatacept, whereas a high pain score predicted discontinuation (HR 1.14 per standard deviation, 95% CI 1.07-1.20). The absence of previous bDMARD exposure, male sex, and a low HAQ score were independently associated with LUNDEX-corrected EULAR good response. The absence of previous bDMARD exposure also predicted LUNDEX-corrected HAQ response.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based study of RA, bDMARD naïve patients and male patients were more likely to remain on abatacept with a major clinical response.

The role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

Registries characterize the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic interventions in daily clinical practice. Data from registries enable mining the records of tens of thousands of patients towards determining the effectiveness, safety, and cost-benefit of any given therapeutic. The strengths of registries include real-life settings, greater power than clinical trials to detect rare events, and the study of multiple outcomes and several research questions. Registries also have their weaknesses. They are expensive, less accurate than clinical trials, affected by channelling bias, often require links to external sources or use historic and selected control cohorts or combine datasets to increase power, and have the risk of multiple confounders. Since the beginning of biological era, registries were developed to profile emerging treatments. This article reviews the role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

Human gingival tissue-derived MSC suppress osteoclastogenesis and bone erosion via CD39-adenosine signal pathway in autoimmune arthritis

BACKGROUND

Bone destruction is one of many severe complications that occurs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and current therapies are unable to cure this manifestation. This study here aims to determine whether GMSC can directly inhibit osteoclast formation and eventually attenuate osteoclastogenesis and bone erosion in an inflammatory milieu.

METHOD

GMSC were co-cultured with osteoclast precursors with or without CD39 inhibitor, CD73 inhibitor or adenosine receptors inhibitors pretreatment and osteoclast formation were evaluated in vitro. 2×10^6 GMSC per mouse were transferred to CIA mice and pathology scores, the frequency of osteoclasts, bone erosion in joints were assessed in vivo.

FINDING

GMSC but not control cells, markedly suppressed human or mice osteoclastogenesis in vitro. GMSC treatment also resulted in a dramatically decreased level of NF-κB p65/p50 in osteoclasts in vitro. Infusion of GMSC to CIA significantly attenuated the severity of arthritis, pathology scores, frequency of osteoclasts, particularly bone erosion, as well as a decreased expression of RANKL in synovial tissues in vivo. Blockade of CD39/CD73 or adenosine receptors has significantly abrogated the suppressive ability of GMSC in vitro and therapeutic effect of GMSC on bone erosion during CIA in vivo.

INTERPRETATION

GMSC inhibit osteoclast formation in vitro and in vivo partially via CD39-CD73-adenosine signals. Manipulation of GMSC may have a therapeutic implication on rheumatoid arthritis and other bone erosion related diseases. FUND: This study was supported by grants from the National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFA0105801 to F.H); the Zhujiang Innovative and Entrepreneurial Talent Team Award of Guangdong Province (2016 ZT 06S 252 to F·H) and National Institutes of Health (R01 AR059103, R61 AR073409 and NIH Star Award to S.G.Z).

Evaluation of 12 GWAS-drawn SNPs as biomarkers of rheumatoid arthritis response to TNF inhibitors. A potential SNP association with response to etanercept

Research in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is increasingly focused on the discovery of biomarkers that could enable personalized treatments. The genetic biomarkers associated with the response to TNF inhibitors (TNFi) are among the most studied. They include 12 SNPs exhibiting promising results in the three largest genome-wide association studies (GWAS). However, they still require further validation. With this aim, we assessed their association with response to TNFi in a replication study, and a meta-analysis summarizing all non-redundant data. The replication involved 755 patients with RA that were treated for the first time with a biologic drug, which was either infliximab (n = 397), etanercept (n = 155) or adalimumab (n = 203). Their DNA samples were successfully genotyped with a single-base extension multiplex method. Lamentably, none of the 12 SNPs was associated with response to the TNFi in the replication study (p > 0.05). However, a drug-stratified exploratory analysis revealed a significant association of the NUBPL rs2378945 SNP with a poor response to etanercept (B = -0.50, 95% CI = -0.82, -0.17, p = 0.003). In addition, the meta-analysis reinforced the previous association of three SNPs: rs2378945, rs12142623, and rs4651370. In contrast, five of the remaining SNPs were less associated than before, and the other four SNPs were no longer associated with the response to treatment. In summary, our results highlight the complexity of the pharmacogenetics of TNFi in RA showing that it could involve a drug-specific component and clarifying the status of the 12 GWAS-drawn SNPs.

