Efficacy and safety of the fully human anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody adalimumab (D2E7) in DMARD refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 12 week, phase II study

Effect of nanoparticle size on their distribution and retention in chronic inflammation sites

Nanomedicines are increasingly researched and used for the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. Herein, the effect of the size of nanoparticles on their distribution and retention in chronic inflammatory sites, as compared to healthy tissues, was studied in a mouse model with chronic inflammation in one of the hind footpads. Using PEGylated gold nanoparticles of 2, 10, 100, and 200 nm, we found that although the smaller nanoparticles of 2 and 10 nm showed greater distribution and slower clearance in the inflamed footpad than the relatively larger nanoparticles of 100 and 200 nm, the larger nanoparticles of 100 and 200 nm were more selectively distributed in the inflamed hind footpad than in the healthy hind footpad in the same mouse. Based on these findings, we prepared protein nanoparticles of 100-200 nm with albumin, IgG antibody, or anti-TNF-α monoclonal antibody (mAb). The nanoparticles can release proteins in response to high redox activity and/or low pH, conditions seen in chronic inflammation sites. We then showed that upon intravenous injection, those stimuli-responsive protein nanoparticles distributed more selectively in the inflamed footpad than free proteins and remained longer in the inflamed footpad than similar protein nanoparticles that are not sensitive to high redox activity or low pH. These findings support the feasibility of increasing the selectivity of nanomedicines and protein therapeutics to chronic inflammation sites and prolonging their retention at the sites by innovative nanoparticle engineering.

Biologic DMARDs and targeted synthetic DMARDs and the risk of all-cause mortality in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to compare the risk of all-cause mortality between biological/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) and non-b/tsDMARDs involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of articles published up to August 2021 using electronic databases. We included studies that reported all-cause mortality in RA patients and compared b/tsDMARDs and non-b/tsDMARDs.

RESULTS

We included a total of 77 studies involving 64,428 patients. These comprised 44,227 patients treated with b/tsDMARDs and 20,201 treated with non-b/tsDMARDs. The occurrence of all-cause mortality was the primary outcome. The risk of all-cause mortality between the 2 treatments was not significantly different (relative risk = 1.08; 95% confidence interval = 0.98-1.19). However, subgroup analyses showed significant increase in risks of mortality in anti-TNFs users with RA compared with non-b/tsDMARDs (relative risk = 1.47, 95% confidence interval = 1.02-2.12). No significant differences were found after subgroup analyses based on other molecules involved and study duration.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with non-b/tsDMARDs, our results suggest that antitumor necrosis factor therapy is associated with observed increased risks of mortality and further investigation is needed.

The Risk of Adverse Effects of TNF-α Inhibitors in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Objectives

To evaluate the safety of each anti-TNF therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and then make the best choice in clinical practice.

Methods

We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The deadline for retrieval is August 2021. The ORs, Confidence Intervals (CIs), and p values were calculated by STATA.16.0 software for assessment.

Result

72 RCTs involving 28332 subjects were included. AEs were more common with adalimumab combined disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) compared with placebo (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.06, 2.42), DMARDs (1.28, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.52), etanercept combined DMARDs (1.32, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.67); certolizumab combined DMARDs compared with placebo (1.63, 95% CI: 1.07, 2.46), DMARDs (1.30, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.54), etanercept combined DMARDs (1.34, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.70). In SAEs, comparisons between treatments showed adalimumab (0.20, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.59), etanercept combined DMARDs (0.39, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.96), golimumab (0.19, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.77), infliximab (0.15, 95% CI: 0.03,0.71) decreased the risk of SAEs compared with golimumab combined DMARDs. In infections, comparisons between treatments showed adalimumab combined DMARDs (0.59, 95% CI: 0.37, 0.95), etanercept (0.49, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.88), etanercept combined DMARDs (0.56, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.91), golimumab combined DMARDs (0.51, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.83) decreased the risk of infections compared with infliximab combined DMARDs. No evidence indicated that the use of TNF-α inhibitors influenced the risk of serious infections, malignant tumors.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we regard etanercept monotherapy as the optimal choice for RA patients in clinical practice when the efficacy is similar. Conversely, certolizumab + DMARDs therapy is not recommended.

Systematic Review Registration

identifier PROSPERO CRD42021276176.

Adverse effects of biologic anti-inflammatory agents on the respiratory system: A review

The therapy of autoimmune rheumatological conditions has undergone significant changes with the introduction of biologic antiinflammatory agents including cytokine antagonists and agents that interfere with the function of T and B cells or those that inhibit intracellular enzymes such as Janus kinase (JAK). Although useful to control inflammation, these agents may be associated with druginduced lung disease, which may be difficult to differentiate from pulmonary disorders caused by the underlying autoimmune diseases. This review aims to provide a description of lung disease, both infectious and non-infectious, that may be induced by the administration of biologic anti-inflammatory agents with emphasis on inhibitors of tumour necrosis factor, interleukin-1, interleukin-6 and JAK.

Long-Term Safety of Adalimumab in 29,967 Adult Patients From Global Clinical Trials Across Multiple Indications: An Updated Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The safety profile of adalimumab was previously reported in 23,458 patients across multiple indications. Here we report the long-term safety of adalimumab in adults with plaque psoriasis (Ps), hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, peripheral spondyloarthritis, Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC), and non-infectious uveitis (UV).

METHODS

Safety data from 77 clinical trials were pooled. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) that occurred after the first study dose and within 70 days (5 half-lives) after the last study dose.

RESULTS

A total of 29,967 patients were included, representing 56,916 patient-years (PY) of exposure. The most frequently reported SAE of interest was infection (3.7/100 PY) with highest incidences in CD, RA, UV, and UC (3.5/100 PY-6.9/100 PY); serious infections in Ps (1.8/100 PY) and HS (2.8/100 PY) were lower. The observed number of deaths was below what would be expected in an age- and sex-adjusted population for most adalimumab-treated patients (including Ps). Lack of real-life data and limited long-term data (> 5 years) for most patients are limitations of this analysis.

