Open-label, pilot protocol of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who switch to infliximab after an incomplete response to etanercept: the opposite study

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.

A Real-World Claims Database Study Assessing Long-Term Persistence with Golimumab Treatment in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Japan

INTRODUCTION

The persistence of golimumab (GLM) treatment in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been evaluated previously, but evidence of long-term real-world use is lacking. This study assessed the long-term persistence of GLM use, its influencing factors, and impact of prior medications in patients with RA in actual clinical practice in Japan.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with RA using data from a hospital insurance claims database in Japan. The identified patients were stratified as only GLM treatment (naïve), had one biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD)/Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor treatment prior to GLM [switch (1)] and had at least two bDMARDs/JAK prior to GLM treatment [switch (≥ 2)]. Patient characteristics were evaluated using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression methods were used to analyze GLM persistence at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years and the associated factors. Treatment differences were compared using a log-rank test.

RESULTS

GLM persistence rate in the naïve group was 58.8%, 32.1%, 21.4%, and 11.4% at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years, respectively. Overall persistence rates in the naïve group were higher than in switch groups. Higher GLM persistence was observed among patients aged 61-75 years and those concomitantly using methotrexate (MTX). Also, women were less likely to discontinue treatment compared to men. Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, initial GLM dose of 100 mg, and switch from bDMARDs/JAK inhibitor were related to a lower persistence rate. As a prior medication, infliximab showed the longest persistence for subsequent GLM, and using this as a reference, tocilizumab, sarilumab, and tofacitinib subgroups had significantly shorter persistence, respectively (p = 0.001, 0.025, 0.041).

CONCLUSION

This study presents the long-term real-world results for persistence of GLM and its potential determinants. These most recent and long-term observations demonstrated that GLM and other bDMARDs continue to benefit patients with RA in Japan.

Anti-adalimumab Antibodies in Patients with Non-infectious Ocular Inflammatory Disease: A Case Series

PURPOSE

To report the clinical course of patients with ocular inflammatory disease treated with adalimumab in whom anti-adalimumab antibodies (AAA) were detected.

METHODS

Single center case series.

RESULTS

Eight patients with initial response to adalimumab developed a disease flare associated with positive AAA testing after 5 to 76 months of therapy. Six patients were receiving no concurrent antimetabolite therapy at the time of AAA diagnosis and four had a temporary lapse in adalimumab therapy prior to AAA discovery. AAA resulted in undetectable drug levels in five of the seven patients for whom data were available, and adalimumab was discontinued in six of the eight patients. Of two patients continued on adalimumab, one maintained detectable serum adalimumab despite AAA and one had a low AAA titer.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients receiving adalimumab for ocular inflammatory disease, a disease flare in the setting of previously well-controlled disease should prompt consideration of AAA testing.

Infliximab Treatment Persistence among Japanese Patients with Chronic Inflammatory Diseases: A Retrospective Japanese Claims Data Study

Infliximab (IFX) has contributed to the treatment of several chronic inflammatory diseases, including Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC), psoriasis (Pso), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, the loss of response in some patients with long-term IFX therapy has been a major problem. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are limited in their short duration and lack of generalizability to the real-world population. We aimed to describe the persistence rates of IFX therapy to estimate its long-term effectiveness in clinical practice. Claims data from the Japan Medical Data Center database from January 2005 to June 2017 were used. The study population was identified based on the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision and the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System. The 5-year persistence rates of IFX therapy were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Overall, 281, 235, 41, and 222 patients with CD, UC, Pso, and RA, respectively, were selected. The 5-year persistence rates for IFX claims were 62.9, 38.9, 22.1, and 28.1% in patients with CD, UC, Pso, and RA, respectively. Patients with CD and UC administered IFX beyond the median dose had higher persistence rates. In patients with RA, female sex and no prior use of other biologics were associated with longer persistence. In conclusion, IFX persistence rates differed across chronic inflammatory diseases, which did not correspond to the results of the major RCTs. Factors associated with longer IFX persistence were identified in each disease group. Our findings may provide useful information to facilitate the proper use of IFX.

Toward Overcoming Treatment Failure in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by inflammation and bone erosion. The exact mechanism of RA is still unknown, but various immune cytokines, signaling pathways and effector cells are involved. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are commonly used in RA treatment and classified into different categories. Nevertheless, RA treatment is based on a "trial-and-error" approach, and a substantial proportion of patients show failed therapy for each DMARD. Over the past decades, great efforts have been made to overcome treatment failure, including identification of biomarkers, exploration of the reasons for loss of efficacy, development of sequential or combinational DMARDs strategies and approval of new DMARDs. Here, we summarize these efforts, which would provide valuable insights for accurate RA clinical medication. While gratifying, researchers realize that these efforts are still far from enough to recommend specific DMARDs for individual patients. Precision medicine is an emerging medical model that proposes a highly individualized and tailored approach for disease management. In this review, we also discuss the potential of precision medicine for overcoming RA treatment failure, with the introduction of various cutting-edge technologies and big data.