Remission rate and predictors of remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis under treat-to-target strategy in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the remission rate of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-world studies and to summarize potential predictors of remission in RA. Studies reporting remission rate in patients with RA were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases. Two reviewers independently assessed all studies according to eligibility criteria and extracted data. Generally, observational studies reporting remission rate in adult (≥ 18 years) patients with RA were included. Quality assessments were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled analyses of remission rate were conducted using a random-effects model and data were analyzed in subgroups to identify potential source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were performed by serially excluding each study. Potential predictors of remission were summarized. Thirty-one studies with ~ 82,450 RA patients in total were included. Using the DAS28 remission criteria, the pooled 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month remission rates were 17.2%, 16.3%, 21.5%, and 23.5%, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that 11.7% and 13.8% of TNFi inadequate responders reached remission after 6- and 12-month use of non-TNFi biologics. Predictors of remission included male, higher education level, and lower baseline disease activity, while initial use of corticosteroids was negative predictors of remission. Sustained remission was rare regardless of different criteria used. Remission was a reachable target in real-world studies, while attention should also be paid to achieve sustained remission.

Clinical, Patient-Reported, and Ultrasound Outcomes from an Open-Label, 12-week Observational Study of Certolizumab Pegol in Spanish Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis with or without Prior Anti-TNF Exposure

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in Spanish patients with RA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SONAR (NCT01526434), a 12-week, open-label, prospective, observational, multicenter study. Patients with active RA for ≥3 months, according to ACR criteria, were treated with CZP (400mg at Weeks 0, 2 and 4, then 200mg every 2 weeks). The primary effectiveness endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at Week 12. Other assessments included DAS28(ESR), patient's assessment of arthritis pain (PtAAP-VAS) and Short Form 36-item Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS). Joint inflammation was investigated using Power Doppler (PD) ultrasound (US), to detect effusion, synovial hypertrophy and synovial PD signal. PDUS outcomes assessed CFB to Week 12 in synovial hypertrophy, effusion and PD signal indices.

RESULTS

A total of 77/80 enrolled patients received ≥1 dose of CZP. The 12-week mean reduction from baseline (SD) was -0.6 (0.6) for HAQ-DI and -2.2 (1.5) for DAS28(ESR). PtAAP-VAS was reduced from baseline (mean [SD]: -36.8 [26.8]) and improvements in SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS were reported. Synovial hypertrophy, effusion and PD signal indices were reduced from baseline to Week 12. One death was reported during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Spanish patients with RA demonstrated improvements in clinical, PDUS and patient-reported outcomes over 12 weeks of CZP treatment. No new safety signals were identified, and the safety profile was in line with previous CZP studies. These results support previous clinical trial findings investigating CZP treatment for active RA.

Opportunities and challenges for real-world studies on chronic inflammatory joint diseases through data enrichment and collaboration between national registers: the Nordic example

There are increasing needs for detailed real-world data on rheumatic diseases and their treatments. Clinical register data are essential sources of information that can be enriched through linkage to additional data sources such as national health data registers. Detailed analyses call for international collaborative observational research to increase the number of patients and the statistical power. Such linkages and collaborations come with legal, logistic and methodological challenges. In collaboration between registers of inflammatory arthritides in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland, we plan to enrich, harmonise and standardise individual data repositories to investigate analytical approaches to multisource data, to assess the viability of different logistical approaches to data protection and sharing and to perform collaborative studies on treatment effectiveness, safety and health-economic outcomes. This narrative review summarises the needs and potentials and the challenges that remain to be overcome in order to enable large-scale international collaborative research based on clinical and other types of data.

