Efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo in ATTEST: a phase III, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate

Abatacept and the risk of malignancy: a meta-analysis across disease indications

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the association between abatacept use and the incidence of malignancy excluding non-melanomatous skin cancers (NMSCs).

METHODS

Systematic database searches were performed, to April 2024, to identify phase II/III/IV randomized clinical trials (RCTs), long-term extension (LTE) and observational cohort studies of abatacept in people with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Network and pairwise meta-analyses were performed to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for malignancy excluding NMSC, comparing abatacept with placebo and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in RCT/LTE studies. Pairwise meta-analyses evaluated the same outcome in observational studies, comparing abatacept with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and biologic/targeted synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs).

RESULTS

In 18 eligible RCTs and 10 LTE studies, there were 15 535 person-years of exposure to abatacept, 1495 to placebo and 733 to TNFi. In network meta-analyses of combined RCT/LTE data, the incidence of all malignancies excluding NMSCs was not significantly different between abatacept and placebo (IRR 0.58; 95% CI 0.32-1.09) or TNFi (IRR 0.72; 95% 0.27-1.87). In observational data, the incidence of malignancy was higher with abatacept, relative to other b/tsDMARDs (IRR 1.21; 95% CI 1.15-1.28), but not significantly different compared with csDMARDs (IRR 0.97; 95% CI 0.90-1.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Abatacept was associated with a higher incidence of malignancy compared with other b/tsDMARDs in observational studies, but not when compared with placebo or TNFi in RCT/LTE data. Further pharmacovigilance data is essential to help elucidate whether abatacept modifies cancer risk.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023382314.

Thyroid eye disease in the biologic era: a 40-year paradigm shift in nonsurgical therapeutic strategies

BACKGROUND

Over the last four decades, there has been a progressive increase in the number of publications and citations on research related to thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO) nonsurgical treatment across many countries/regions, institutions, and authors, with a special focus on biological immunotherapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Examing 1600 publications collected from the Web of Science Core Collection database on TAO research from 1983 to 2023, our bibliometric analysis evaluated various bibliometric indicators, among which some important subtopics were identified and further discussed and reviewed.

RESULTS

The study showed that novel insights into the pathogenesis of TAO and new immunological targets for nonsurgical treatments were the major research focus over the past 40 years. Especially, targeted biological immunotherapies were on the rise, promoting treatments efficacy and patients' quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provided a thorough overview and visual presentation of the evolutionary landscape and emerging frontiers for nonsurgical treatment of TAO surrounding its immunological mechanism and therapeutic strategy. It also shed light on its global collaboration patterns, current trends and research hotspots, hopefully to facilitate collaborative initiatives and guiding future research.

Pulmonary Complications of Biological Therapies in Inflammatory and Autoimmune Diseases

Infective and noninfective pulmonary complications occur with biologic agents and targeted small molecule inhibitors used to treat immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. The most common lower respiratory tract infection is bacterial pneumonia. Opportunistic infections including tuberculosis can also occur at increased rates depending on the immunosuppressive agent, specific disease, and epidemiologic background of the patient. The most common noninfectious sequela is drug-induced interstitial lung disease.

Factors contributing to the improvement in Japanese Health Assessment Questionnaire after 3 years of treatment with abatacept in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis patients: Interim results of a long-term, observational, multicentre study in Japan (ORIGAMI)

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the long-term effectiveness, safety, and factors affecting Japanese Health Assessment Questionnaire (J-HAQ) improvement during abatacept treatment in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

The Orencia® Registry in Geographically Assembled Multicenter Investigation (ORIGAMI) study is an ongoing observational study of biologic-naïve RA patients with moderate disease activity treated with subcutaneous abatacept (125 mg, once weekly). Patients treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) were extracted from the Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis (IORRA) registry as a historical, weighted control group. The primary end point for this interim analysis was the proportion of patients with J-HAQ remission (score ≤0.5) at 3 years.

RESULTS

Among 279 abatacept-treated and 220 csDMARD-treated patients, J-HAQ remission was achieved at 3 years in 40.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 34.7-46.2%] and 28.9% (95% CI 9.9-47.8%), respectively. Age, RA duration <1 year, baseline J-HAQ score, and Simplified Disease Activity Index remission at 6 months were associated with 3-year J-HAQ remission in the abatacept group. Overall, 24/298 patients (8.1%; safety analysis set) experienced serious adverse drug reactions with an incidence of 5.3 per 100 person-years.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirmed the 3-year effectiveness and safety and revealed potential factors associated with J-HAQ remission in biologic-naïve RA patients treated with abatacept in real-world clinical practice.

Real-world clinical outcomes and rationale for initiating abatacept as a first-line biologic for patients with anticitrullinated protein antibody- and rheumatoid factor-positive rheumatoid arthritis

Aim: In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), seropositivity for both anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF) is associated with disease severity and therapeutic response. Biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as abatacept are recommended after inadequate response or contraindication to conventional synthetic DMARDs. This retrospective cohort study aimed to describe changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) measures over 12 months among patients with ACPA+ and RF+ RA with an inadequate response to methotrexate treated with abatacept as a first-line bDMARD. Patients & methods: Patient data were abstracted from medical records by treating rheumatologists. Analyses included McNemar tests for paired proportions or paired t-tests to assess longitudinal changes in CDAI scores, and Kaplan-Meier methods for time-to-event outcomes. Serious AEs and rationale for initiating treatment were recorded. Results: Overall, 296 patients were included. Mean CDAI scores improved (decreased) by 34.0, 61.0 and 74.0% (all p < 0.001) from baseline to 3-6 months, 6-12 months and ≥12 months after abatacept initiation, respectively. Of 279 patients not in CDAI low disease activity (LDA) or remission at baseline, 24.7% of patients achieved it within 6 months, 56.3% within 12 months and 71.0% at any point during follow-up after abatacept initiation. Median time to CDAI LDA/remission was 10.2 months. Serious AEs were reported in 2.4% of patients. Common reasons reported by rheumatologists for initiating abatacept were effectiveness/efficacy (52.7%), safety (31.4%) and patient preference (25.3%). Conclusion: In this analysis of patients with ACPA+ and RF+ RA treated with abatacept as a first-line bDMARD in a clinical practice setting, clinical outcomes and remission rates were improved at all time points, providing real-world evidence to further support the use of abatacept in this patient population.

Risk of tuberculosis disease in patients receiving TNF-α antagonist therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) risk associated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) antagonist therapy in patients with autoimmune diseases is a significant concern. This study aims to evaluate the risk of TB disease associated with TNF-α antagonist therapy.

Methods

An extensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane CENTRAL databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing TB disease risk in patients receiving TNF-α antagonist therapy available until November 1, 2024. The pooled statistic used was the weighted odds ratio (OR) and a corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI). Statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3.0 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA).

Results

Fifty-six RCTs, totaling 22,212 adult patients, met the specified eligibility criteria. Pooled analysis revealed an increased risk of TB disease associated with TNF-α antagonist therapy (OR 1.52, 95 % CI 1.03-2.26, p = 0.03). Subgroup analyses indicated a higher risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (OR 2.25, 95 % CI 1.13-4.45, p = 0.02), while no significant associations were found in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or psoriasis (Ps). Analyses by specific TNF-α antagonist drugs did not yield significant associations with risk of TB disease.

Conclusion

Our study highlights an increased risk of TB disease associated with TNF-α antagonist therapy, particularly in patients with RA. However, the absence of significant associations in AS or Ps patients suggests disease-specific variations in risk of TB disease. Further research is needed to elucidate the long-term safety profile of TNF-α antagonist drugs and their associations with risk of TB disease in different patient populations.