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 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.

A Randomized Phase IIb Study of Mavrilimumab and Golimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

This 24‐week, phase IIb, double‐blind study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mavrilimumab (a monoclonal antibody to granulocyte–macrophage colony‐stimulating factor receptor α) and golimumab (a monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor [anti‐TNF]) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (referred to as DMARD‐IR) and/or inadequate response to other anti‐TNF agents (referred to as anti‐TNF–IR).

Methods

Patients with active RA and a history of DMARD‐IR (≥1 failed regimen) or DMARD‐IR (≥1 failed regimen) and anti‐TNF–IR (1–2 failed regimens) were randomized 1:1 to receive either mavrilimumab 100 mg subcutaneously every other week or golimumab 50 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks alternating with placebo every 4 weeks, administered concomitantly with methotrexate. The primary end points were the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20), 50% improvement, and 70% improvement response rates at week 24, percentage of patients achieving a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C‐reactive protein level (DAS28‐CRP) of <2.6 at week 24, percentage of patients with a score improvement of >0.22 on the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI) at week 24, and safety/tolerability measures. This study was not powered to formally compare the 2 treatments.

Results

At week 24, differences in the ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rates between the mavrilimumab treatment group (n = 70) and golimumab treatment group (n = 68) were as follows: in all patients, −3.5% (90% confidence interval [90% CI] −16.8, 9.8), −8.6% (90% CI −22.0, 4.8), and −9.8% (90% CI −21.1, 1.4), respectively; in the anti‐TNF–IR group, 11.1% (90% CI −7.8, 29.9), −8.7% (90% CI −28.1, 10.7), and −0.7% (90% CI −18.0, 16.7), respectively. Differences in the percentage of patients achieving a DAS28‐CRP of <2.6 at week 24 between the mavrilimumab and golimumab groups were −11.6% (90% CI −23.2, 0.0) in all patients, and −4.0% (90% CI −20.9, 12.9) in the anti‐TNF–IR group. The percentage of patients achieving a >0.22 improvement in the HAQ DI score at week 24 was similar between the treatment groups. Treatment‐emergent adverse events were reported in 51.4% of mavrilimumab‐treated patients and 42.6% of golimumab‐treated patients. No deaths were reported, and no specific safety signals were identified.

Conclusion

The findings of this study demonstrate the clinical efficacy of both treatments, mavrilimumab at a dosage of 100 mg every other week and golimumab at a dosage of 50 mg every 4 weeks, in patients with RA. Both regimens were well‐tolerated in patients who had shown an inadequate response to DMARDs and/or other anti‐TNF agents.

The Effectiveness of Intravenous Golimumab Administered Directly After Infliximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

Purpose

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who do not respond or lose response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologics, switching to a different anti-TNF can be an effective means to manage symptoms and disease progression. This study examined the utilization and effectiveness of intravenous golimumab within a real-world population of patients with RA switching directly from infliximab, a potent anti-TNF.

Methods

Patient charts (n = 113) were collected from five US-based rheumatology practices. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, infliximab and intravenous golimumab utilization data, and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), Physician Global Assessment (PhGA), and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID3) scores were extracted from charts. The effectiveness of intravenous golimumab was assessed by comparing disease activity status pre- and post-initiation of intravenous golimumab therapy.

Findings

Significant decreases in patient disease activity were observed following treatment with intravenous golimumab. Mean CDAI and PhGA scores significantly decreased, and a significantly increased proportion of the population exhibited low disease activity or remission in the post intravenous golimumab period (p < 0.05). Limited changes were observed through the RAPID3 and PtGA.

Conclusions

Findings from this study indicate that intravenous golimumab is effective in managing RA in a population of patients switching directly from infliximab (mean last dose 7.4 mg/kg).