Immunogenicity and loss of response to TNF inhibitors: implications for rheumatoid arthritis treatment

The availability of monoclonal antibodies has revolutionized the treatment of an increasingly broad spectrum of diseases. Inflammatory diseases are among those most widely treated with protein-based therapeutics, termed biologics. Following the first large-scale clinical trials with monoclonal antibodies performed in the 1990s by rheumatologists and clinical immunologists, the approval of these agents for use in daily clinical practice led to substantial progress in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Despite this progress, however, only a proportion of patients achieve a long-term clinical response. Data on the use of agents blocking TNF, which were among the first biologics introduced into clinical practice, provide ample evidence of primary and secondary treatment inefficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Important issues relevant to primary and secondary failure of these agents in RA include immunogenicity, methodological problems for the detection of antidrug antibodies and trough drug levels, and the implications for treatment strategies. Although there is no strong evidence to support the routine estimation of antidrug antibodies or serum trough levels during anti-TNF therapy, these assessments might be helpful in a few clinical situations; in particular, they might guide decisions on switching the therapeutic biologic in certain instances of secondary clinical failure.

Single-Arm Study of Etanercept in Adult Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Failed Adalimumab Treatment

Introduction

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of etanercept treatment in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who failed to respond (primary failure) or lost a satisfactory response (secondary failure) to adalimumab.

Methods

All patients discontinued prior adalimumab treatment and continued methotrexate with etanercept 50 mg once weekly for 24 weeks. The primary study endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 12.

Results

Eighty-five patients (mean age 56.6 years; female 80.0%) were evaluated for safety and 84 for efficacy. Thirty (35.7%) patients achieved ACR20 at week 12; the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI; 25.6, 46.9) was greater than the prespecified goal of 24% based on previous research. Improvements from baseline in clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes were observed at each study visit. In planned subgroup analyses, patients with anti-adalimumab antibodies and secondary adalimumab failure had the highest ACR20 response to etanercept at week 12 (11/17 patients; 64.7%). Among the patients with secondary adalimumab failure, those with anti-adalimumab antibodies were fivefold more likely to have an ACR20 response to etanercept than those without anti-adalimumab antibodies (odds ratio 5.2; 95% CI 2.0, 13.5; P < 0.001). Adverse events were reported for 62 (72.9%) patients and were consistent with previous studies of etanercept. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.

Conclusion

Switching to etanercept is a therapeutic option in patients with RA who fail adalimumab treatment. The presence of anti-adalimumab antibodies may provide additional support for switching to etanercept, particularly in patients with secondary adalimumab failure.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01927757.

Discontinuation of Biologic Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Analysis from the Corrona RA Registry

Introduction

Despite the availability of multiple effective therapies, discontinuation/switching of treatment is common for many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study was designed to examine initiation of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) within the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (Corrona) RA Registry, and characterize reasons for discontinuation.

Methods

Inclusion criteria were: Corrona-registered adults (≥18 years) with RA (2002–2011); age of RA onset: ≥16 years; ≥6 months’ follow-up after initiation of first/subsequent bDMARD. Patients receiving both tumor necrosis factor antagonists and non-TNF antagonists were included. Treatment discontinuation was defined as first report of stopping initial therapy or initiation of new bDMARD at/between visits, using a follow-up physician questionnaire.

Results

Overall, 6209 patients met inclusion criteria and 80.7% received TNF antagonists. Median time to discontinuation/change of therapy was 25.1 months (26.5 months with TNF antagonists vs. 20.5 months with non-TNF antagonists; log-rank p < 0.0001); 82.2, 67.3, and 51.1% of patients remained on therapy at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Reasons for discontinuation were captured for 49.2% of patients, including: loss of efficacy (35.8%); physician preference (27.8%); safety (20.1%); patient preference (17.9%); and no access to treatment (9.0%). Baseline factors with greatest correlation to discontinuation were modified Health Assessment Questionnaire scores, patient-reported anxiety/depression, initiation of bDMARD treatment in 2007–2010 versus 2002–2003, and Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

Conclusions

Almost one-third of patients in the US discontinue currently available bDMARD therapies for RA by 12 months and almost half by 24 months, most commonly due to loss of efficacy.