Preferable effect of CTLA4-Ig on both bone erosion and bone microarchitecture in rheumatoid arthritis revealed by HR-pQCT

This exploratory study aimed to examine the impact of abatacept treatment on bone structure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT). RA patients initiating either abatacept or newly introduced csDMARDs were enrolled in this prospective, non-randomized, two-group study. Bone structure in the 2nd and 3rd metacarpal heads was assessed using HR-pQCT at 0, 6, and 12 months after enrollment. Synovitis was evaluated using musculoskeletal ultrasound and MRI. The adjusted mean between-group differences (abatacept-csDMARDs group) were estimated using a mixed-effect model. Thirty-five patients (abatacept group: n = 15; csDMARDs group: n = 20) were analyzed. Changes in erosion volume, depth and width were numerically smaller in the abatacept group compared to the csDMARDs group (adjusted mean between-group differences: - 1.86 mm3, - 0.02 mm, and - 0.09 mm, respectively). Over a 12-month period, 5 erosions emerged in the csDMARDs group, while only 1 erosion appeared in the abatacept group. Compared to csDMARDs, abatacept better preserved bone microarchitecture; several components of bone microarchitecture were significantly worsened at 6 months in the csDMARDs group, but were not deteriorated at 6 months in the abatacept group. Changes in synovitis scores were similar between the two treatment groups. Our results indicate that abatacept prevented the progression of bone erosion including new occurrence, and also prevented worsening of bone strength independently with synovitis compared to csDMARDs including MTX. Thus, abatacept treatment may provide benefits not only in inhibiting the progress of bone erosion but also in preventing bone microarchitectural deterioration.

Comparison of treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis patients with biological agents and JAK-STAT inhibitors. An extension study

Introduction

This study compared treatment with biologic agents and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a real-world setting at a large center in Poland. There is a persistent shortage of such studies, and illustrating the switching of medications in search of a suitable way of treatment for a given patient is a crucial step towards future personalized therapy.

Aim of the study

This study is an extension of the initial work published in 2022 in Reumatologia, with the addition of an analysis of patients treated with upadacitinib. The study compared the effectiveness and side effects after treatment of biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) in combination with MTX.

Materials and methods

A total of 130 patients with active severe RA (Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28(ESR)] value > 5.1) were treated at the Rheumatologic Outpatients Department of the Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, Warsaw, Poland between January 2010 and September 2021. All patients were treated with MTX 25 mg per week. They were divided into two groups: group I (80 patients) treated with biologic agents, and group II (50 patients) treated with JAKi. Assessment of DAS28(ESR) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and analysis of Boolean criteria for remission were performed. Remission or low disease activity, switching between drugs and adverse events were assessed and compared between studied groups.

Results

Patients treated with tsDMARDs had previously used a higher number of conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and bDMARDs compared to those treated with bDMARDs. However, they achieved lower SDAI and assessment of disease activity using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) values, and a higher proportion of patients achieved Boolean criteria for remission after treatment.

Conclusions

The results of treatment with JAKi were successful, but the potential side effects indicate that this treatment may not be equally suitable for all RA patients.

Clinical effectiveness of baricitinib and abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

AIM

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of baricitinib and abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This study included 274 patients treated with abatacept and 241 treated with baricitinib who were followed for >52 weeks. Potential treatment selection bias was addressed by using inverse probability of treatment weighting. The paired t-test was used to assess differences in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score relative to baseline. A generalized estimating equation was used to compare the two treatment groups.

RESULTS

The estimated mean CDAI score was 18.2 at baseline and significantly decreased to 12.6 at 4 weeks, 8.9 at 12 weeks, 7.4 at 24 weeks, and 6.1 at 52 weeks in the abatacept group. The estimated mean CDAI score was 18.6 at baseline and significantly decreased to 9.5 at 4 weeks, 6.5 at 12 weeks, 5.7 at 24 weeks, and 5.5 at 52 weeks in the baricitinib group. The baricitinib group had significantly lower CDAI scores at 4, 12, and 24 weeks compared to the abatacept group. Subgroup analyses revealed that this difference was evident among patients with high disease activity and without concomitant use of methotrexate but was less pronounced among those with remission to moderate disease activity status with methotrexate use.

CONCLUSION

Both baricitinib and abatacept were effective in reducing disease activity in patients with RA. Baricitinib demonstrated potential advantages over abatacept in terms of early disease control, particularly in patients with high disease activity and without methotrexate use.

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug selection in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologics or JAK inhibitors without methotrexate: A retrospective hospital-based administrative claims database study

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the medication selection and clinical characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis patients who started treatment with/without methotrexate (MTX) (using biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or Janus kinase inhibitors instead) in Japan.

METHODS

Using a Japanese hospital-based administrative claims database, rheumatoid arthritis patients who received treatment [abatacept (ABA), interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, or Janus kinase inhibitor] between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019 were enrolled.

RESULTS

Overall, 19,301 patients were included (10,530 receiving MTX; 8771 not receiving MTX within 60 days of the first treatment). Mean ages at diagnosis were 60.7 and 65.9 years in the MTX and non-MTX groups, respectively (P < .0001). The non-MTX group had higher proportions of patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥1 (P < .0001) and higher comorbidity rates. ABA was the most frequently used drug among patients with infectious/parasitic, circulatory, and respiratory diseases at baseline. Interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor had the highest use rate among patients with neoplasms; blood, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary diseases; and abnormal clinical/laboratory findings. ABA had the highest persistence probability from 6 months onward.

CONCLUSIONS

MTX is used less frequently among older Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients or those with comorbidities. In such patients, ABA is the most frequently used drug, followed by interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, when MTX is not used at treatment start.

Non-TNF biologics and their biosimilars in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease that affects both the articular and extra-articular structures, leading to significant joint damage, disability and excess mortality. The treatment algorithm of RA has changed tremendously in the past 1-2 decades because of the emergence of novel biological therapies that target different mechanisms of action in addition to TNFα.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the evidence and safety of the non-TNF biological DMARDs in the treatment of RA, including those that target B cells, T-cell co-stimulation, interleukin (IL)-6 and granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). The targeted synthetic DMARDs such as the Janus kinase inhibitors are not included. The availability of the less costly biosimilars has enabled more patients to receive biological therapy earlier in the course of the disease. The evidence for the non-TNF biosimilar compounds in RA is also reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

There are unmet needs of developing novel therapeutic agents to enhance the response rate and provide more options for difficult-to-treat RA. These include the newer generation biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs. A personalized treatment strategy in RA requires evaluation of the cellular, cytokine, genomic and transcriptomic profile that would predict treatment response to biologic or targeted DMARDs of different mechanisms of action.

A Phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single- and multiple-dose escalation study to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of PF-06835375, a C-X-C chemokine receptor type 5 directed antibody, in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of PF‑06835375, a potent selective afucosyl immunoglobulin G1 antibody targeting C-X-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CXCR5) that potentially depletes B cells, follicular T helper (Tfh) cells, and circulating Tfh-like (cTfh) cells, in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This first-in-human, multicenter, double-blind, sponsor-open, placebo-controlled Phase 1 study recruited patients aged 18-70 years with SLE or RA. In Part A, patients received single doses of intravenous PF-06835375 (dose range: 0.03-6 mg) or placebo in six sequential single ascending dose (SAD) cohorts. In Part B, patients received repeat doses of subcutaneous PF-06835375 (dose range: 0.3-10 mg) or placebo on Days 1 and 29 in five multiple ascending dose (MAD) cohorts. Tetanus/Diphtheria (Td) and Meningococcal B (MenB/Trumenba™) vaccines were administered at Day 4 (Td and MenB) and Week 8 (MenB only) to assess PF-06835375 functional effects. Endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), pharmacokinetic parameters, pharmacodynamic effects on B and cTfh cells, and biomarker counts, vaccine response, and exploratory differential gene expression analysis. Safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic endpoints are summarized descriptively. The change from baseline of B and Tfh cell-specific genes over time was calculated using a prespecified mixed-effects model, with a false discovery rate < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

In total, 73 patients were treated (SAD cohorts: SLE, n = 17; RA, n = 14; MAD cohorts: SLE, n = 22; RA, n = 20). Mean age was 53.3 years. Sixty-two (84.9%) patients experienced TEAEs (placebo n = 17; PF-06835375 n = 45); most were mild or moderate. Three (9.7%) patients experienced serious adverse events. Mean t1/2 ranged from 3.4-121.4 h (SAD cohorts) and 162.0-234.0 h (MAD cohorts, Day 29). B and cTfh cell counts generally showed dose-dependent reductions across cohorts (range of mean maximum depletion: 67.3-99.3%/62.4-98.7% [SAD] and 91.1-99.6%/89.5-98.1% [MAD], respectively). B cell-related genes and pathways were significantly downregulated in patients treated with PF-06835375.

CONCLUSIONS

These data support further development of PF-06835375 to assess the clinical potential for B and Tfh cell depletion as a treatment for autoimmune diseases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03334851.

The complex relationship between large granular lymphocyte leukemia and rheumatic disease

INTRODUCTION

Large granular lymphocytic (LGL) leukemia is a rare lymphoproliferative disorder characterized by an expansion of clonal T or NK lymphocytes. Neutropenia-related infections represent the main clinical manifestation. Even if the disease follows an indolent course, most patients will ultimately need treatment in their lifetime. Interestingly, LGL leukemia is characterized by a high frequency of autoimmune disorders with rheumatoid arthritis being the most frequent.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the pathophysiology, clinic-biological features and the advances made in the treatment of LGL leukemia. A special focus will be made on the similarities in the pathophysiology of LGL leukemia and the frequently associated rheumatic disorders.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent advances in the phenotypic and molecular characterization of LGL clones have uncovered the key role of JAK-STAT signaling in the pathophysiology linking leukemic cells expansion and autoimmunity. The description of the molecular landscape of T- and NK-LGL leukemia and the improved understanding of the associated rheumatic disorders open the way to the development of new targeted therapies effective on both conditions.

Infection outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Results from a 10-year international post-marketing study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate risk of infections requiring hospitalization and opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept versus conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARDs.

METHODS

Five international observational data sources were used: two biologic registries (Sweden, Germany), a disease registry (USA) and two healthcare claims databases (Canada, USA). Crude incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 patient-years, with 95 % CIs, were used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) comparing abatacept versus csDMARDs or other b/tsDMARDs. RRs were adjusted for demographic factors, comorbidities, and other potential confounders and then pooled across data sources using a random effects model (REM).

RESULTS

The data sources included 6450 abatacept users, 136,636 csDMARD users and 54,378 other b/tsDMARD users, with a mean follow-up range of 2.2-6.2 years. Across data sources, the IRs for infections requiring hospitalization ranged from 16 to 56 for abatacept, 19-46 for csDMARDs, and 18-40 for other b/tsDMARDs. IRs for opportunistic infections were 0.4-7.8, 0.3-4.3, and 0.5-3.8; IRs for tuberculosis were 0.0-8.4, 0.0-6.0, and 0.0-6.3, respectively. The pooled adjusted RR (95 % CI), only reported for infections requiring hospitalization, was 1.2 (0.6-2.2) for abatacept versus csDMARDs and 0.9 (0.6-1.3) versus other b/tsDMARDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this international, observational study showed similar hospitalized infection risk for abatacept versus csDMARDs or other b/tsDMARDs. IRs for opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, were low. These data are consistent with the known safety profile of abatacept.

Malignancy outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Results from a 10-year international post-marketing study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of malignancy (overall, breast, lung, and lymphoma) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and other biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs in clinical practice.

METHODS

Four international observational data sources were included: ARTIS (Sweden), RABBIT (Germany), FORWARD (USA), and BC (Canada). Crude incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 patient-years of exposure with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a malignancy event were calculated; rate ratios (RRs) were estimated and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and other potential confounders. RRs were then pooled in a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Across data sources, mean follow-up for patients treated with abatacept (n = 5182), csDMARDs (n = 73,755), and other b/tsDMARDs (n = 37,195) was 3.0-3.7, 2.9-6.2, and 3.1-4.7 years, respectively. IRs per 1000 patient-years for overall malignancy ranged from 7.6-11.4 (abatacept), 8.6-13.2 (csDMARDs), and 5.0-11.8 (other b/tsDMARDs). IRs ranged from: 0-4.4, 0-3.3, and 0-2.5 (breast cancer); 0.1-2.8, 0-3.7, and 0.2-2.9 (lung cancer); and 0-1.1, 0-0.9, and 0-0.6 (lymphoma), respectively, for the three treatment groups. The numbers of individual cancers (breast, lung, and lymphoma) in some registries were low; RRs were not available. There were a few cases of lymphoma in some of the registries; ARTIS observed an RR of 2.8 (95% CI 1.1-6.8) with abatacept versus csDMARDs. The pooled RRs (95% CIs) for overall malignancy with abatacept were 1.1 (0.8-1.5) versus csDMARDs and 1.0 (0.8-1.3) versus b/tsDMARDs.

CONCLUSIONS

This international, post-marketing observational safety study did not find any statistically significant increase in the risk of overall malignancies in pooled data in patients treated with abatacept compared with csDMARDs or with other b/tsDMARDs. Assessment of larger populations is needed to further evaluate the risks for individual cancers, especially lymphoma.

Abatacept and non-melanoma skin cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive evaluation of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk associated with abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This evaluation included 16 abatacept RA clinical trials and 6 observational studies. NMSC incidence rates (IRs)/1000 patient-years (p-y) of exposure were compared between patients treated with abatacept versus placebo, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biological/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs. For observational studies, a random-effects model was used to pool rate ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

~49 000 patients receiving abatacept were analysed from clinical trials (~7000) and observational studies (~42 000). In randomised trials (n=4138; median abatacept exposure, 12 (range 2-30) months), NMSC IRs (95% CIs) were not significantly different for abatacept (6.0 (3.3 to 10.0)) and placebo (4.0 (1.3 to 9.3)) and remained stable throughout the long-term, open-label period (median cumulative exposure, 28 (range 2-130 months); 21 335 p-y of exposure (7044 patients over 3 years)). For registry databases, NMSC IRs/1000 p-y were 5-12 (abatacept), 1.6-10 (csDMARDs) and 3-8 (other b/tsDMARDs). Claims database IRs were 19-22 (abatacept), 15-18 (csDMARDs) and 14-17 (other b/tsDMARDs). Pooled RRs (95% CIs) from observational studies for NMSC in patients receiving abatacept were 1.84 (1.00 to 3.37) vs csDMARDs and 1.11 (0.98 to 1.26) vs other b/tsDMARDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with the warnings and precautions of the abatacept label, this analysis suggests a potential increase in NMSC risk with abatacept use compared with csDMARDs. No significant increase was observed compared with b/tsDMARDs, but the lower limit of the 95% CI was close to unity.