CONCLUSION

The safety profile of adalimumab was consistent with previous findings and no new safety signals were observed.

Drug safety and immunogenicity of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: the story so far

TNF-α inhibitor (TNFi) therapies have transformed the treatment of several rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. However, the majority of TNFi's are immunogenic and consequent anti-drug antibodies formation can impact on both treatment efficacy and safety. Several controversies exist in the area of immunogenicity of TNFis and drug safety. While anti-drug antibodies to TNFis have been described in association with infusion reactions; serious adverse events (AEs) such as thromboembolic events, lupus-like syndrome, paradoxical AEs, for example, vasculitis-like events and other autoimmune manifestations have also been reported. The expansion of the biologic armamentarium, new treatment strategies such as introduction/switching to biosimilars and cost-saving approaches such as TNFi tapering, may all have a potential impact on immunogenicity and clinical sequelae. In this review we evaluate how evolution of biologics relates to drug safety and immunogenicity, appraise relevant evidence from trials, spontaneous pharmacovigilance and observational studies and outline the areas of uncertainty that still exist.

Efficacy and safety of various anti-rheumatic treatments for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Biologics and traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are generally used in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Previous studies have presented abundant data and information about the efficacy of such treatments, but the results were incomplete and inconclusive. This network meta-analysis was conducted to compare and assess the efficacy and safety of 15 therapies employing biologics and DMARDs for RA patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Six outcomes (American College of Rheumatology 20% response rate (ACR20), ACR50, ACR70, remission, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs)) were used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different treatments. The node-splitting method was used to assess the inconsistency, and the rank probabilities of the therapies were estimated by surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Besides, Jadad scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of eligible studies.

RESULTS

A total of 67 randomized controlled trials with 20,898 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most of the therapies presented better performance than conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) and placebo in ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70. Conversely, the safety of cDMARDs and placebo seemed to be superior in AEs and SAEs. Also, tocilizumab (TCZ) and TCZ + methotrexate (MTX) showed better remission in pain compared to other treatments. Overall, certolizumab pegol (CZP) + MTX and TCZ + MTX had higher probability than the other treatments in efficacy outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend CZP + MTX as the optimal drug therapy because it has the highest ranking in efficacy outcomes and relatively low risk of adverse events. TCZ + MTX is recommended as an alternative. Abatacept (ABT) and cDMARDs are not recommended due to their low efficacy.

Safety evaluation of adalimumab in immune-mediated inflammatory disorders: a rheumatological point of view

INTRODUCTION

Immune-mediated inflammatory disorders (IMIDs) are systemic conditions which arise secondary to complex immune mechanism defects and can affect many organs. While previous therapies based on steroids and immunosuppressive agents had a poor risk/benefit balance, TNFα-specific inhibitors such as adalimumab have revolutionized the course of many diseases and patient outcomes. However, concerns were raised regarding the increased risk of infectious diseases and neoplasia due to potential prospective loss of immune control. This is especially true when considering that IMIDs concerns elderly/frail populations, with multiple co-morbidities, organ damage and often long-term steroid therapy. Areas covered: Now prescribed for more than 15 years for a diverse range of indications, long-term data highlighting the efficacy and safety are available and led to recommendations for the daily practice that will be discussed. Expert opinion: The efficacy of adalimumab changed the therapeutic paradigm of many diseases. Its tolerance is good and it is the most widely prescribed therapy in IMIDs. It is now the standard of care arm in head to head trials. In the long term, adalimumab dominant role might be weakened by more targeted therapies but its varied indications among IMIDs should secure its position as an important tool in our future practice.

Early phase and adaptive design clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of early phase trials

Objective

Adaptive designs can enable highly sophisticated and efficient early phase trials, but the clinical inference from these trials is surrounded by complexity, and currently there is a paucity but steadily increasing amount of use of these designs in all fields of medicine. We aim to review early phase trials in RA to discover those that have used adaptive designs and benchmark trial characteristics.

Methods

From an OVID search for journal articles reporting the results of early phase trials in rheumatology, 35 studies were found, with 9 subsequently excluded; 11 were added from manual searches and 19 from searching the references. Study characteristics were extracted from the 56 papers (describing 62 trials), including the number of arms, number of patients, the primary outcome and when it was measured.

Result

One early phase trial using an adaptive design was found. The benchmark early phase trial in RA is a phase II double-blinded randomized trial, with four arms (one control and three intervention), each with 34 patients, and ACR20 measured at 16 weeks as the primary outcome.

Conclusion

The one adaptive design reviewed here, and a simulation study found in the search, both indicate that adaptive designs can be applied to early phase trials in RA. We have described the benchmark, which the efficiency of early phase trials using an adaptive design needs to exceed. These efficient designs could drive down numbers required, time for data collection and thus cost. Changes have been suggested, but more needs to be done.

Lipid nanoparticles with minimum burst release of TNF-α siRNA show strong activity against rheumatoid arthritis unresponsive to methotrexate

TNF-α siRNA has shown promising therapeutic benefits in animal models of rheumatoid arthritis. However, there continues to be a need for siRNA delivery systems that have high siRNA encapsulation efficiency and minimum burst release of TNF-α siRNA, and can target inflamed tissues after intravenous administration. Herein we report a novel acid-sensitive sheddable PEGylated solid-lipid nanoparticle formulation of TNF-α-siRNA, AS-TNF-α-siRNA-SLNs, prepared by incorporating lipophilized TNF-α-siRNA into solid-lipid nanoparticles composed of biocompatible lipids such as lecithin and cholesterol. The nanoparticles are approximately 120 nm in diameter, have a high siRNA encapsulation efficiency (>90%) and a minimum burst release of siRNA (<5%), and increase the deilvery of the siRNA in chronic inflammation sites in mouse models, including in a mouse model with collagen-induced arthritis. Importantly, in a mouse model of collagen antibody-induced arthritis that does not respond to methotrexate therapy, intravenous injection of the AS-TNF-α-siRNA-SLNs significantly reduced paw thickness, bone loss, and histopathological scores. These findings highlight the potential of using this novel siRNA nanoparticle formulation to effectively treat arthritis, potentially in patients who do not respond adequately to methotrexate.