Niclosamide as an adjuvant to etanercept in treatment patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: an 8-week randomized controlled pilot study

This study designed to identify the therapeutic efficacy of niclosamide (NCL) in Iraqi patients suffering from active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were using etanercept (ETN) for more than 3 months and still had high or moderate active RA. One hundred ten patients suffering from active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were using etanercept (ETN) for more than 3 months and still had high or moderate active RA were allocated randomly into two equal groups: one of them treated with 1000 mg/day NCL and the other treated with 1000 mg/day lactose in capsule dosage form. The study duration was 8 weeks. Clinical efficacy of the NCL was measured depending on scoring of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), simple disease activity index (SDAI), clinical disease activity index (CDAI), and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at the baseline and at the end of the 8-week treatment period. Moreover, blood sample were taken from the patients at baseline and at after 8 weeks of treatment for measurement of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 1β (IL-1 β), interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), and E-selectin. At the end of the clinical study, patients had good response to NCL when added to the ETN with a high significant improvement in the SJC, TJC, DAS-28, CDAI, SDAI, and HAQ-DI compared to patients who were received placebo drug. In addition to that, 33% of patients achieved an ACR 20% response (ACR20) on NCL and ETN. Of these, 4% achieved ACR50 and another 4% achieved ACR70 response. While those group treated by placebo + ETN, 5% achieved ACR20 response and no one reached to ACR50 or ACR70 response. Twenty-seven percent of RA patients who have taken the NCL achieved moderate EULAR score while only 17% from the group that taken placebo with ETN achieved moderate response. On the other hand, no significant reduction was found in CRP, ESR, TNF-α, and IL-6, while IL-1 β reduced significantly after treatment with NCL. Treatment with NCL also exerts a significant lowering in the serum level of the E-selectin, ICAM1, and VCAM1 when compared to their value in baseline level. In RA disease, the use of NCL as adjuvant with ETN has resulted in a marked reduction in clinical assessment scoring indices and significantly decreased the E-selectin, ICAM-1, and VCAM-1 with marked improvement in the quality of life of patients.

Cost-utility analysis of certolizumab pegol in combination with methotrexate in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis in Greece

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of certolizumab pegol (CZP), a pegylated fc-free anti-TNF, as add-on therapy to methotrexate (MTX) versus etanercept, adalimumab, or golimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not responding to the conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). A Markov model (6-month cycle length) assessed health and cost outcomes of CZP versus other anti-TNFs recommended for RA in Greece over a patient's lifetime. Following discontinuation of first-line anti-TNF, patients switched to second anti-TNF and then to a biologic with another mode of action. Sequential use of csDMARDs followed third biologic. Clinical data and utilities were extracted from published literature. Analysis was conducted from third-party payer perspective in Greece. Costs (drug acquisition, administration, monitoring, and patient management) were considered for 2014. Results presented are incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) ascertained robustness of base-case findings. Base-case analysis indicated that CZP+MTX was more costly and more effective compared with Etanercept+MTX (base-case ICER: €3,177 per QALY), whilst versus adalimumab/golimumab, CZP was dominant (less costly, more effective). For all comparisons, CZP treatment resulted in greater improvements in life expectancy and QALYs. PSA indicated that at the willingness-to-pay threshold of €34,000/QALY, CZP+MTX was associated with a 71.6, 97.9, or 99.2% probability of being cost-effective versus etanercept, golimumab, or adalimumab, respectively, in combination with MTX. This analysis demonstrates CZP+MTX to be a cost-effective alternative over Etanercept+MTX and a dominant option over Adalimumab+MTX and Golimumab+MTX for management of RA in Greece.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.

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 (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.

METHODS

In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Clinical response to golimumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients who were receiving etanercept or adalimumab: results of a multicenter active treatment study

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) golimumab + methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite etanercept + MTX or adalimumab + MTX therapy and evaluate whether intravenous (IV) golimumab could rescue patients who were nonresponders to SC golimumab.

METHODS

In this multicenter, assessor-blinded, active-switch study of patients with RA (n = 433) with inadequate response to etanercept or adalimumab + MTX, patients continued MTX and received open-label SC golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks through week 12. DAS28-ESR good responders at week 16 continued open-label SC golimumab through week 52 (Group 1); nonresponders were randomized to double-blind golimumab SC 50 mg (Group 2-SC) or IV 2 mg/kg (Group 2-IV). Week 14 ACR20 was the primary endpoint; assessments continued through week 52 and for patients in the voluntary long-term extension through week 76. A major secondary endpoint was the proportions of patients with ACR20 response at week 52 relative to week 16 in Group 2-SC and Group 2-IV.

RESULTS

At week 14, 34.9% (p < 0.001) achieved an ACR20. At week 52, patients in Group 1 (n = 75) achieved an ACR20 (62.7%). In Groups 2-SC (n = 91) and 2-IV (n = 184), 13.2% and 9.2% had an ACR20 at week 52 relative to week 16, with no significant difference between the randomized groups; 42.9% and 47.8% achieved DAS28-ESR response relative to week 0. Through week 16, 4.6% of patients had a serious adverse event. No differences in the rates or types of adverse events were observed between SC and IV golimumab from weeks 16 to 52. The trial limitations included a higher than expected discontinuation rate as a result of a programming error.