Management and treatment outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis in the era of biologic and targeted synthetic therapies: evaluation of 10-year data from the KURAMA cohort

BACKGROUND

Advances in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, highlighted by biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), have altered the paradigm of RA treatment in the last decade. Therefore, real-world clinical evidence is needed to understand how treatment strategies and outcomes have changed.

METHODS

Using an observational cohort of RA from 2012 to 2021, we collected cross-sectional data of RA patients annually to analyze a trend in RA management. For patients who initiated b/tsDMRDs, we evaluated treatment outcomes between b/tsDMARDs. Mixed-effect models were applied to examine the statistical implications of changes over time in treatment outcomes with a background adjustment.

RESULTS

We analyzed annual cross-sectional data from 5070 patients and longitudinal data from 1816 patients in whom b/tsDMARDs were initiated between 2012 and 2021. b/tsDMARD use increased, whereas glucocorticoid use decreased from 2012 to 2021. Disease activity and functional disability measures improved over time. The percentage of tsDMARD prescriptions considerably increased. All b/tsDMARDs showed clinical improvements in disease activity and functional disability. Statistically, TNFi showed better short-term improvements in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, while IL6Ri demonstrated significant long-term benefits. IL6Ri had better retention rates in switched patients. After adjustment for patient characteristics, the annual change of RA disease activity and functional disability fared significantly better from 2012 to 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

With the development of new RA therapeutics, overall treatment outcomes advanced in the past decade.

Certolizumab pegol, abatacept, tocilizumab or active conventional treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis: 48-week clinical and radiographic results of the investigator-initiated randomised controlled NORD-STAR trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal first-line treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is debated. We compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of active conventional therapy with each of three biological treatments with different modes of action.

METHODS

Investigator-initiated, randomised, blinded-assessor study. Patients with treatment-naïve early RA with moderate-severe disease activity were randomised 1:1:1:1 to methotrexate combined with (1) active conventional therapy: oral prednisolone (tapered quickly, discontinued at week 36) or sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints; (2) certolizumab pegol; (3) abatacept or (4) tocilizumab. Coprimary endpoints were week 48 Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission (CDAI ≤2.8) and change in radiographic van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score, estimated using logistic regression and analysis of covariance, adjusted for sex, anticitrullinated protein antibody status and country. Bonferroni's and Dunnet's procedures adjusted for multiple testing (significance level: 0.025).

RESULTS

Eight hundred and twelve patients were randomised. Adjusted CDAI remission rates at week 48 were: 59.3% (abatacept), 52.3% (certolizumab), 51.9% (tocilizumab) and 39.2% (active conventional therapy). Compared with active conventional therapy, CDAI remission rates were significantly higher for abatacept (adjusted difference +20.1%, p<0.001) and certolizumab (+13.1%, p=0.021), but not for tocilizumab (+12.7%, p=0.030). Key secondary clinical outcomes were consistently better in biological groups. Radiographic progression was low, without group differences.The proportions of patients with serious adverse events were abatacept, 8.3%; certolizumab, 12.4%; tocilizumab, 9.2%; and active conventional therapy, 10.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with active conventional therapy, clinical remission rates were superior for abatacept and certolizumab pegol, but not for tocilizumab. Radiographic progression was low and similar between treatments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01491815.

Cost-utility analysis of tapering strategies of biologicals in rheumatoid arthritis patients in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines recommend tapering biological disease-modifying antirheumatoid drugs (bDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) if the disease is under control. However, guidelines on tapering are lacking. Assessing cost-effectiveness of different tapering strategies might provide broader input for creating guidelines on how to taper bDMARDs in patients with RA. The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective of bDMARD tapering strategies in Dutch patients with RA, namely 50% dose reduction (tapering), discontinuation and a 50% dose reduction followed by discontinuation (de-escalation).

METHODS

Using a societal perspective, a Markov model with a life-time horizon of 30 years was used to simulate 3-monthly transitions between Disease Activity 28 (DAS28)-defined health states of remission (<2.6), low disease activity (2.63.2). Transition probabilities were estimated through literature search and random effects pooling. Incremental costs, incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net monetary benefits for each tapering strategy were compared with continuation. Deterministic, probabilistic sensitivity analyses and multiple scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

After 30 years, the ICERs were €115 157/QALY lost, €74 226/QALY lost and €67 137/QALY lost for tapering, de-escalation and discontinuation, respectively; mainly driven by bDMARD cost savings and a 72.8% probability of a loss in quality of life. This corresponds to a 76.1%, 64.3% and 60.1% probability of tapering, de-escalation and discontinuation being cost-effective, provided a willingness-to-accept threshold of €50 000/QALY lost.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these analyses, the 50% tapering approach saved the highest cost per QALY lost.

Effectiveness of a treat-to-target strategy in patients with moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept

BACKGROUND

To compare a treat-to-target (T2T) approach and routine care (RC) in adults with active to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating subcutaneous abatacept.

METHODS

A 12-month cluster-randomized trial in active RA patients treated with abatacept was conducted. Physicians were randomized to RC or T2T with a primary endpoint of achieving sustained Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) at two consecutive assessments approximately 3 months apart. Additional outcomes included Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Disease Activity Score 28-CRP (DAS28-CRP), Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Time to achieve therapeutic endpoints was assessed with survival analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 284 enrolled patients, 130 were in the T2T group and 154 in RC. Primary endpoint was achieved by 36.9% and 40.3% of patients in T2T and RC groups, respectively. No significant between-group differences were observed in the odds of achieving secondary outcomes, except for a higher likelihood of CDAI LDA in the T2T group vs. RC (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.33 [1.03-1.71], p = 0.0263). Compared with RC, patients in the T2T group achieved SDAI remission significantly faster (Kaplan-Meier-estimated mean [standard error]: 14.0 [0.6] vs. 19.3 [0.8] months, p = 0.0428) with a trend toward faster achievement of CDAI LDA/remission, DAS28-CRP remission, and HAQ-DI minimum clinically important difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients managed per T2T and those under RC experienced significant improvements in RA disease activity at 12 months of abatacept treatment. T2T was associated with higher odds of CDAI LDA and a shorter time to achieving therapeutic endpoints.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of the registry: ClinicalTrials.gov.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

NCT03274141 . Date of registration: September 6, 2017.

Safety outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept: results from a multinational surveillance study across seven European registries

BACKGROUND

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk of infection and malignancy compared with the general population. Infection risk is increased further with the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), whereas evidence on whether the use of biologic DMARDs increases cancer risk remains equivocal. This single-arm, post-marketing study estimated the incidence of prespecified infection and malignancy outcomes in patients with RA treated with intravenous or subcutaneous abatacept.

METHODS

Data were included from seven European RA quality registries: ATTRA (Anti-TNF Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis [Czech Republic]), DANBIO (Danish Rheumatologic Database), ROB-FIN (National Registry of Antirheumatic and Biological Treatment in Finland), ORA (Orencia and Rheumatoid Arthritis [France]), GISEA (Italian Group for the Study of Early Arthritis), BIOBADASER (Spanish Register of Adverse Events of Biological Therapies in Rheumatic Diseases), and the SCQM (Swiss Clinical Quality Management) system. Each registry is unique with respect to design, data collection, definition of the study cohort, reporting, and validation of outcomes. In general, registries defined the index date as the first day of abatacept treatment and reported data for infections requiring hospitalization and overall malignancies; data for other infection and malignancy outcomes were not available for every cohort. Abatacept exposure was measured in patient-years (p-y). Incidence rates (IRs) were calculated as the number of events per 1000 p-y of follow-up with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Over 5000 patients with RA treated with abatacept were included. Most patients (78-85%) were female, and the mean age range was 52-58 years. Baseline characteristics were largely consistent across registries. Among patients treated with abatacept, IRs for infections requiring hospitalization across the registries ranged from 4 to 100 events per 1000 p-y, while IRs for overall malignancy ranged from 3 to 19 per 1000 p-y.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite heterogeneity between registries in terms of design, data collection, and ascertainment of safety outcomes, as well as the possibility of under-reporting of adverse events in observational studies, the safety profile of abatacept reported here was largely consistent with previous findings in patients with RA treated with abatacept, with no new or increased risks of infection or malignancy.