Funding

Corrona LLC and MedImmune.

Clinical and economic analysis of outcomes of dose tapering or withdrawal of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors upon achieving stable disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Objective

To compare the real-world, 5-year clinical and cost impact of maintaining treatment with the tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (anti-TNFs) adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab vs dose tapering or withdrawal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who have achieved remission (defined as a 28-joint count Disease Activity Score [DAS28] < 2.6) or low disease activity (LDA; DAS28 < 3.2).

Methods

Using a 5-year Markov model with 1-month cycle length, we examined the clinical and cost impact of three treatment strategies: withdrawal, tapering, or maintenance of anti-TNFs among RA patients in remission or who have achieved LDA. This model assessed the time to loss of disease control, time to regaining control after treatment reinitiation, and associated medical and anti-TNF costs. To determine the risk of losing disease control, 14 studies (2309 patients) were meta-analyzed, adjusted for treatment strategy, anti-TNF, RA patient type (early or established RA), and model entry criterion (remission or LDA).

Results

Anti-TNF withdrawal and tapering incurred comparable 5-year total costs (€37,900–€59,700 vs €47,500–€59,200), which were lower than those incurred by anti-TNF maintenance (€67,100–€72,100). Established RA patients had higher total costs than early RA patients (€45,900–€72,100 vs €37,900–€71,700). Maintenance was associated with the longest time to loss of disease control (range, 27.3–47.1 months), while withdrawal had the shortest (range, 6.9–30.5 months).

Conclusion

Dose tapering or withdrawal of anti-TNFs results in similar reduction of health care costs but less time in sustained disease control compared to maintaining therapy. Future research is needed to understand the long-term clinical consequences of these strategies and patient preferences for treatment withdrawal.

Contribution of subjective Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) components to the response to treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

We investigated the contributions made by the subjective components of the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) to the treatment response of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In addition, factors associated with poor response to treatment at 6 months, despite normalization of objective measures, were examined. A total of 426 newly diagnosed RA patients were included. The DAS28-P score (the subjective components of the DAS28 relative to the total components) was calculated as DAS28-P = 0.56 ∗ sqrt(TJC28) + 0.014 ∗ (VAS-GH) /0.56 ∗ sqrt(TJC28) + 0.28 ∗ sqrt(SJC28) + 0.7 ∗ In(erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)) + 0.014 ∗ (VAS-GH). The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response was assessed after 6 months of treatment. Of those who failed to attain good EULAR responses, those for whom the objective measures (the ESR, the C-reactive protein level, and swollen joints) were normalized were defined as having failed treatment because of subjective measures. The median (IQR) DAS28 score at baseline was 4.8 (4.04-5.49) and that after 6 months of treatment 3.21 (2.41-3.95). The DAS28-P score fell significantly from baseline to 6 months in good (0.43 versus 0.28, p < 0.001) and moderate responders (0.44 versus 0.4, p = 0.003), but not in non-responders (0.43 versus 0.45, p = 0.727). Younger age, a lower DAS28 score, and a lower DAS28-P score at baseline were related to a good EULAR response. Subjects who failed to respond because of subjective measures tended to have higher DAS28-P scores at baseline. We found that RA patients with high DAS28-P scores, reflecting subjective measures, were less likely to achieve good EULAR responses 6 months after treatment initiation and tended not to be classified as good responders despite normalization of objective measures.

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.

Determinants of biological drug survival in rheumatoid arthritis: evidence from a Hungarian rheumatology center over 8 years of retrospective data

Objective

To compare drug survival of biological therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and analyze the determinants of discontinuation probabilities and switches to other biological therapies.

Materials and methods

Consecutive RA patients initiating first biological treatment in one rheumatology center between 2006 and 2013 were included. Log-rank test was used to analyze the differences between the survival curves of different biological drugs. Cox regression was applied to analyze the discontinuation due to inefficacy, the occurrence of adverse events, or to any reasons.