CONCLUSION

SC golimumab + MTX significantly suppressed disease activity in RA patients with inadequate response to etanercept and/or adalimumab + MTX. Patients randomized to Groups 2-SC and 2-IV had lower response rates than Group 1, with no difference between SC or IV mode of administration. The safety profile with IV golimumab was comparable to that established with SC golimumab.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01004432, EudraCT 2009-010582-23.

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.

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.

Pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and acne (PAPA) syndrome: differential diagnosis of septic arthritis by regular detection of exceedingly high synovial cell counts

Pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum and acne syndrome was diagnosed in a 42-year-old patient, after an unusual persistency of high synovial cell counts had been noticed. Clinical peculiarities and problems with diagnosing septic versus non-septic arthritis are discussed.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-methotrexate combination therapy versus triple therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials have not consistently demonstrated differences between tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) plus methotrexate and triple therapy (methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine plus sulfasalazine) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The study objective was to estimate the efficacy, radiographic benefits, safety and patient-reported outcomes of TNFi-methotrexate versus triple therapy in patients with RA.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials of TNFi-methotrexate or triple therapy as one of the treatment arms in patients with an inadequate response to or who were naive to methotrexate was conducted. American College of Rheumatology 70% response criteria (ACR70) at 6 months was the prespecified primary endpoint to evaluate depth of response. Data from direct and indirect comparisons between TNFi-methotrexate and triple therapy were pooled and quantitatively analysed using fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian models.

RESULTS

We analysed 33 studies in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate and 19 in patients naive to methotrexate. In inadequate responders, triple therapy was associated with lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.35, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.19 to 0.64). Most secondary endpoints tended to favour TNFi-methotrexate in terms of OR direction; however, no clear increased likelihood of achieving these endpoints was observed for either therapy. The odds of infection were lower with triple therapy than with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.08, 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.57). There were no differences observed between the two regimens in patients naive to methotrexate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this NMA, triple therapy was associated with 65% lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate. Although secondary endpoints numerically favoured TNFi-methotrexate, no clear differences were observed. The odds of infection were greater with TNFi-methotrexate. No differences were observed for patients naive to methotrexate. These results may help inform care of patients who fail methotrexate first-line therapy.

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.

Green tea and exercise interventions as nondrug remedies in geriatric patients with rheumatoid arthritis

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of green tea and supervised exercise training interventions on improvement of disease activity and bone metabolism markers in rheumatoid arthritis patients. [Subjects and Methods] One-hundred and twenty subjects who had a mean age of (60.7 ± 2.53 years) and had been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis at least ten years previously were randomly included in this study. Patients were treated with infliximab, green tea, or a supervised exercise program for six months. Disease activity markers as well as antioxidant activity of green tea extracts were estimated before supplementation using in vitro assays. [Results] Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with green tea for 6 months alone or in combination with infliximab or an exercise program showed significant improvement in disease activity parameters, including C-reactive protein, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, swollen and tender joints counts, and modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire score, along with an increase in serum levels of bone resorption markers, i.e., deoxypyridinoline, amino-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen, and bone alkaline phosphatase, at 6 months of after initial treatment. The European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology scores revealed more clinical improvement in the disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with green tea along with exercise compared with rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with infliximab or exercise combinations. This may have been due to the higher potential antioxidant activity of green tea (89.6% to 96.5%). [Conclusion] Both exercise and green tea interventions appeared to be beneficial as nondrug modulates for rheumatoid arthritis disorders.

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.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.

METHODS

We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.

MAIN RESULTS

158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.

Whole genome analysis on the genetic backgrounds associated with the secondary failure to etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Etanercept is effective for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, some of the patients eventually lose efficacy (secondary failure) despite the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We aimed to explore single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with secondary failure.

METHODS

We recruited RA patients given etanercept at 50 mg/week for ≥6 months from the Matsubara Mayflower Hospital RA registry. They were assigned to responders, secondary failure patients, and non-responders according to Disease Activity Score. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) was performed using Illumina HumanHAP300k BeadChips and the results were analyzed with Plink software. Clinical backgrounds were compared by ANOVA and contingency table analysis. The protocol was approved by IRB and written informed consent was obtained.

RESULTS

Ninety, 27 and 17 patients were assigned to responders, secondary failure patients, and non-responders, respectively. No significant differences were observed regarding clinical backgrounds among the groups. GWAS revealed that six and 37 SNPs may be associated with secondary failure to etanercept with p< 10^-6 and <10^-5, respectively.