The Proportion of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Achieving ACR20/50/70; Consistent Patterns of a 60/40/20 as Demonstrated by a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to demonstrate that the proportion of rheumatoid arthritis patients achieving 20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR20/50/70) responses to Food and Drug Administration-approved biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) after an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) and after failure of the first bDMARDs followed a consistent pattern.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with MECIR (Methodological Expectations for Cochrane Intervention Reviews) standards. Two separate groups of randomized controlled trials were included: the first group included studies with biologic-naive patients who added bDMARD to MTX as intervention arm compared with the placebo plus MTX group. The second group included biologic-irresponsive (IR) patients who used a second bDMARD plus MTX after the first bDMARD failure compared with placebo plus MTX group. Primary outcome was defined as the proportion of rheumatoid arthritis patients achieving ACR20/50/70 responses at 24 ± 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies initiated between 1999 and 2017 were included: 15 studies for the biologic-naive group and 6 studies for the biologic-IR group. For the biologic-naive group, the proportions of patients achieving ACR20/50/70 were 61.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58.7%-64.1%), 37.8% (95% CI, 34.8%-40.8%), and 18.8% (95% CI, 16.1%-21.4%), respectively. For the biologic-IR group, proportions of patients achieving ACR20/50/70 were 48.5% (95% CI, 42.2%-54.8%), 27.3% (95% CI, 21.6%-33.0%), and 12.9% (95% CI, 11.3%-14.8%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

We were able to systematically demonstrate that ACR20/50/70 responses to biologic-naive follow a consistent pattern of 60%, 40%, and 20%, respectively. We also demonstrated that the ACR20/50/70 responses to a biologic IR follow a certain pattern of 50%, 25%, and 12.5%, respectively.

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.

Bayesian network meta-analysis methods for combining individual participant data and aggregate data from single arm trials and randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Increasingly in network meta-analysis (NMA), there is a need to incorporate non-randomised evidence to estimate relative treatment effects, and in particular in cases with limited randomised evidence, sometimes resulting in disconnected networks of treatments. When combining different sources of data, complex NMA methods are required to address issues associated with participant selection bias, incorporating single-arm trials (SATs), and synthesising a mixture of individual participant data (IPD) and aggregate data (AD). We develop NMA methods which synthesise data from SATs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using a mixture of IPD and AD, for a dichotomous outcome.

METHODS

We propose methods under both contrast-based (CB) and arm-based (AB) parametrisations, and extend the methods to allow for both within- and across-trial adjustments for covariate effects. To illustrate the methods, we use an applied example investigating the effectiveness of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We applied the methods to a dataset obtained from a literature review consisting of 14 RCTs and an artificial dataset consisting of IPD from two SATs and AD from 12 RCTs, where the artificial dataset was created by removing the control arms from the only two trials assessing tocilizumab in the original dataset.

RESULTS

Without adjustment for covariates, the CB method with independent baseline response parameters (CBunadjInd) underestimated the effectiveness of tocilizumab when applied to the artificial dataset compared to the original dataset, albeit with significant overlap in posterior distributions for treatment effect parameters. The CB method with exchangeable baseline response parameters produced effectiveness estimates in agreement with CBunadjInd, when the predicted baseline response estimates were similar to the observed baseline response. After adjustment for RA duration, there was a reduction in across-trial heterogeneity in baseline response but little change in treatment effect estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest incorporating SATs in NMA may be useful in some situations where a treatment is disconnected from a network of comparator treatments, due to a lack of comparative evidence, to estimate relative treatment effects. The reliability of effect estimates based on data from SATs may depend on adjustment for covariate effects, although further research is required to understand this in more detail.

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.

Rheumatoid arthritis: current therapeutics compendium

Rheumatoid arthritis is a common chronic inflammatory disease with substantial economic, social, and personal costs. Its pathogenesis is multifactorial and complex. The ultimate goal of rheumatoid arthritis treatment is stopping or slowing down the disease progression. In the past two decades, invention of new medicines, especially biologic agents, revolutionized the management of this disease. These agents have been associated with an improved prognosis and clinical remission, especially in patients who did not respond to traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Improvement in the understanding of the rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis leads to the development of novel biologic therapeutic approaches. In the present paper, we summarized the current therapeutics, especially biologic agents, available for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etanercept 25 mg Maintenance Therapy After Treatment with Etanercept 50 mg for Moderate Rheumatoid Arthritis in the PRESERVE Trial in Japan

OBJECTIVES

To use Markov modeling to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with etanercept 25 mg once weekly plus methotrexate (MTX) in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had achieved remission or low disease activity with etanercept 50 mg once weekly plus MTX.

METHODS

Effectiveness data were estimated based on results from a clinical trial (PRESERVE) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had achieved remission or low disease activity and who were then randomized to receive etanercept 25 mg plus MTX or placebo plus MTX. A Markov model was established and included flare rates of 21% and 62% in the etanercept 25 mg and placebo groups, respectively. EQ-5D was calculated using an ordinary least-squares model that included the health assessment questionnaire disability index and pain visual analog scale. Worsening of the health assessment questionnaire score over 1 year was estimated to be 0.047 for patients with flare, and when associated with radiographic progression it was estimated to increase by 0.006 and 0.025 in the etanercept 25 mg and placebo groups, respectively. A cycle length of 1 year was applied to calculate the cumulative cost and effectiveness for a 10-year time span.

RESULTS

Compared with the placebo group, the quality-adjusted life-years for the etanercept 25 mg group was increased by 0.841. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was ¥6 173 772.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that maintenance treatment with etanercept 25 mg is cost-effective.

Search of official nationwide database in Japan for adverse events associated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapies: focus on therapies in combination with methotrexate

BACKGROUND

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are essential for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy. The adverse events (AEs) evaluation should focus on that methotrexate (MTX) is frequently prescribed in combination with others (combination MTX).

METHODS

A search of the website of the official Japanese Agency for AEs, including lymphoproliferative disease (LPD), cytopenia, interstitial pneumonia, infectious pneumonia other than Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) (i-Pn), and PCP, associated with MTX, tacrolimus, adalimumab, tocilizumab, and abatacept therapies reported from 2014 to 2016 was performed. Number of each AE cases and its ratio to total number of AEs cases were examined. Combination MTX was checked for RA cases.

RESULTS

A total of 8874 cases were listed. In 3955 MTX cases, LPD was most frequent (36.4%). In any of the other four DMARDs cases, i-Pn was most frequent (4.2~15.3%); PCP cases showed most frequent combination MTX (94.4%). In total, including cases reported for MTX therapy, 98.2% of LPD and 97.6% of PCP cases had MTX, and less than 90% of the other AEs cases had MTX.

CONCLUSION

LPD was by far the most frequent AE associated with MTX therapy. PCP was strongly associated with combination MTX. For any of the other four DMARDs, i-Pn was most frequent.

Analytical and clinical validation of an RNA sequencing-based assay for quantitative, accurate evaluation of a molecular signature response classifier in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

This study reports analytical and clinical validation of a molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) that identifies rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who are non-responders to tumor necrosis factor-ɑ inhibitors (TNFi).