Results

A total of 540 patients were included in the analysis. The most frequently used first-line biological treatments were infliximab (N=176, 33%), adalimumab (N=150, 28%), and etanercept (N=132, 24%). Discontinuation of first tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) treatment was observed for 347 (64%) patients, due to inefficacy (n=209, 60%), adverse events (n=103, 30%), and other reasons (n=35, 10%). Drug survival rates for TNF-α and non-TNF-α therapies were significantly different, and were in favor of non-TNF-α therapies. Every additional number of treatment significantly increased the risk of inefficacy by 27% (p<0.001) and of adverse events by 35% (p=0.002). After the discontinuation of the initial TNF-α treatment, switching to rituximab and tocilizumab was associated with significantly longer treatment duration than switching to a second TNF-α. The non-TNF-α therapies resulted in significantly longer treatment duration, due to both less adverse events and longer maintenance of effectiveness.

Conclusion

Non-TNF-α therapies resulted in significantly longer treatment duration, and lost their effectiveness later. Increase in the number of switches significantly increased the risk of discontinuation of any biological therapy.

EQ-5D utility, response and drug survival in rheumatoid arthritis patients on biologic monotherapy: A prospective observational study of patients registered in the south Swedish SSATG registry

Objectives

Biologic agents have dramatically changed treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To date only scarce head-to-head data exist especially when the biological therapies are given as monotherapy without concomitant disease modifying drugs (DMARDs). Thus the objective of the current study is to evaluate treatment response of all available biological therapies with special focus on utility (EQ-5D-3L) and drug survival of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) prescribed as monotherapy in RA patients in southern Sweden.

Materials and methods

All RA patients registered in a regional database as initiating bDMARD as monotherapy, i.e. without concomitant conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), from 1^st of January 2006 through 31^st of December 2012, were included. Patients were followed from initiation of the first dose of bDMARD monotherapy treatment until withdrawal from treatment, loss of follow-up or 31^st of December 2012. Descriptive statistics for utility (EQ-5D-3L), effectiveness, and drug survival of bDMARD monotherapy were calculated.

Results

During the study period, a total of 554 patients were registered in SSATG as initiating bDMARD monotherapy. Most of the patients were women (81%), with a mean age of 57 years. The average disease duration was more than 12 years, and on average the patients had previously been treated with approximately four different csDMARDs. Fifty-five percent of the patients were initiating their first bDMARD, 26% their second, and 19% their third or more. At baseline the average EQ-5D-3L was 0.34. Most patients had moderate to high disease activity, with a mean DAS28 of 5.0, and were substantially disabled, with an average HAQ score of 1.4. At 6 months´ follow-up, the EQ-5D-3L in patients still on the biologic drug had increased by mean 0.23 (SD 0.4) with no differences between type of bDMARD (p = 0.49). The mean change in EQ-5D-3L ranged from 0.11 (rituximab and infliximab) to 0.42 (tocilizumab). Although the changes were numerically different, no distinct pattern favored any particular bDMARD for EQ-5D-3L (p = 0.49) or other clinical outcomes. Overall, DAS28 defined remission and low disease activity were achieved in 20% and 43% of patients, respectively. Drug survival rates were statistically significantly different between bDMARDs (p = 0.01), with the highest rates observed for rituximab, followed by etanercept. After failing first course of anti-TNF, patients switching to another mode of action had significantly higher drug survival than those switching to a second course of anti-TNF therapy (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Utility (EQ-5D-3L) increased after 6 months of all bDMARD treatments in monotherapy, indicating improvement of patients’ quality of life. After failure of anti-TNF treatment in monotherapy, switching to another mode of action may be associated with better drug survival than starting a second TNF-inhibitor.

Infection, malignancy, switching, biosimilars, antibody formation, drug survival and withdrawal, and dose reduction: what have we learned over the last year about tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the most current studies investigating the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies over the past year have clarified that suppressing TNF with monoclonal antibodies does increase infection risk, yet coupled with reduction in disease activity and less use of corticosteroids as a consequence, the overall risk to the population is balanced. With caution (provided by some recent studies) TNFi agents can be reduced (dosage intervals lengthened) and maintain benefit. Biosimilars, not surprisingly, are going to be therapeutically identical to the innovator, and not more of a risk for causing antibodies to interfere with benefit. Uncertainty remains about when and how to make the switch.