Regulation of T-Cell Signaling by Post-Translational Modifications in Autoimmune Disease

The adaptive immune system involves antigen-specific host defense mechanisms mediated by T and B cells. In particular, CD4⁺ T cells play a central role in the elimination of pathogens. Immunological tolerance in the thymus regulates T lymphocytes to avoid self-components, including induction of cell death in immature T cells expressing the self-reactive T-cell receptor repertoire. In the periphery, mature T cells are also regulated by tolerance, e.g., via induction of anergy or regulatory T cells. Thus, T cells strictly control intrinsic signal transduction to prevent excessive responses or self-reactions. If the inhibitory effects of T cells on these mechanisms are disrupted, T cells may incorrectly attack self-components, which can lead to autoimmune disease. The functions of T cells are supported by post-translational modifications, particularly phosphorylation, of signaling molecules, the proper regulation of which is controlled by endogenous mechanisms within the T cells themselves. In recent years, molecular targeted agents against kinases have been developed for treatment of autoimmune diseases. In this review, we discuss T-cell signal transduction in autoimmune disease and provide an overview of acetylation-mediated regulation of T-cell signaling pathways.

Anti-TNF-Alpha-Adalimumab Therapy Had Time Lag of Improvement in Synovial Hypertrophy Compared to Rapid Response in Power Doppler Synovial Vascularity

Objectives

The quantification of synovitis is of great significance for follow-up in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study aimed to validate the use of power Doppler ultrasonography (PDUS) for evaluating synovial vascularity and synovial hypertrophy for synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with adalimumab.

Materials and Methods

The synovial disease activity and vascularity of RA on both wrists (radio-carpal joint) were assessed using GS and PDUS to derive the composite US scores based on abnormal counts and severity. The relationship between each measure was determined.

Results

The 71 patients who received adalimumab therapy had significantly decreased DAS28, ESR, and CRP. After one month, PD score decreased and then remained low for 12 months. Synovial hypertrophy did not change until 3-6 months after, when it started to improve (p = 0.017). By multivariate analysis, sex, age, BMI, and DAS28 did not lead to any difference between synovial hypertrophy and PDUS changes (p = 0.498).

Discussion

Composite US markers of synovial hypertrophy correlate significantly to the DAS28 score and ESR/CRP in adult RA. The time needed for synovial hypertrophy to decrease may be up to 3-6 months after adalimumab therapy. Switching to biological therapy before 3-6 months is inappropriate and ineffective.

Assays for measurement of TNF antagonists in practice

Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist drug exposure is correlated with clinical, endoscopic and pathophysiological outcomes during induction and maintenance therapy. Measuring drug concentrations is therefore a useful tool when treating to target and optimising therapy. One of the main factors leading to suboptimal drug exposure is the formation of antidrug antibodies (ADAs), due to an immunogenic reaction of the immune system towards the non-self protein. The development of ADA does pose important concerns for drug efficacy and for safety as ADAs have been associated with acute infusion reactions, hypersensitivity reactions and serum sickness. Various assays exist to measure serum drug and ADA concentrations, either offered as a service in a specialised laboratory or commercially available as a kit. It is unclear how the performance of these assays relates to each other, until recently various comparative studies were carried out. The majority of these studies show that indeed a good correlation exists between the assays that measure drug, but that absolute concentrations can differ across tests. This is particularly relevant in clinical practice when a specific threshold or drug concentration range is targeted. For ADA assays, drug sensitivity or the ability of the assay to measure ADA in the presence of drug remains an important issue, especially for drugs with a higher dosing frequency. In addition, standardisation across ADA assays is difficult, making it hard to compare quantitative or semiquantitative (low/medium/high) results across assays and across studies.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.

METHODS

On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

A randomised, single-blind, single-dose, three-arm, parallel-group study in healthy subjects to demonstrate pharmacokinetic equivalence of ABP 501 and adalimumab

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity of biosimilar candidate ABP 501 relative to adalimumab reference product from the USA and European Union (EU) and evaluate safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of ABP 501.

METHODS

Randomised, single-blind, single-dose, three-arm, parallel-group study; healthy subjects were randomised to receive ABP 501 (n=67), adalimumab (USA) (n=69) or adalimumab (EU) (n=67) 40 mg subcutaneously. Primary end points were area under the serum concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf) and the maximum observed concentration (Cmax). Secondary end points included safety and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

AUCinf and Cmax were similar across the three groups. Geometrical mean ratio (GMR) of AUCinf was 1.11 between ABP 501 and adalimumab (USA), and 1.04 between ABP 501 and adalimumab (EU). GMR of Cmax was 1.04 between ABP 501 and adalimumab (USA) and 0.96 between ABP 501 and adalimumab (EU). The 90% CIs for the GMRs of AUCinf and Cmax were within the prespecified standard PK equivalence criteria of 0.80 to 1.25. Treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate and were reported for 35.8%, 24.6% and 41.8% of subjects in the ABP 501, adalimumab (USA) and adalimumab (EU) groups; incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAbs) was similar among the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study demonstrated PK similarity of ABP 501 with adalimumab (USA) and adalimumab (EU) after a single 40-mg subcutaneous injection. No new safety signals with ABP 501 were identified. The safety and tolerability of ABP 501 was similar to the reference products, and similar ADAb rates were observed across the three groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT number 2012-000785-37; Results.