CONCLUSION

While our preliminary results with borderline significance should be validated by studies with a greater population size, some of the SNPs detected by our GWAS may be involved in the development of secondary failure to etanercept.

[Switching within the active ingredient group or changing the mechanism of action. Data situation by failure of the first line biologic]

Despite the use of biologics many patients do not achieve remission or reduced disease activity, which raises the question of the optimal therapy when these therapy targets are not achieved. Most data from clinical studies and registry data refer to the approach following the unsuccessful use of one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. Randomized controlled studies investigating the effectiveness of a further biologic or TNF inhibitor in patients who received abatacept, tocilizumab or rituximab in the first line therapy are currently lacking, with the exception of the German MIRAI study. The majority of registry data and observational studies suggest that when the use of a TNF inhibitor is unsuccessful it is advantageous to change to a non-TNF biologic. This does not exclude that a change within the group of TNF inhibitors can represent an appropriate option, e.g. by injection or infusion reactions or secondary therapy failure. Whether determination of serum levels and neutralizing antibodies aids decision-making for individual patients, must currently remain open. The option to change within an active ingredient group of biologics only currently applies to the group of TNF inhibitors; however, with the development of further antibodies inhibiting interleukin 6, this question will also apply to this group of substances. The question of the optimal strategy after failure of the first and second line biologics will be asked more frequently when the therapy targets of remission and low disease activity are more stringently strived for. Predictive markers for an optimal approach to the sequential administration of biologics are lacking. In order to answer this question clinical studies which investigate the therapeutic approach in a randomized and controlled manner will be necessary in the future.

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.

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.

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of switching from etanercept to infliximab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis: A multicenter, open-label trial (TANGO)

Biologic anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) therapies have revolutionized the management of psoriasis. However, despite similar mechanisms of action, inter-patient variability in the clinical responses to therapy remain unexplained. Possible differences between agents include stability or bioavailability and anti-drug antibody development, and patient factors such as compliance may play a role. As a result, it is not uncommon for physicians to switch a patient from one anti-TNF-α agent to another when initial response is inadequate. This multicenter, single-arm, observational, Phase IV study assessed the efficacy and safety of infliximab therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis who had not responded to 24 weeks' etanercept treatment. Drug efficacy was assessed using specific psoriasis indexes; health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured using the Dermatology Life Quality Index and the Skindex-29. A total of 48 patients were screened, 38 were treated with infliximab and 31 completed the study. Of these, 71% achieved Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 after 10 weeks, and improvement in HRQoL was documented. The results of this study showed that patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis could be successfully switched from etanercept to infliximab, with improvements in both clinical parameter and HRQoL.

Therapeutic options after treatment failure in rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritides

The prognosis for patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritides has improved dramatically due to earlier diagnosis, recognition of the need to treat early with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), alone or in combinations, the establishment of treatment targets, and the development of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). Many patients are now able to achieve clinical remission or low disease activity with therapy, and reduce or eliminate systemic corticosteroid use. Guidelines recommend methotrexate as a first-line agent for the initial treatment of rheumatoid arthritis; however, a majority of patients will require a change of csDMARD or step up to combination therapy with the addition of another csDMARD or a bDMARD. However, treatment failure is common and switching to a different therapy may be required. The large number of available treatment options, combined with a lack of comparative data, makes the choice of a new therapy complex and often not evidence based. We summarize and discuss evidence to inform treatment decisions in patients who require a change in therapy, including baseline factors that may predict response to therapy.

Treatment comparison in rheumatoid arthritis: head-to-head trials and innovative study designs

Over the last decades, the increasing knowledge in the area of rheumatoid arthritis has progressively expanded the arsenal of available drugs, especially with the introduction of novel targeted therapies such as biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). In this situation, rheumatologists are offered a wide range of treatment options, but on the other side the need for comparisons between available drugs becomes more and more crucial in order to better define the strategies for the choice and the optimal sequencing. Indirect comparisons or meta-analyses of data coming from different randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not immune to conceptual and technical challenges and often provide inconsistent results. In this review we examine some of the possible evolutions of traditional RCTs, such as the inclusion of active comparators, aimed at individualising treatments in real-life conditions. Although head-to-head RCTs may be considered the best tool to directly compare the efficacy and safety of two different DMARDs, surprisingly only 20 studies with such design have been published in the last 25 years. Given the recent advent of the first RCTs truly comparing biological DMARDs, we also review the state of the art of head-to-head trials in RA.