SUMMARY

TNFi agents have made their powerful impact on management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but questions remain: what is their true infection and malignancy risk in the evolving populations using these drugs today; are we able to maintain their benefit with a reduced schedule (and presumed less cost) and yet recapture their benefit if we guess wrong; are biosimilars just as good, or even better with less cost; are there data to inform us about how to achieve successful switching among different mechanism of action TNFi agents? Finally, are we going to face the specter of cost containment causing change from innovator to biosimilars over which we have no control?

Optimizing biological treatments for rheumatoid arthritis

The area of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment has been revolutionized during the last decades with the development of biological therapies and their introduction into daily clinical practice contributing greatly to this dramatic change. However, several aspects of the use of these highly effective but expensive therapies remain far from optimal. To date, there is no clear evidence for the optimal sequence of biological agents, and the choice of a second- or third-line biologic is random. The effect of drug levels and the presence of neutralizing anti-drug antibodies remain unclear. In addition, the identification of prognostic factors of response, both clinical and histopathological, is crucial for a more individualized treatment approach.

Medication Persistence of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs and Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Agents in a Cohort of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Brazil

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use and persistence of anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) versus disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Brazil.

METHODS

This was a new-user cohort study of RA patients from 2003 to 2010, using administrative data. Individuals were classified as being persistent using a drug at the first year and the first 2 years after cohort entry, if they did not discontinue that drug during that period. Cox regression was used to identify potential determinants of discontinuation of therapy in each medication group.

RESULTS

Among 76,351 patients, 14,313 were using anti-TNF (+/- DMARD) therapy. At the end of the first year of followup, 48.2% continued using anti-TNF (+/- DMARD) therapy compared to 42.6% who persisted with DMARDs only. At the end of the second year, 23.1% of anti-TNF (+/- DMARD) users and 19.3% of DMARD-only users continued with therapy. Infliximab users had the lowest persistence rates. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that among anti-TNF (+/- DMARD) users, higher discontinuation rates were observed in female patients, in patients with lower income (only at the first 2 years of followup), in nonresidents of the region with the highest Human Development Index (HDI) rates, in those with a higher comorbidity score, and in those enrolled in the 2003-2006 period. Among DMARD-only users, younger patients, patients with lower income, nonresidents in regions with high HDI, those with a higher comorbidity score, and those enrolled in the 2003-2006 period were also more likely to discontinue therapy.

CONCLUSION

Brazilian patients with RA showed low rates of medication persistence for DMARDs and anti-TNF agents, particularly at the first 2 years of followup. Future work could determine what other factors might contribute to drug persistence in RA.

Does the reason for discontinuation of a first TNF inhibitor influence the effectiveness of a second TNF inhibitor in axial spondyloarthritis? Results from the Swiss Clinical Quality Management Cohort

Background

With regard to switching tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), conflicting results have been reported as to whether the effectiveness of a second TNFi depends on the reason for discontinuation of the first TNFi.

Methods

Patients with a clinical diagnosis of axSpA starting a second TNFi in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort were included. Effectiveness of treatment at 1 year, as well as drug survival, was compared between subgroups having discontinued the first TNFi because of lack of response, adverse events (AEs), or other reasons. Lack of response was further divided into primary or secondary lack of response (PLR or SLR, respectively), depending on whether the first TNFi was stopped before or after 6 months of treatment.

Results

Among 632 patients with axSpA, median survival of a second TNFi was 1.1 years after PLR and 3.8 years after SLR (p = 0.003). At least moderate disease activity as defined by an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASDAS-ESR) <2.1 was achieved after 12 months by 11 %, 39 %, 26 %, and 39 % of patients who discontinued their first TNFi because of PLR, SLR, AEs, and other reasons, respectively (p = 0.01). Only 4 % of patients achieved an ASDAS-ESR inactive disease state after PLR, in comparison to 22 % of those after SLR. Similar results were demonstrated in patients fulfilling the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axSpA (n = 488): ASDAS-ESR <2.1 was achieved after 12 months by 9 %, 41 %, 29 %, and 39 % of patients who discontinued their first TNFi because of PLR, SLR, AEs, and other reasons, respectively (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

The effectiveness of a second TNFi is significantly impaired in patients with axSpA after PLR to a first TNFi compared with SLR.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-016-0969-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effectiveness and Feasibility Associated with Switching to a Second or Third TNF Inhibitor in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: A Cohort Study from Southern Sweden

Objective.