Risk of infections using anti-TNF agents in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Five anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents have received regulatory approval for use in rheumatology: adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Apart from their well-documented therapeutic value, it is still uncertain to what extent they are associated with an increased risk of infectious adverse events. Areas covered: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized studies to determine the effect of anti-TNF drugs on the occurrence of infectious adverse events (serious infections; tuberculosis; opportunistic infections; any infection). We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2014 to identify eligible studies in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis that evaluated anti-TNF drugs compared with placebo or no treatment. Expert opinion: Our study encompassed data from 71 randomized controlled trials involving 22,760 participants (range of follow-up: 1-36 months) and seven open label extension studies with 2,236 participants (range of follow-up: 6-48 months). Quantitative synthesis of the available data found statistically significant increases in the occurrence of any infections (20%), serious infections (40%), and tuberculosis (250%) associated with anti-TNF drug use, while the data for opportunistic infections were scarce. The quality of synthesized evidence was judged as moderate. Further evidence from registries and long-term epidemiological studies are needed to better define the relationship between anti-TNF agents and infection complications.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Acid-Sensitive Sheddable PEGylated PLGA Nanoparticles Increase the Delivery of TNF-α siRNA in Chronic Inflammation Sites

There has been growing interest in utilizing small interfering RNA (siRNA) specific to pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor-α ( TNF-α), in chronic inflammation therapy. However, delivery systems that can increase the distribution of the siRNA in chronic inflammation sites after intravenous administration are needed. Herein we report that innovative functionalization of the surface of siRNA-incorporated poly (lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA) nanoparticles significantly increases the delivery of the siRNA in the chronic inflammation sites in a mouse model. The TNF-α siRNA incorporated PLGA nanoparticles were prepared by the standard double emulsion method, but using stearoyl-hydrazone-polyethylene glycol 2000, a unique acid-sensitive surface active agent, as the emulsifying agent, which renders (i) the nanoparticles PEGylated and (ii) the PEGylation sheddable in low pH environment such as that in chronic inflammation sites. In a mouse model of lipopolysaccharide-induced chronic inflammation, the acid-sensitive sheddable PEGylated PLGA nanoparticles showed significantly higher accumulation or distribution in chronic inflammation sites than PLGA nanoparticles prepared with an acid-insensitive emulsifying agent (i.e., stearoyl-amide-polyethylene glycol 2000) and significantly increased the distribution of the TNF-α siRNA incorporated into the nanoparticles in inflamed mouse foot.

Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.

Skin Signs of Rheumatoid Arthritis and its Therapy-Induced Cutaneous Side Effects

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic inflammatory disorder that primarily affects the joints, but may exhibit extra-articular, including cutaneous, manifestations such as rheumatoid nodules, rheumatoid vasculitis, granulomatous skin disorders, and neutrophilic dermatoses. A large burden of cutaneous disease may be an indication of RA disease activity and the need for more aggressive treatment. Many of the therapeutic agents used to treat RA can also result in cutaneous adverse effects, which pose their own diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Anti-TNFα agents, in particular, have a wide variety of adverse effects including psoraisiform eruptions, granulomatous conditions, and cutaneous connective tissue disorders. Herein we provide an update on the clinical presentations and management of RA-associated cutaneous findings as well as drug-induced cutaneous effects, with particular attention to the adverse effects of biologic disease-modifying agents.

Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous and Intravenous Loading Dose Regimens of Secukinumab in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from a Randomized Phase II Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of secukinumab, a fully human antiinterleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, administered with an intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) loading regimen versus placebo, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

In this phase II, double-blind, double-dummy, 52-week study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01359943), 221 patients with inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized (2:2:1) to secukinumab, IV loading 10 mg/kg at baseline, Weeks 2 and 4, then SC 150 mg every 4 weeks (n = 88); secukinumab SC loading 150 mg once weekly for 5 weeks, then every 4 weeks (n = 89); or a matching placebo (followed by secukinumab 150 mg every 4 weeks starting Week 16; n = 44). The primary endpoint was superior efficacy of pooled secukinumab versus placebo using American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) at Week 12.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy endpoint was not met: ACR20 response at Week 12 was 49.2% for pooled secukinumab versus 40.9% for placebo (p = 0.3559). These variables improved significantly with pooled secukinumab versus placebo at Week 12 (all p < 0.05): the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), patient's and physician's global assessment of disease activity, patient's assessment of RA pain, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels. Results of continuous efficacy outcomes were similar between the IV and SC loading regimens. The most frequent adverse events were infections, with similar rates across secukinumab and placebo.

CONCLUSION

Although the primary endpoint (ACR20) was not met, secukinumab demonstrated improved efficacy in reducing disease activity over placebo as measured by DAS28 and other secondary endpoints.

Pharmacokinetics of anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies in inflammatory bowel disease: Adding value to current practice

Since anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antibodies were introduced to treat patients with inflammatory bowel diseases, short- and long-term clinical and endoscopic endpoints can be achieved that were unreachable with conventional anti-inflammatory agents. Although a large proportion of patients (70-90%) initially respond to the treatment, remission rates after induction are still low (20-50%) and patients are at risk to lose response to the drug over time. This inter-individual variability in response is likely to be influenced by the observed inter-individual variability in pharmacokinetics. By extensively reviewing the literature, we evaluated the potential role of therapeutic drug monitoring to optimize dosing of anti-TNF drugs. Thereby we emphasize some of the pharmacokinetic cornerstones that can help to understand the observed concentration-effect relationship. After discussing some of the most commonly used assays to measure anti-TNF drug and anti-drug antibody concentrations, we reviewed the application of those tests and their potential clinical value in retrospective and prospective studies.

Inflammation induced loss of skeletal muscle

Inflammation is an important contributor to the pathology of diseases implicated in skeletal muscle dysfunction. A number of diseases and disorders including inflammatory myopathies and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD) are characterized by chronic inflammation or elevation of the inflammatory mediators. While these disease states exhibit different pathologies, all have in common the loss of skeletal muscle mass and a deregulated skeletal muscle physiology. Pro-inflammatory cytokines are key contributors to chronic inflammation found in many of these diseases. This section of the review focuses on some of the known inflammatory disorders like COPD, Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and inflammatory myopathies that display skeletal muscle atrophy and also provides the reader an overview of the mediators of inflammation, their signaling pathways, and mechanisms of action. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Muscle Bone Interactions".