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

BACKGROUND

Switching to a second tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) after discontinuation of a first in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common strategy. The reason for the switch from the first TNFi could potentially influence the response to therapy. Data on direct comparisons between TNFi after switching are limited.

METHODS

The national Swedish register was used. RA patients who switched to a second TNFi (infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab) after failure of a TNFi as first-ever biologic were identified. Effectiveness of treatment was compared across the three drugs according to the first TNFi used, the reason for discontinuing and the drug survival. Drug survival across TNFi used as second biologic was compared.

RESULTS

Half of all patients starting infliximab, adalimumab or etanercept during the period 2005-2012 discontinued treatment for various reasons. Of these patients, a third switched within 2 months to a second TNFi (infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab). Around 35% of all patients achieved low disease activity or remission at 6 months. Regarding the switching strategy, best results were observed among patients who switched from infliximab to etanercept because of (secondary) inefficacy. Etanercept as second TNFi was associated with longer drug survival compared with infliximab.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to a second TNFi after the failure of the first may lead to good clinical results. The inter-drug differences in drug survival on the second TNFi mirror those reported previously for the first TNFi, suggesting that these differences are not solely due to channelling bias.

Insights into the efficacy of golimumab plus methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who discontinued prior anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy: post-hoc analyses from the GO-AFTER study

Objective

Evaluate golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and previous tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF) inhibitor use.

Methods

Patients (n=461) previously receiving ≥1 TNF inhibitor were randomised to subcutaneous injections of placebo, golimumab 50 mg or golimumab 100 mg q4 weeks. Primary endpoint (≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) criteria at week 14) findings have been reported for all patients in the trial. Reported herein are further assessments of efficacy/safety among patients receiving golimumab+methotrexate (MTX).

Results

Among efficacy-evaluable patients who received MTX at baseline, more receiving golimumab+MTX (n=201) than placebo+MTX (n=103) achieved ACR20 (40.8% vs 14.6%), ACR50 (20.9% vs 3.9%), and ACR70 (11.4% vs 2.9%) responses at week 24. Among the 137 patients who had received only one prior TNF inhibitor (adalimumab, n=33; etanercept, n=47; and infliximab, n=57), week 24 ACR20 rates were 30.3%, 46.8% and 50.9%, respectively, and thus lowest among those who previously used adalimumab. ACR20 response rates were 44.5% (61/137), 36.2% (17/47) and 23.5% (4/17) among patients who had received one, two or three TNF inhibitors, respectively. Adverse event (AE) rates were comparable across type/number of prior anti-TNF agents, but appeared somewhat higher among patients who discontinued previous TNF inhibitor(s) due to intolerance (37/49, 75.5%) versus lack of efficacy (LOE, 113/191, 59.2%).

Conclusions

Patients with active RA previously treated with ≥1 TNF inhibitor had clinically relevant improvement with golimumab+MTX, which appeared somewhat enhanced among those who received only etanercept or infliximab as their prior TNF inhibitor. Golimumab+MTX safety appeared similar across patients, regardless of TNF inhibitor(s) previously used, with fewer AEs occurring among patients who discontinued prior therapy for LOE.

TNF inhibitor therapy for rheumatoid arthritis

Immunotherapy has markedly improved treatment outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonists, such as infliximab (IFX), etanercept (ETN), adalimumab (ADA), golimumab (GOLI) and certolizumab pegol (CZP) have been widely used for the treatment of RA. IFX provides significant, clinically relevant improvement in physical function and the quality of life, inhibits progressive joint damage and sustains improvement in the signs and symptoms of patients with RA. ETN is effective and safe for patients with RA. Combination therapy with ETN plus methotrexate (MTX) reduces disease activity, decreases total joint score progression, slows the pace of joint destruction and improves function more effectively compared to any of the monotherapies. ADA with or without MTX also relieves the signs and symptoms of RA. CZP and GOLI expand the therapeutic schedule for patients with RA. The TNF-α inhibitors have similar efficacy, but distinct clinical pharmacokinetic and -dynamic properties. The common adverse events of these TNF-α antagonists include adverse reactions, infections and injection-site reaction. Additionally, these adverse events are mostly mild or moderate and their incidence is low. Certain patients exhibit a lack of response to anti-TNF-α therapies. Some patients may discontinue the initial drug and switch to a second anti-TNF-α agent. The shortage of clinical response to one agent may not predict deficiency of response to another. This review mainly addresses the latest developments of these biological agents in the treatment of RA.