METHODS

The MSRC integrates patient-specific data from 19 gene expression features, anti-cyclic citrullinated protein serostatus, sex, body mass index, and patient global assessment into a single score.

RESULTS

The MSRC results stratified samples (N = 174) according to non-response prediction with a positive predictive value of 87.7% (95% CI: 78-94%), sensitivity of 60.2% (95% CI: 50-69%), and specificity of 77.3% (95% CI: 65-87%). The 25-point scale was subdivided into three thresholds: signal not detected (<10.6), high (≥10.6), and very high (≥18.5). The MSRC relies on sequencing of RNA extracted from blood; this assay displays high gene expression concordance between inter- and intra-assay sample (R² > 0.977) and minimal variation in cumulative gene assignment diversity, read mapping location, or gene-body coverage. The MSRC accuracy was 95.8% (46/48) for threshold concordance (no signal, high, very high). Intra- and inter-assay precision studies demonstrated high repeatability (92.6%, 25/27) and reproducibility (100%, 35/35).

CONCLUSION

The MSRC is a robust assay that accurately and reproducibly detects an RA patient's molecular signature of non-response to TNFi therapies.

Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Overview

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a multifactorial autoimmune disease of unknown etiology, primarily affecting the joints, then extra-articular manifestations can occur. Due to its complexity, which is based on an incompletely elucidated pathophysiological mechanism, good RA management requires a multidisciplinary approach. The clinical status of RA patients has improved in recent years due to medical advances in diagnosis and treatment, that have made it possible to reduce disease activity and prevent systemic complications. The most promising results were obtained by developing disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), the class to which conventional synthetic, biologic, and targeted synthetic drugs belong. Furthermore, ongoing drug development has led to obtaining molecules with improved efficacy and safety profiles, but further research is needed until RA turns into a curable pathology. In the present work, we offer a comprehensive perspective on the management of RA, by centralizing the existing data provided by significant literature, emphasizing the importance of an early and accurate diagnosis associated with optimal personalized treatment in order to achieve better outcomes for RA patients. In addition, this study suggests future research perspectives in the treatment of RA that could lead to higher efficacy and safety profiles and lower financial costs.

Effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous abatacept in biologic-naïve RA patients at Week 52: A Japanese multicentre investigational study (ORIGAMI study)

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of abatacept over 52 weeks in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with moderate disease activity in the prospective, 5-year, observational study (ORIGAMI study) in Japan.

METHODS

Abatacept (125 mg) was administered subcutaneously once a week. Clinical outcomes included Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission at Week 52 (primary endpoint), Japanese Health Assessment Questionnaire (J-HAQ), EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D), treatment retention, and safety. The results were compared with those of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) controls from the ongoing Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis (IORRA) registry.

RESULTS

Overall, 325 patients were enrolled, with a mean age of 66.9 ± 12.7 years. The proportion of patients achieving SDAI remission (≤3.3) at Week 52 was 18.9% (95% CI: 14.3-23.6) and low disease activity (≤11) was 53.3% (95% CI: 47.4-59.1). A significant improvement was observed in J-HAQ and EQ-5D over 52 weeks in both the abatacept and csDMARD groups. The probability of abatacept treatment retention at Week 52 was 69.9% (95% CI: 64.7-75.5). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported in 50.0% and 12.1% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Abatacept significantly improved disease activity, physical disability, and quality of life for up to 52 weeks in RA patients in a real-world setting.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of abatacept in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 3-year follow-up of a postmarketing surveillance

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the long-term safety and effectiveness of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis using real-world, Japanese, postmarketing surveillance data, focusing on serious infections and malignancies as priority events.

METHODS

This 3-year, multicentre surveillance registered patients undergoing abatacept treatment by intravenous infusion between July 2011 and October 2012.

RESULTS

The safety and effectiveness analysis sets included 647 and 596 patients, respectively. The total observation period for the safety analysis was 1280 patient-years. Over the 3-year follow-up, the incidence rates of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and serious ADRs were 19.92 per 100 patient-years (22.87% of patients) and 4.06 per 100 patient-years (6.65% of patients), respectively. Infections and infestations were the most common ADRs (14.68%), followed by respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders (3.09%). Incidence rates of serious infections as ADRs and malignancy as adverse events were 1.95 and 1.02 per 100 patient-years, respectively. Retention rates at 1 and 3 years were 67.4% and 43.9%, respectively. Significant decreases from baseline were observed in Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate and DAS28-C-reactive protein, as well as Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and modified HAQ scores.

CONCLUSIONS

No new safety signals were detected during the 3-year observation period and effectiveness was maintained over time.

Impact of the HLA-DRB1 shared epitope on responses to treatment with tofacitinib or abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of tofacitinib and abatacept and clarify the impact of the HLA-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) on responses to these treatments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

After adjustments by propensity score matching, 70 out of 161 patients receiving tofacitinib and 70 out of 131 receiving abatacept were extracted. The clinical effectiveness of both drugs over 24 weeks and the impact of the copy numbers of SE on effectiveness outcomes were investigated.

Results

The percentage of patients in remission in the 28-joint count disease activity score using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) did not significantly differ between patients receiving tofacitinib and abatacept at week 24 (32% vs 37%, p = 0.359). The mean change at week 4 in DAS28-ESR from baseline was significantly greater in patients receiving tofacitinib than in those receiving abatacept (− 1.516 vs − 0.827, p = 0.0003). The percentage of patients in remission at week 4 was 30% with tofacitinib and 15% with abatacept (p = 0.016). When patients were stratified by the copy numbers of SE alleles, differences in these numbers did not affect DAS28-ESR scores of patients receiving tofacitinib. However, among patients receiving abatacept, DAS28-ESR scores were significantly lower in patients carrying 2 copies of SE alleles than in those carrying 0 copies at each time point throughout the 24-week period. Furthermore, the percentage of patients in remission with DAS28-ESR at week 24 was not affected by the copy numbers of SE alleles in patients receiving tofacitinib (p = 0.947), whereas it significantly increased as the copy numbers became higher in patients receiving abatacept (p = 0.00309). Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed a correlation between the presence of SE and DAS28-ESR remission in patients receiving abatacept (OR = 25.881, 95% CI = 3.140–213.351, p = 0.0025), but not in those receiving tofacitinib (OR = 1.473, 95% CI = 0.291–7.446, p = 0.639).

Conclusions

Although the clinical effectiveness of tofacitinib and abatacept was similar at week 24, tofacitinib was superior to abatacept for changes from baseline in DAS28-ESR and the achievement of remission at week 4. SE positivity was associated with the achievement of DAS28-ESR remission by week 24 in patients receiving abatacept, but not in those receiving tofacitinib.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-021-02612-w.

Abatacept is Efficacious in the Treatment of Older Patients with csDMARD-Refractory Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Abatacept efficacy in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been primarily demonstrated via retrospective comparisons with younger patients. The objective of this study was to compare efficacy of abatacept in older vs. younger patients with RA, and efficacy of abatacept with that of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in both age groups.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, observational study (UMIN000014913) enrolled csDMARD-refractory patients without previous biological DMARD treatment. Abatacept (A) or csDMARDs (C) were administered at the treating physician's discretion to older (O, ≥ 65 years) and younger (Y, 20-64 years) patients, producing AO, AY, CO, and CY groups. Clinical efficacy after 24 weeks was evaluated using European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) erythrocyte sedimentation rate response criteria.