Comparing Effects of Biologic Agents in Treating Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Multiple Treatment Comparison Regression Analysis

Rheumatoid arthritis patients have been treated with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and the newer biologic drugs. We sought to compare and rank the biologics with respect to efficacy. We performed a literature search identifying 54 publications encompassing 9 biologics. We conducted a multiple treatment comparison regression analysis letting the number experiencing a 50% improvement on the ACR score be dependent upon dose level and disease duration for assessing the comparable relative effect between biologics and placebo or DMARD. The analysis embraced all treatment and comparator arms over all publications. Hence, all measured effects of any biologic agent contributed to the comparison of all biologic agents relative to each other either given alone or combined with DMARD. We found the drug effect to be dependent on dose level, but not on disease duration, and the impact of a high versus low dose level was the same for all drugs (higher doses indicated a higher frequency of ACR50 scores). The ranking of the drugs when given without DMARD was certolizumab (ranked highest), etanercept, tocilizumab/ abatacept and adalimumab. The ranking of the drugs when given with DMARD was certolizumab (ranked highest), tocilizumab, anakinra, rituximab, golimumab/ infliximab/ abatacept, adalimumab/ etanercept. Still, all drugs were effective. All biologic agents were effective compared to placebo, with certolizumab the most effective and adalimumab (without DMARD treatment) and adalimumab/ etanercept (combined with DMARD treatment) the least effective. The drugs were in general more effective, except for etanercept, when given together with DMARDs.

Regulation of tumour necrosis factor signalling: live or let die

Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) is a pro-inflammatory cytokine that has important roles in mammalian immunity and cellular homeostasis. Deregulation of TNF receptor (TNFR) signalling is associated with many inflammatory disorders, including various types of arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, and targeting TNF has been an effective therapeutic strategy in these diseases. This Review focuses on the recent advances that have been made in understanding TNFR signalling and the consequences of its deregulation for cellular survival, apoptosis and regulated necrosis. We discuss how TNF-induced survival signals are distinguished from those that lead to cell death. Finally, we provide a brief overview of the role of TNF in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, and we discuss up-to-date and future treatment strategies for these disorders.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group, active controlled study to compare efficacy and safety of biosimilar adalimumab (Exemptia; ZRC-3197) and adalimumab (Humira) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

AIM

In this study, efficacy, tolerability and safety of biosimilar adalimumab (Exemptia; Zydus Cadila) was compared with reference adalimumab (Humira; AbbVie) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHOD

In this multicentre, prospective, randomized, double-blind, active controlled parallel arm study, 120 patients with moderate to severe RA were given 40 mg of either test adalimumab (Exemptia) or reference adalimumab (Humira) by subcutaneous route every other week for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was proportion of responders in two tretament groups by American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) at week 12. The secondary endpoints were change in Disease Activity Score of 28 joints - C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and proportion of patients with an ACR50 and ACR70 response in two treatment groups at week 12. Safety outcomes were also assessed.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks, patients treated every other week with test adalimumab (Zydus Cadila) had statistically similar response rates as compared to reference adalimumab (AbbVie): ACR20 (82% vs. 79.2%; P > 0.7); ACR50 (46%, vs. 43.4%; P > 0.7); ACR70 (14% vs. 15.1%; P > 0.8). The change in DAS28-CRP score was -2.1 ± 1.09 and -2.1 ± 1.21, in test and reference products, respectively. It was statistically significant compared to baseline, but not significantly different between the two products. Three serious adverse events and no death was reported during the study. Both adalimumab preparations were safe and well tolerated in this study.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrated biosimilarity with respect to efficacy, tolerability and safety of test adalimumab (Exemptia) and reference adalimumab (Humira) in patients with moderate to severe RA.

Cost-utility analysis of certolizumab pegol versus alternative tumour necrosis factor inhibitors available for the treatment of moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis in Spain

BACKGROUND

Certolizumab pegol, a PEGylated tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitor, improves the clinical signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when used in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy. This study evaluatedthe cost-utility of certolizumab pegol versusTNF-inhibitors plus methotrexate in the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA in Spain.

METHODS

A Markov cohort health state transition model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility (costs and quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) of certolizumab pegol versus other TNF-inhibitors licensed in Spain in 2009. Efficacy was measured using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses at 6 months, based on adjusted indirect comparisons from published clinical trials. Utilities were derived from EQ-5D data from certolizumab pegol RA clinical trials. Clinical history and resource use data came from published literature. Unit costs were taken from Spanish databases or published data (cost year 2009). Base case analyses were conducted from the payer perspective, with a lifetime horizon, 3.5 % annual discounting rates for costs and outcomes, and 3 % inflation rate for 2009 onwards. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The average lifetime costs for certolizumab pegol, etanercept, adalimumab (every 2 weeks and weekly) and infliximab (3 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg) in combination with methotrexate were €140,971, €141,197, €139,148, €164,741, €136,961 and €152,561, respectively. The QALYs gained were 6.578, 6.462, 6.430 (for both adalimumab doses), 6.430, and 6.318 (for both infliximab doses), respectively. At a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate dominated adalimumab weekly, etanercept, and infliximab 5 mg/kg, and was cost-effective versus adalimumab every 2 weeks and infliximab 3 mg/kg (all with methotrexate), with estimated ICERs of €12,346/QALY and €15,414/QALY, respectively. Certolizumab pegol monotherapy was more cost-effective versus adalimumab, and less expensive with similar health gains versus etanercept (6.416 QALYs vs 6.492). Univariate analysis showed ICERs to be sensitive to changes in time horizon, ACR response time point, baseline Heath Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, and rate of HAQ-disability index deterioration after discontinuing treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis shows that certolizumab pegol is cost-effective compared with other TNF-inhibitors recommended in Spain for the treatment of RA.

Lipid profile changes in patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis treated with biologic agents and tofacitinib in randomized clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze lipid changes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) treated with biologic agents or tofacitinib in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed, using the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge databases. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models to assess changes in the percentage of patients with abnormal lipid values or in the mean percentage of increase in the cholesterol and triglycerides levels.