Because new modes of action for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are emerging, it is important to understand the use of switching to a second or third antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agent. This study investigated drug survival and treatment response rates of patients with PsA undergoing second- and third-line anti-TNF therapy.

Methods.

Patients with PsA were monitored in a prospective, observational study. Patients who switched anti-TNF therapy once (first-time switchers, n = 217) or twice (second-time switchers, n = 57) between January 2003 and March 2012 were studied. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good response at 3 and 6 months, as well as drug survival, were reported and further analyzed using the Cox and logistic regression models.

Results.

Median age for first-time switchers was 47 years and 42% were men. The corresponding values for second-time switchers were 48 years and 40% men. Three-month ACR20 Lund Efficacy Index (LUNDEX) response was achieved by 47% of first-time and 22% of second-time switchers; ACR50 LUNDEX rates were 21% and 14%, ACR70 LUNDEX rates were 12% and 2%, and EULAR good LUNDEX rates were 26% and 10%, respectively. Median drug survival time for patients switching anti-TNF for the first time was 64 months (95% CI 31–97) compared with 14 months (95% CI 5–23) for second-time switchers. Identified baseline predictor of ACR20 response to second-line treatment was the 28-joint Disease Activity Score values at baseline (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.01–2.10), while higher Health Assessment Questionnaire scores predicted premature drug withdrawal (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.03–2.48).

Conclusion.

Response rates of first-time anti-TNF switchers are moderate, while the inferior response rates of second-time switchers suggest other therapeutic options should be considered in this situation.

Expression of receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand is related to sex differences in collagen-induced arthritis

Osteoclasts are responsible for bone destruction in rheumatoid arthritis, and women show greater disease activity and functional disability than men. This study aimed to examine differences in the pathogenesis of collagen-induced arthritis and osteoclastogenesis between female and male mice in vivo and in vitro. Female mice exhibited worse disease progression and increased osteoclastogenesis, as measured by tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining than male mice. Significantly higher levels of CD11b(+) cells were detected in the bone marrow of female mice than that of male mice. Furthermore, the mRNA expression of receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand was higher in female mice that were immunized with or without collagen II. These findings highlighted sex differences in arthritis morbidity and suggested that female mice are more likely to develop arthritis than male mice. Further studies are needed to investigate the mechanisms of sex differences in collagen-induced arthritis.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: clinical utility in autoimmune diseases

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) production is amplified in several autoimmune disorders. In the 1990s, it became a validated therapeutic target used for the treatment of conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Biologic drugs targeting TNF include engineered monoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins. Currently, there are 5 Food and Drug Administration-approved TNF inhibitors (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab), representing close to $20 billion in sales. Clinical trials remain open to test their efficacy and safety compared with one another, as well as to measure clinical outcomes in different conditions and patient populations. The industry is also eager to develop biotherapeutics that are similar but cheaper than the currently existing biologics or are safer with higher efficacy; these are the so-called "biosimilars." Clinical utility of TNF inhibitors and indications of mono- or combined therapy with immunomodulators are reviewed here. Pharmacokinetics of the TNF inhibitors is affected by routes of administration, clearance mechanisms of immunoglobulins, and immunogenicity. Finally, strategies for management of treatment efficacy and increasing evidence for monitoring of serum concentration of TNF inhibitors are discussed, assessing for the presence of the antidrug antibodies and the different analytical methods available for laboratory testing. As clinical applications of the TNF inhibitors expand, and other classes join the revolution in the treatment of chronic inflammatory disorders, therapeutic drug monitoring of biologics will become increasingly important, with the potential to dramatically improve patient care and management.