RESULTS

Overall, 202 patients were evaluated. Compared with the CO group, more patients in the AO group achieved a EULAR good or moderate response (p < 0.0001). Compared with the CY group, more patients in the AY group achieved a EULAR good or moderate response (p < 0.01). Similar proportions of patients in the AO and AY groups achieved a EULAR good response or a good or moderate response. Few adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study demonstrated that abatacept is efficacious and safe in older patients with RA and a history of being refractory to csDMARDs. Abatacept was shown to be more efficacious than adding or switching to a new csDMARD in both younger and older csDMARD-refractory patients with RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000014913.

Biological Therapies for Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Overview for the Clinician

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease characterised by inflammation of synovial joints and poses a substantial healthcare burden on both the individual and society. One of the most significant shifts in the RA therapeutic landscape has occurred with the introduction of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). There are five classes of bDMARDs currently available, each with a different molecular target and subtle differences in their efficacy and safety profile. This review also describes the “real-world” use of bDMARDs and how they fit into the overall RA treatment guidelines.

The response to TNF blockers depending on their comparator in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials: the lessebo effect, a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of the biological reference agents (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in pivotal superiority placebo-controlled trials (reference agent vs placebo) vs their effect in equivalence active comparator-controlled trials (reference agent vs biosimilar).

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, databases were searched for randomized, double-blind, controlled trials up to March 2020 comparing a biological reference agent vs placebo or biosimilar. The study assessed the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses of the reference agent in these groups (Reference-pbo and Reference-bs, respectively). The effect of the reference agent in both groups was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), pooled using random-effects models and then compared using a meta-regression model.

RESULTS

We included 31 trials. The main characteristics of the population (disease duration and activity, % seropositivity and methotrexate dose) of the population in both groups were similar. The meta-analysis found a better ACR20 response to the biological originator in the Reference-bs group with a global rate of 70% (95%CI, 66-74) compared with 59% (95%CI, 55-62) in the reference-pbo group (p= 0.001). A significant difference was also found for ACR 50 [44% (95%CI, 39-50) vs 35% (95%CI, 31-39) respectively, p< 0.01].

CONCLUSION

Effect of the reference biologic agent was better when compared with an active drug to a placebo. This could be linked to an increased placebo effect in active comparator-controlled studies or a nocebo effect in placebo-controlled studies. This effect can be called the Lessebo effect.

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management.

Objectives

To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials.

Design

Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis.

Setting

Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions).

Participants

Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs.

Interventions

Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care.

Main outcome measures

Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments.

Results

Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial.

Limitations

The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’.

Conclusion

The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission.

Future work

Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A Molecular Signature Response Classifier to Predict Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitors: The NETWORK-004 Prospective Observational Study

Introduction

Timely matching of patients to beneficial targeted therapy is an unmet need in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) that predicts which patients with RA are unlikely to respond to tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) therapy would have wide clinical utility.

Methods

The protein–protein interaction map specific to the rheumatoid arthritis pathophysiology and gene expression data in blood patient samples was used to discover a molecular signature of non-response to TNFi therapy. Inadequate response predictions were validated in blood samples from the CERTAIN cohort and a multicenter blinded prospective observational clinical study (NETWORK-004) among 391 targeted therapy-naïve and 113 TNFi-exposed patient samples. The primary endpoint evaluated the ability of the MSRC to identify patients who inadequately responded to TNFi therapy at 6 months according to ACR50. Additional endpoints evaluated the prediction of inadequate response at 3 and 6 months by ACR70, DAS28-CRP, and CDAI.

Results

The 23-feature molecular signature considers pathways upstream and downstream of TNFα involvement in RA pathophysiology. Predictive performance was consistent between the CERTAIN cohort and NETWORK-004 study. The NETWORK-004 study met primary and secondary endpoints. A molecular signature of non-response was detected in 45% of targeted therapy-naïve patients. The MSRC had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.64 and patients were unlikely to adequately respond to TNFi therapy according to ACR50 at 6 months with an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% confidence interval 2.0–8.3, p value 0.0001). Odds ratios (3.4–8.8) were significant (p value < 0.01) for additional endpoints at 3 and 6 months, with AUC values up to 0.74. Among TNFi-exposed patients, the MSRC had an AUC of up to 0.83 and was associated with significant odds ratios of 3.3–26.6 by ACR, DAS28-CRP, and CDAI metrics.

Conclusion

The MSRC stratifies patients according to likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapy and provides patient-specific data to guide therapy choice in RA for targeted therapy-naïve and TNFi-exposed patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00330-y.

A blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) integrating next-generation RNA sequencing data with clinical features predicts the likelihood that a patient with rheumatoid arthritis will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapy. Treatment selection guided by test results, with likely inadequate responders appropriately redirected to a different therapy, could improve response rates to TNFi therapies, generate healthcare cost savings, and increase rheumatologists’ confidence in prescribing decisions and altered treatment choices. The MSRC described in this study predicts the likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapies among targeted therapy-naïve and TNFi-exposed patients in a multicenter, 24-week blinded prospective clinical study: NETWORK-004. Patients with a molecular signature of non-response are less likely to have an adequate response to TNFi therapies than those patients lacking the signature according to ACR50, ACR70, CDAI, and DAS28-CRP with significant odds ratios of 3.4–8.8 for targeted therapy-naïve patients and 3.3–26.6 for TNFi-exposed patients. This MSRC provides a solution to the long-standing need for precision medicine tools to predict drug response in rheumatoid arthritis—a heterogeneous and progressive disease with an abundance of therapeutic options. These data validate the performance of the MSRC in a blinded prospective clinical study of targeted therapy-naïve and TNFi therapy-exposed patients.

Fusion proteins of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA): A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy of fusion proteins biologics (Etanercept (ETN), Anakinra (ANA), and Abatacept) combinations in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using network meta-analysis to rank those according to their performance medicines. The performance of these processes is ranked according to the results of the analysis and an explanatory study of the possible results is carried out.

METHODS

Multiple databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were used to identify applicable articles and collect relevant data to analyze using STATA (14.0) software. The literature included in this study was divided into a combination of a placebo, methotrexate (MTX), and an observation group (1 of the 3 drugs). The last search date was December 12, 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 19 eligible randomized controlled trials of fusion proteins biologics were identified, a total of 1109 papers were included, and the results showed that the ETN + MTX had the highest probability of being the most clinically efficacious intervention, with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve of 91.6, was significantly superior (P < .05). Patients who had received ETN or ETN + MTX or ANA had effective compared with patients who had received placebo (95% CI 1.28%-8.47%; 1.92%-19.18%; 1.06%-10.45%).

CONCLUSIONS

1. The combination of ETN and MTX had the highest probability of optimal treatment compared to other drugs and 2. ENT, ENT + MTX, and ANA were effective in the treatment of RA compared to placebo.

Screening for sarcopenia and obesity by measuring thigh muscle and fat thickness by ultrasound in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

Sarcopenia is relatively common in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Thicknesses of the quadriceps muscle and fat are easily measured by ultrasound (US) and are known to be related to skeletal muscle mass and fat mass, respectively.

Methods

Eighty-four patients enrolled in the prospective correlation research of sarcopenia, skeletal muscle, and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis study (UMIN000023744) underwent US examinations of anterior thigh muscle thickness (MT) and fat thickness (FT). Muscle and body fat (BF) mass were also examined by a body composition analyzer. Whether MT and FT were related to sarcopenia and obesity was examined.