RESULTS

Twenty-five of 4,527 identified articles met the inclusion criteria. Compared with RA patients treated with placebo, those treated with tocilizumab were more likely to have hypercholesterolemia (odds ratio [OR] 4.64; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.71, 7.95 [P < 0.001]), increased levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (OR 2.25; 95% CI 1.14, 4.44 [P = 0.020]), and increased levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (OR 4.80; 95% CI 3.27, 7.05 [P < 0.001]); this was not observed in patients treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists (OR 1.54; 95% CI 0.90, 2.66 [P = 0.119]) or tofacitinib (OR 3.4; 95% CI 0.62, 18.55 [P = 0.158]). Among patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, the mean percentage of increases in the HDL cholesterol level (weighted mean difference [WMD] 13.00 mg/dl; 95% CI 12.08, 13.93 [P < 0.001]) and the LDL cholesterol level (WMD 11.20 mg/dl; 95% CI 10.08, 12.32 [P < 0.001]) were higher than those in the comparator groups. Among patients treated with tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, the mean percentage of increases in the HDL cholesterol level (WMD 15.21 mg/dl; 95% CI 13.28, 17.14 [P < 0.001]) and the LDL cholesterol level (WMD 15.42 mg/dl; 95% CI 11.77, 19.06 [P < 0.001]) were also higher than those in the comparator groups. No data were available for RA treated with other biologic agents or for SpA.

CONCLUSION

In patients with RA treated with tocilizumab or tofacitinib but not with TNF antagonists, moderate changes in lipids are observed. Whether these changes pertain to the control of inflammation or to the mechanism of action of the biologic agents or tofacitinib remains undetermined.

The comparative safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis update of 44 trials

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to evaluate and update the safety data from randomized controlled trials of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients treated for rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted from 1990 to May 2013. All studies included were randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis that evaluated adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab treatment. The serious adverse events and discontinuation rates were abstracted, and risk estimates were calculated by Peto odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

Forty-four randomized controlled trials involving 11,700 subjects receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and 5901 subjects receiving placebo or traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were included. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment as a group was associated with a higher risk of serious infection (OR, 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.78) and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.43) compared with placebo and traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatments. Specifically, patients taking adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and infliximab had an increased risk of serious infection (OR, 1.69, 1.98, and 1.63, respectively) and showed an increased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 1.38, 1.67, and 2.04, respectively). In contrast, patients taking etanercept had a decreased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). Although ORs for malignancy varied across the different tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, none reached statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

These meta-analysis updates of the comparative safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors suggest a higher risk of serious infection associated with adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and infliximab, which seems to contribute to higher rates of discontinuation. In contrast, etanercept use showed a lower rate of discontinuation. These data may help guide clinical comparative decision making in the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

Are sample sizes of randomized clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis too large?

OBJECTIVE

We had the impression that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) frequently over enrolled patients. Thus, we surveyed power calculations in publications of RCTs of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to assess over enrollment.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified 40 reports of original RCTs testing the efficacy of infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, rituximab and tocilizumab in patients with RA. As a first analysis, based on a two equal arms study with an alpha error of 0·05 and a power of 80% and of 90%, recalculation of the sample size was performed using the primary outcome results. In the second analysis, only those studies with equal number of patients in both arms and also in which all elements of a power calculation were given, were considered. New sample sizes were calculated based on the presented power elements in the related publications.

RESULTS

In the first analysis, when we assigned a power of 80% and of 90%, 32 of 40 (80%) studies enrolled more than required number of patients, with a mean 131 ± 147 (SD), and 31 of 40 (78%) studies having had enrolled extra patients, with a mean 121 ± 147 (SD) in their treatment arms, respectively. Eleven studies qualified for the second analysis. There were still more patients with a mean of 48 ± 30 (SD) extra patients enrolled in the treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Most RCTs in RA enrol more patients than needed. This is costly and has the immediate consequence of exposing needless number of patients to potential harm.

OSKIRA-4: a phase IIb randomised, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of fostamatinib monotherapy

Objectives

OSKIRA-4 evaluated the efficacy of fostamatinib monotherapy versus placebo on the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis over 6 weeks by Disease Activity Score C reactive protein (DAS-28(CRP)) and assessed non-inferiority to adalimumab monotherapy at Week 24 by DAS-28(CRP).

Methods

Overall, 279 patients not currently taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were randomised to: (A) fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily for 24 weeks plus placebo injection every 2 weeks (PBOI); (B) fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily for 4 weeks, then 150 mg once daily up to Week 24, plus PBOI; (C) fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily for 4 weeks, then 100 mg once daily up to Week 24, plus PBOI; (D) adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, plus oral placebo twice daily; or (E) oral placebo twice daily for 6 weeks, plus PBOI, then a switch to arm A or B.

Results

Fostamatinib demonstrated a significant improvement in DAS-28(CRP) score from baseline versus placebo at Week 6 for arms A and B, but not C. Fostamatinib was significantly less effective than adalimumab at Week 24 based on DAS-28(CRP). Adverse events observed with fostamatinib treatment were consistent with those reported in previous studies, including hypertension and diarrhoea.

Conclusions

Fostamatinib demonstrated efficacy as monotherapy, showing superior DAS-28(CRP) score changes between baseline and 6 weeks when compared with placebo in treatment arms A and B. However, all fostamatinib regimens demonstrated inferior responses compared with adalimumab at Week 24.

Trial registration number

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01264770.

MOR103, a human monoclonal antibody to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, in the treatment of patients with moderate rheumatoid arthritis: results of a phase Ib/IIa randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial

Objectives

To determine the safety, tolerability and signs of efficacy of MOR103, a human monoclonal antibody to granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Patients with active, moderate RA were enrolled in a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial of intravenous MOR103 (0.3, 1.0 or 1.5 mg/kg) once a week for 4 weeks, with follow-up to 16 weeks. The primary outcome was safety.