Rituximab or a second anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy for rheumatoid arthritis patients who have failed their first anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy? Comparative analysis from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of rituximab (RTX) or a second anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who had failed their first anti-TNF and switched to either RTX or a second anti-TNF, in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

RA patients were registered with the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Response to treatment 6 months after switching was assessed using European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and improvements in a Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score (0.22 unit or more). Regression analyses were used to compare EULAR response and improvement in HAQ score between the 2 groups, adjusting for propensity scores.

RESULTS

In total, 1,328 patients were included in the analysis of EULAR response, and 937 patients were included in the analysis of HAQ scores. Six months after switching, 54.8% of patients who switched to RTX were EULAR responders compared to 47.3% of those who switched to a second anti-TNF. A total of 38.4% of RTX patients achieved a clinically important improvement in HAQ score compared to 29.6% in anti-TNF patients. After adjustment using propensity scores, patients who switched to RTX were significantly more likely to achieve EULAR response (odds ratio [OR] 1.31; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.02, 1.69) compared to those who switched to an alternative anti-TNF. RTX patients were also significantly more likely to achieve improvements in HAQ score (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.07, 2.08).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that switching to RTX may be of more benefit than switching to an alternative anti-TNF therapy after failing the first anti-TNF therapy in RA patients.

Optimizing outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to anti-TNF treatment

A failure to respond to TNF inhibitors remains a serious concern for patients with RA. Although some patients experience a primary lack of drug efficacy in reducing their symptoms, others fail to maintain an initial response because of acquired drug resistance. While switching to another TNF inhibitor is a common practice for patients who are not responsive to a particular treatment, limited clinical trial data support this strategy. If more than one TNF inhibitor provides inadequate responses and/or similar tolerability issues, switching to a different class of agent may provide a more effective option. Currently four non-TNF inhibitors are approved for use in RA patients-the T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor abatacept, the B-cell-depleting mAb rituximab, the IL-1 receptor blocker anakinra and the IL-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab. These biologic agents have been studied in large, randomized placebo-controlled trials that demonstrate their efficacy in reducing disease activity in patients failing TNF inhibitor therapy. Results with the majority of these agents suggest that their administration may provide a greater proportion of patients with an effective, evidence-based disease-modifying approach earlier in the course of their disease than switching TNF inhibitors.

Influence of Polymorphism −308 G/A of the Tnf-α Gene on High Mobility Group Box-1 Protein in Rheumatoid and Spondylo-Arthritis Patients

Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the human Tumor Necrosis Factor-α(TNF-α) gene promoter, the −308 G/A variant, has been associated with increased TNF-α levels that may amplify the severity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a poor responsiveness to TNF-α blockade therapy. High mobility group box protein (HMGB-1) is a pro-inflammatory cytokine that plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of RA and may be an original target of therapy. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the −308 G/A variant of the TNF-α gene is associated with altered expression of HMBG-1. A total of 110 consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis and spondylo-arthritis (ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and spondylitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease) referring to the Rheumatology Unit of Messina University Hospital were enrolled. Patients were genotyped for the −308 TNF-α gene promoter polymorphism. Clinical status was also assessed. HMGB-1 and TNF-α mRNA(Real Time PCR) from total blood and plasmatic HMGB-1 (Western Blot analysis) and TNF-α (ELISA) protein were also evaluated. Irrespective of the underlying disease, patients carrying the G/A genotype showed enhanced HMGB-1 and TNF-α mRNA levels and increased circulating concentration of the inflammatory cytokines when compared to patients with G/G genotype. The data suggest that subjects carrying the TNF-α −308G/A genotype have enhanced expression of HMGB-1 protein that may explain, at least in part, the increased severity of the disease.

My treatment approach to rheumatoid arthritis

The past decade has brought important advances in the understanding of rheumatoid arthritis and its management and treatment. New classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, better definitions of treatment outcome and remission, and the introduction of biologic response-modifying drugs designed to inhibit the inflammatory process have greatly altered the approach to managing this disease. More aggressive management of rheumatoid arthritis early after diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease has resulted in improvement in patient functioning and quality of life, reduction in comorbid conditions, and enhanced survival.

IgG4 production against adalimumab during long term treatment of RA patients

PURPOSE

A substantial part of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients is chronically treated with adalimumab. Some of these patients produce antibodies against adalimumab, which correlate with lower serum drug levels and reduced clinical response. Long term exposure to antigens may result in antigen specific IgG4 production as was demonstrated in studies on prolonged exposure to antigens such as different allergens, Factor VIII and IFN-β. Here, we investigate whether long term treatment of RA patients with the therapeutic monoclonal antibody adalimumab leads to the production of specific IgG4 antibodies.