Therapeutic vaccination with TNF-Kinoid in TNF antagonist-resistant rheumatoid arthritis: a phase II randomized, controlled clinical trial

Objectives

Active immunization, or vaccination, with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-Kinoid (TNF-K) is a novel approach to induce polyclonal anti-TNF antibodies in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. This study was performed to transfer the proof of concept obtained in mice model of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) into human. We designed a pilot study to demonstrate the feasibility of therapeutic vaccination in RA.

Methods

This was a phase IIa, placebo-controlled, multicenter study in adults with RA who previously experienced secondary failure of TNF antagonists. Patients were immunized intramuscularly with 2 or 3 doses of placebo (n = 10) or 90 (n = 6), 180 (n = 12), or 360 µg TNF-K (n = 12). The primary objective was to identify the best dose and schedule based on anti-TNF antibody titers. Clinical symptoms and safety were assessed during 12 months and solicited reactions for 7 days after each injection.

Results

The highest anti-TNF antibody response was detected in patients immunized with 360 µg TNF-K and with 3 injections, although this difference was not significant with all other groups. Similar proportions of patients receiving TNF-K and placebo reported adverse events up to month 12. Serious adverse events were reported by 4 patients treated with TNF-K (13.3%) and 3 treated with placebo (30.0%), all unrelated to treatment. At month 12, DAS28-CRP, tender and swollen joint counts, and HAQ scores decreased significantly more in patients who exhibited anti-TNF antibody response than in patients who did not.

Conclusions

TNF-K therapeutic vaccination induced dose- and schedule-dependent anti-TNF antibodies in RA patients and was well tolerated. Patients who developed anti-TNF antibodies showed a trend toward clinical improvement. Although the most aggressive dose and schedule, i.e. 360 mg dose administered 3 times, did show a strong trend of higher antibody response, further studies are warranted to examine even higher and more frequent doses in order to establish the best conditions for clinical improvement.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01040715

Infliximab efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis after an inadequate response to etanercept or adalimumab: results of a target-driven active switch study

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate efficacy of infliximab with response-driven dosing in patients with active RA.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients (n = 203) with active RA despite methotrexate + etanercept/adalimumab, participated in this active-infliximab-switch study. Infliximab 3 mg/kg was infused at Weeks 0, 2, 6, 14, and 22 with escalation to 5 or 7 mg/kg depending on EULAR response at Weeks 14 and 22. The primary endpoint was EULAR response at Week 10. Safety was assessed through Week 30. Infliximab levels and antibodies to infliximab (ATI) were measured at Weeks 0, 6, 14, and 26.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT 00714493, EudraCT 2007-003288-36.

RESULTS

Of 197 evaluable patients, 120/77 previously received etanercept/adalimumab. Baseline mean (SD) swollen and tender joint counts were 17.3 (10.54) and 30.2 (16.89), respectively; mean DAS28-ESR was 6.19 (0.981). At Week 10, 98 (49.7%; 95% CI: 42.6%, 56.9%) patients achieved EULAR response, with a significantly improved DAS28-ESR score (mean [SD] change -1.1 [1.15]; p < 0.001). EULAR response was achieved by 41.7%/62.3% of patients previously receiving etanercept/adalimumab (p = 0.006). At Week 26, 51.8% (95% CI: 44.6%, 58.9%) of patients achieved or maintained EULAR response. Infliximab dose was escalated in 100 patients, 52% of whom achieved EULAR response at Week 26. Median serum concentration levels at Week 26 showed that dose escalation helped EULAR non-responders achieve levels similar to or higher than the levels seen in responders. ATI were associated with lower serum concentrations of infliximab, consistent with lower efficacy rates among ATI-positive patients.

CONCLUSION

Infliximab, in treat-to-target settings with individual dose escalation, demonstrated significant efficacy at Weeks 10 and 26 in patients switched to infliximab after inadequate response to etanercept/adalimumab. The observed efficacy indicated that the switch to infliximab and ability to increase dose in a targeted fashion were beneficial.

KEY LIMITATIONS

Given the relatively short duration of study follow-up, these safety findings require confirmation in a longer-term study.