Results

Of the 96 randomised and treated subjects, 85 completed the trial (n=27, 24, 22 and 23 for pooled placebo and MOR103 0.3, 1.0 and 1.5 mg/kg, respectively). Treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) in the MOR103 groups were mild or moderate in intensity and generally reported at frequencies similar to those in the placebo group. The most common AE was nasopharyngitis. In two cases, AEs were classified as serious because of hospitalisation: paronychia in a placebo subject and pleurisy in a MOR103 0.3 mg/kg subject. Both patients recovered fully. In exploratory efficacy analyses, subjects in the MOR103 1.0 and 1.5 mg/kg groups showed significant improvements in Disease Activity Score-28 scores and joint counts and significantly higher European League Against Rheumatism response rates than subjects receiving placebo. MOR103 1.0 mg/kg was associated with the largest reductions in disease activity parameters.

Conclusions

MOR103 was well tolerated and showed preliminary evidence of efficacy in patients with active RA. The data support further investigation of this monoclonal antibody to GM-CSF in RA patients and potentially in those with other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Trial registration number

NCT01023256

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of combination and monotherapy treatments in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis: analysis of American College of Rheumatology criteria scores 20, 50, and 70

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) extend the treatment choices for rheumatoid arthritis patients with suboptimal response or intolerance to conventional DMARDs. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the relative efficacy of EU-licensed bDMARD combination therapy or monotherapy for patients intolerant of or contraindicated to continued methotrexate.

METHODS

Comprehensive, structured literature searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, as well as hand-searching of conference proceedings and reference lists. Phase II or III randomized controlled trials reporting American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria scores of 20, 50, and 70 between 12 and 30 weeks' follow-up and enrolling adult patients meeting ACR classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with and with an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs were eligible. To estimate the relative efficacy of treatments whilst preserving the randomized comparisons within each trial, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted in WinBUGS using fixed and random-effects, logit-link models fitted to the binomial ACR 20/50/70 trial data.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 10,625 citations, and after a review of 2450 full-text papers, there were 29 and 14 eligible studies for the combination and monotherapy meta-analyses, respectively. In the combination analysis, all licensed bDMARD combinations had significantly higher odds of ACR 20/50/70 compared to DMARDs alone, except for the rituximab comparison, which did not reach significance for the ACR 70 outcome (based on the 95% credible interval). The etanercept combination was significantly better than the tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors adalimumab and infliximab in improving ACR 20/50/70 outcomes, with no significant differences between the etanercept combination and certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab. Licensed-dose etanercept, adalimumab, and tocilizumab monotherapy were significantly better than placebo in improving ACR 20/50/70 outcomes. Sensitivity analysis indicated that including studies outside the target population could affect the results.

CONCLUSION

Licensed bDMARDs are efficacious in patients with an inadequate response to conventional therapy, but tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor combination therapies are not equally effective.

Mixed treatment comparison of the treatment discontinuations of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in adults with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) has considerably changed treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over the past decade. Very little information is available on comparative discontinuation rates of the biologics.

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment discontinuations for 9 biologic DMARDs in adults with RA.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases through May 2012 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with RA that compared biologic DMARDs with placebo or another biologic DMARD. The primary outcome was treatment discontinuation during the blinded phase of the trials, measured as overall withdrawals, withdrawals resulting from lack of efficacy, and withdrawals resulting from adverse events. Random-effects meta-analysis estimated the effect size for individual agents, and adjusted indirect comparisons were made between biologics using mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-four trials were included in the analysis. In comparison with placebo, biologics were less likely to be withdrawn because of lack of efficacy (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.27) and more likely to be withdrawn because of an adverse event (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.70). Based on the MTC, certolizumab had the most favorable overall withdrawal profile, followed by etanercept and rituximab. Certolizumab had lower relative withdrawal rates resulting from lack of efficacy than adalimumab, anakinra, and infliximab. Anakinra had higher relative withdrawal rates resulting from lack of efficacy than most other biologics. Certolizumab and infliximab had more, while etanercept had fewer, withdrawals because of adverse events than most other drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on MTC using data from RCTs, differences in discontinuation rates were observed, generally favoring certolizumab, etanercept, and rituximab over other biologic DMARDs. These potential differences need to be further explored in head-to-head trials or well-conducted observational studies.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of existing TNF blocking agents in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Background and Objectives

Five-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-blockers (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol and golimumab) are available for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Only few clinical trials compare one TNF-blocker to another. Hence, a systematic review is required to indirectly compare the substances. The aim of our study is to estimate the efficacy and the safety of TNF-blockers in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and indirectly compare all five currently available blockers by combining the results from included randomized clinical trials (RCT).

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using databases including: MEDLINE, SCOPUS (including EMBASE), Cochrane library and electronic search alerts. Only articles reporting double-blind RCTs of TNF-blockers vs. placebo, with or without concomitant methotrexate (MTX), in treatment of RA were selected. Data collected were information of patients, interventions, controls, outcomes, study methods and eventual sources of bias.

Results

Forty-one articles reporting on 26 RCTs were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Five RCTs studied infliximab, seven etanercept, eight adalimumab, three golimumab and three certolizumab. TNF-blockers were more efficacious than placebo at all time points but were comparable to MTX. TNF-blocker and MTX combination was superior to either MTX or TNF-blocker alone. Increasing doses did not improve the efficacy. TNF-blockers were relatively safe compared to either MTX or placebo.

Conclusions

No single substance clearly rose above others in efficacy, but the results of the safety analyses suggest that etanercept might be the safest alternative. Interestingly, MTX performs nearly identically considering both efficacy and safety aspects with a margin of costs.