METHODS

We developed radio immunoassays to detect total IgG or IgG4 against adalimumab and applied these in a cohort of 271 consecutive RA patients during 3 years of adalimumab treatment.

RESULTS

In 32 % of the 271 patients antibodies against adalimumab were detectable. IgG4 antibodies were detected in 29 % of the patients. The proportion IgG4 of total IgG against adalimumab varies widely between patients, and IgG4 was found to contribute significantly to the anti drug antibody (ADA) response in some patients.

CONCLUSION

In the immune response against adalimumab in adalimumab-treated RA patients a considerable part of the ADA is IgG4. Although IgG4 is often considered to be harmless due to its lack of effector function, neutralization of adalimumab by IgG4 antibodies will lead to a reduced clinical response.

Anti-TNF therapy

There are now five anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs licenced for use in rheumatoid arthritis. This chapter examines the similarities and differences between the drugs and looks for clues with regard to their rational prescribing. The major difference is between the monoclonal antibody-based drugs and the soluble receptor etanercept. Etanercept exhibits the best drug survival and is also associated with a lower risk of opportunistic infections, particularly tuberculosis. Immunogenicity should explain some of the differences between the different drugs but the lack of standardised assays has hindered this area of research. The optimal approach to the patient who has failed their first anti-TNF remains unclear and awaits appropriate clinical trials. The safety profile of anti-TNFs has become clearer, largely through registry data. There is a small increase in serious and opportunistic infections but there does not appear to be a heightened cancer risk, and cardiovascular risk is probably reduced.

The efficacy and safety of infliximab in patients with plaque psoriasis who had an inadequate response to etanercept: results of a prospective, multicenter, open-label study

BACKGROUND

In patients with psoriasis and inadequate response (IR) to tumor necrosis factor-α antagonist treatment, the incremental benefit of switching to another tumor necrosis factor-α antagonist is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the clinical response to an etanercept-to-infliximab switch in patients with psoriasis and IR to etanercept.

METHODS

Adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and IR to etanercept (≥ 4 months) were eligible for this open-label study (called PSUNRISE). Patients had a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of at least 2 (mild) on a 5-point scale with etanercept, with or without concomitant oral systemic methotrexate or cyclosporine at baseline and during the study. Patients received intravenous infusions of infliximab 5 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, 14, and 22. PGA was used to evaluate efficacy at week 10 (primary end point) and week 26 (durability). Safety was evaluated through the end of the study.

RESULTS

Of 215 patients, only 10 received concomitant immunomodulators. At week 10, 65.4% of patients (138 of 211; 95% confidence interval 58.6%-71.8%) achieved a PGA score of clear (0) or minimal (1) (primary end point). This response was durable through week 26, at which time 61.3% (122 of 199; 95% confidence interval 54.2%-68.1%) achieved a PGA score of clear (0) or minimal (1). There were no unexpected side effects or safety concerns.

LIMITATIONS

This was an open-label, 26-week study; an incremental change of 1 PGA point, even mild to minimal, was considered clinically significant, as most psoriasis practitioners seek to achieve minimal psoriasis or clear skin.

CONCLUSION

After switching to infliximab, a substantial proportion of patients with psoriasis and IR to etanercept experienced rapid and durable improvement.

Outcomes of switching anti-TNF drugs in rheumatoid arthritis--a study based on observational data from the Finnish Register of Biological Treatment (ROB-FIN)

The aim of this study was to assess, based on observational data from the Finnish Register of Biological Treatment, the outcomes of switching an initial tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker to another in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). RA patients, who started biological therapy with a TNF blocker between May 1999 and April 2009 and who switched to another TNF blocker, were studied (n=479). The outcomes were assessed according to the reason for and type of the switch. Outcome assessments included American College of Rheumatology 50 responder index (ACR50) response at 3 months after the switch, treatment duration of the second TNF blocker, and swollen joint counts, CRP and DAS28 score at the 3 months, best and last observations of the first and second TNF blocker, respectively. In those who switched due to lack of effectiveness (LOE), the disease activity parameters fell significantly from baseline upon use of infliximab or adalimumab, but had increased prior to the switch. Switching to another TNF blocker (etanercept or adalimumab) restored the response initially achieved with the first TNF blocker. The disease activity parameters fell significantly from baseline upon use of etanercept, and were maintained but not further improved after switching to adalimumab. TNF blocker switching seemed to be most beneficial in secondary LOE (defined as loss of ACR50 response). In those who switched due to adverse events (AE) or other reasons, a similar degree of response as had been achieved with the first agent was also achieved and maintained with the second agent. The results suggest that a second TNF blocker can restore the response in cases of secondary LOE and maintain it after switching due to an AE.