Risk of lymphoma in patients receiving antitumor necrosis factor therapy: a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled studies

The 2008 edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid tissues recognizes a new diagnostic entity termed "other iatrogenic immunodeficiency-associated lymphoproliferative disorders" highlighting lymphomas arising in patients treated with immunosuppressive agents for autoimmune disorders. The role of antitumor necrosis factor alpha therapy (anti-TNFα) and lymphoma risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients remains unclear; therefore, the goal of our study was to determine whether anti-TNFα therapy is associated with iatrogenic lymphomas. A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled clinical trials published (2000-2009) in RA patients receiving anti-TNFα therapy was performed. Fourteen studies fulfilled all search criteria and included 2,306 control patients and 5,179 patients treated with anti-TNFα therapy, namely etanercept, adalumimab, and infliximab. Clinical information including the number of patients, age, gender, lymphoma rates, and follow-up time was recorded. The overall rate and rate differences were analyzed using the DerSimonian and Laird method. Of the control group, four (4/2,306, 0.17%) patients developed hematolymphoid neoplasms. Eleven (11/5,179, 0.21%) patients receiving anti-TNFα therapy developed lymphomas. The adjusted overall rates are 0.36 lymphomas per 1,000 person-years in patients who did not receive anti-TNFα therapy versus 1.65 lymphomas per 1,000 person-years in patients who received anti-TNFα therapy. The corresponding 95% confidence interval for this rate difference is (-0.214, 2.79). The adjusted rate difference is 1.29 lymphomas per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, -0.21, 2.8; p value = 0.093). The corresponding p value is p = 0.0928. There is a suggestion of increased lymphomas in the treated group, with the predominant subset being B-cell lymphomas. Since the outcome of lymphoma is rare, it does not reach statistical significance of p < 0.05.

TNF alpha antagonist therapy and safety monitoring

OBJECTIVES

To develop and/or update fact sheets about TNFα antagonists treatments, in order to assist physicians in the management of patients with inflammatory joint disease.

METHODS

1. selection by a committee of rheumatology experts of the main topics of interest for which fact sheets were desirable; 2. identification and review of publications relevant to each topic; 3. development and/or update of fact sheets based on three levels of evidence: evidence-based medicine, official recommendations, and expert opinion. The experts were rheumatologists and invited specialists in other fields, and they had extensive experience with the management of chronic inflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid. They were members of the CRI (Club Rhumatismes et Inflammation), a section of the Société Francaise de Rhumatologie. Each fact sheet was revised by several experts and the overall process was coordinated by three experts.

RESULTS

Several topics of major interest were selected: contraindications of TNFα antagonists treatments, the management of adverse effects and concomitant diseases that may develop during these therapies, and the management of everyday situations such as pregnancy, surgery, and immunizations. After a review of the literature and discussions among experts, a consensus was developed about the content of the fact sheets presented here. These fact sheets focus on several points: 1. in RA and SpA, initiation and monitoring of TNFα antagonists treatments, management of patients with specific past histories, and specific clinical situations such as pregnancy; 2. diseases other than RA, such as juvenile idiopathic arthritis; 3. models of letters for informing the rheumatologist and general practitioner; 4. and patient information.

CONCLUSION

These TNFα antagonists treatments fact sheets built on evidence-based medicine and expert opinion will serve as a practical tool for assisting physicians who manage patients on these therapies. They will be available continuously at www.cri-net.com and updated at appropriate intervals.

Changes in patient characteristics in anti-tumour necrosis factor clinical trials for rheumatoid arthritis: results of an analysis of the literature over the past 16 years

Objective

To evaluate changes in baseline patient characteristics and entry criteria of randomised, controlled studies of tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed using predefined inclusion criteria to identify randomised, double-blind, controlled trials that evaluated TNFα inhibitors in adult RA patients. Entry criteria and baseline clinical characteristics were evaluated over time for methotrexate-experienced and methotrexate-naive study populations. Enrolment start date for each trial was the time metric. The anchor time was the study with the earliest identifiable enrolment start date.

Results

44 primary publications (reporting the primary study endpoint) from 1993 to 2008 met the inclusion criteria. Enrolment start dates of August 1993 and May 1997 were identified as time anchors for the 37 methotrexate-experienced studies and the seven methotrexate-naive studies, respectively. In methotrexate-experienced trials, no significant change was observed over the years included in this study in any inclusion criteria (including swollen joint counts and C-reactive protein (CRP)), but a significant decrease over time was observed in the baseline swollen joint count, CRP and total Sharp or van der Heijde modified Sharp score, but not in baseline tender joint counts. In the methotrexate-naive studies, significant decreases over the years were observed in swollen joint and tender joint inclusion criteria, but not in baseline tender joint count, baseline CRP, CRP inclusion criteria or baseline total Sharp or van der Heijde modified Sharp score.

Conclusion

Inclusion criteria and baseline characteristics of RA patients enrolled in studies of TNFα inhibitors have changed, with more recent trials enrolling cohorts with lower disease activity, especially in methotrexate-experienced trials.

Effect of the application of trial inclusion criteria on the efficacy of adalimumab therapy in a rheumatoid arthritis cohort

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the influence of inclusion criteria used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials with adalimumab on clinical outcome and response.

METHODS

The different inclusion criteria of published trials of adalimumab in RA were separately applied to a large prospective cohort of patients with RA treated with adalimumab (AdRA cohort), thereby mimicking patient selection for a clinical trial. Clinical response and outcome in the resulting 11 projection groups were compared using the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and time-averaged DAS28 as outcome measures of efficacy.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials (n = 54-799) with 11 different sets of entry criteria were identified, resulting in 11 projection groups (n = 22-168). The DAS28 at baseline was similar in the original trial and each projection group based on this trial (5.1-6.4, total AdRA cohort 5.1). After 28 weeks, the efficacy varied substantially among the 11 projected groups (change from baseline DAS28: -1.65 to -2.65, time-averaged DAS28 3.67-4.53). Expressed as outcome (DAS28 at 28 weeks), the efficacy was much more similar for almost all projection groups (3.5-4.0) and thus appeared to be mostly independent of disease activity at baseline.

CONCLUSION

We observed that different inclusion criteria for clinical trials can have a marked effect on the expected response, i.e., improvement from baseline. A novel finding is that final disease activity appeared much less dependent on initial disease activity. Our study suggests that for daily practice, one can assume that adalimumab treatment will on average result in a DAS28 between 3.5 and 4.0 after 28 weeks of treatment, regardless of baseline disease activity.