Results

MT was significantly lower in RA patients with sarcopenia than in those without (23.8 vs 28.2 mm, P = 0.001). MT was related to sarcopenia (men: r = 0.56, P = 0.02, women: r = 0.32, P = 0.01). The cut-off value of MT for sarcopenia was 24.7 mm in men and 19.7 mm in women on receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. FT was correlated with BF percentage (%BF; men: r = 0.66, P < 0.01, women: r = 0.62, P < 0.001), which was estimated by 2.04xFT+8.53 in men and 1.2xFT+17.42 in women by a simple linear regression model. This means that FT ≥ 8.1 mm in men and FT ≥ 14.6 mm in women indicated obesity.

Conclusions

US examination of the anterior thigh was useful to detect sarcopenia and obesity in RA patients.

Current and Emerging DMARDs for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most prevalent form of inflammatory arthritis. It is a profoundly serious and severe disease that if it goes untreated could have severe consequences to the joints and health of the patient who carries this diagnosis. The treatment of RA has dramatically changed since the year 2000, with the discovery of the TNFis, then other biologics, and finally the JAKi. All these new medications with or without methotrexate in combination, tight control and treat to target have produced a revolution in the outcome of this disease. We reviewed and summarized the treatment options, and the most significant papers for each one of these new drugs. The reader could have a full picture with all the references of the recent publications. We also updated the biosimilar situation in RA, as well as the new drugs that will be coming to the market in the next 5 years.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 24-week open-label phase results from a phase 3b/4 methotrexate withdrawal non-inferiority study (ORAL Shift)

OBJECTIVES

To report the efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) of tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the open-label phase of Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Shift.

METHODS

ORAL Shift was a global, 48-week, phase 3b/4 withdrawal study in patients with moderate to severe RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Patients received open-label tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate; those who achieved low disease activity (LDA; Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)≤10) at week 24 were randomised to receive blinded tofacitinib 11 mg once daily plus placebo (ie, blinded methotrexate withdrawal) or continue with blinded tofacitinib 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate for another 24 weeks. Efficacy, PROs and safety from the open-label phase are reported descriptively.

RESULTS

Following screening, 694 patients were enrolled and received tofacitinib plus methotrexate in the open-label phase. At week 24, 527 (84.5%) patients achieved CDAI-defined LDA. Improvements from baseline to weeks 12 and 24 were generally observed for all efficacy outcomes (including measures of disease activity, and response, LDA and remission rates) and PROs. Adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were reported by 362 (52.2%), 20 (2.9%) and 41 (5.9%) patients, respectively. No deaths were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate conferred improvements in disease activity measures, functional outcomes and PROs, with most (84.5%) patients achieving CDAI-defined LDA after 24 weeks of open-label treatment; the safety profile was generally consistent with the historic safety profile of tofacitinib.Funded by Pfizer Inc; NCT02831855.

Comparative Efficacy (DAS28 Remission) of Targeted Immune Modulators for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy of targeted immune modulators (TIMs) in TIM-naïve/mixed populations (≤ 20% TIM-experienced) and TIM-experienced (> 20% TIM-experienced) adults with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to or intolerance of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs).

METHODS

A fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using published study-level data from 41 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from two recent systematic literature reviews conducted by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, and two additional phase III trials for filgotinib (FINCH-1, FINCH-2). RCTs that compared TIMs with each other, cDMARD therapy, or placebo were included. Treatments included Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFi), and other non-TNFi therapies. Efficacy was defined as achieving remission with a DAS28 score < 2.6 at 12 and 24 weeks.

RESULTS

In the 12-week analysis for the TIM-naïve/mixed population, all TIMs combined with cDMARD therapy were significantly more likely to achieve remission compared with a cDMARD alone, with intravenous tocilizumab showing a substantially greater magnitude of effect (odds ratio 19.36; 95% credible interval 11.01-38.16). Similarly, in the 24-week analysis, intravenous and subcutaneous tocilizumab showed the highest odds ratio of achieving DAS28 remission compared with cDMARD therapy. Similar trends were observed for the analyses on monotherapy or TIM-experienced population.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA demonstrated that tocilizumab is associated with a greater likelihood of remission (DAS28 < 2.6) at 12 and 24 weeks compared with most other TIMs, including new JAK inhibitors, when used in combination with a cDMARD or as monotherapy among TIM-naïve/mixed or TIM-experienced populations.

Persistence with Early-Line Abatacept versus Tumor Necrosis Factor-Inhibitors for Rheumatoid Arthritis Complicated by Poor Prognostic Factors

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by joint swelling and destruction that leads to severe disability. There are no clear guidelines regarding the order of therapies. Gathering data on treatment patterns outside of a clinical trial setting can provide useful context for clinicians. Objectives: To assess real-world treatment persistence in early-line abatacept versus tumor necrosis factor-inhibitors (TNFi) treated patients with RA complicated by poor prognostic factors (including anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies [ACPA] and rheumatoid factor [RF] seropositivity). Methods: We performed a multi-center retrospective medical record review. Adult patients with RA complicated by poor prognostic factors were treated with either abatacept or TNFis as the first biologic treatment at the clinic. Poor prognostic factors included ACPA+, RF+, increased C-reactive protein levels, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate levels, or presence of joint erosions. We report 12-month treatment persistence, time to discontinuation, reasons for discontinuation, and risk of discontinuation between patients on abatacept versus TNFi. Select results among the subgroup of ACPA+ and/or RF+ patients are presented. Results: Data on 265 patients (100 abatacept, 165 TNFis) were collected. At 12 months, 83% of abatacept patients were persistent versus 66.1% of TNFi patients (P=0.003). Median time to discontinuation was 1423 days for abatacept versus 690 days for TNFis (P=0.014). In adjusted analyses, abatacept patients had a lower risk of discontinuing index treatment due to disease progression (0.3 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1-0.6], P=0.001). Among the subgroup of ACPA+ and/or RF+ patients (55 abatacept, 108 TNFis), unadjusted 12-month treatment persistence was greater (83.6% versus 64.8%, P=0.012) and median time to discontinuation was longer (961 days versus 581 days, P=0.048) in abatacept versus TNFi patients. Discussion: Patients with RA complicated by poor prognostic factors taking abatacept, including the subgroup of patients with ACPA and RF seropositivity, had statistically significantly higher 12-month treatment persistence and a longer time to discontinuation than patients on TNFis. Conclusions: In a real-world setting, RA patients treated with abatacept were more likely to stay on treatment longer and had a lower risk of discontinuation than patients treated with TNFis.

Abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis complicated by disseminated cryptococcosis: a case report

A 78-year-old man developed disseminated cryptococcosis with central nervous system involvement as encapsulated yeast cells were detected in transbronchial biopsy and skin biopsy specimens, and cerebrospinal fluid. Cryptococcus neoformans was confirmed by culture. He had been treated with low-dose prednisolone and methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis. He started receiving antifungal therapy with intravenous liposomal amphotericin B followed by oral fluconazole. Methotrexate was discontinued. Approximately 4 months after the course of intravenous liposomal amphotericin B was completed, he complained of pain and swelling of the right wrist, which suggested that rheumatoid arthritis was worsening. Abatacept therapy was initiated along with antifungal therapy, and his symptoms relieved. After 24 months of antifungal therapy, although he was still receiving oral fluconazole, he was doing well and the serum cryptococcal antigen had become negative. Disseminated cryptococcosis is an important opportunistic infection associated with low-dose methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis. Abatacept therapy may be feasible in strictly selected patients with rheumatoid arthritis complicated with cryptococcosis concomitantly with intensive anti-fungal therapy.

Post-Marketing Pooled Safety Analysis for CT-P13 Treatment of Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases in Observational Cohort Studies

Background

At EU marketing authorisation, safety data for CT-P13 (biosimilar infliximab) were limited, particularly in some indications, and uncommon adverse events (AEs) could not be evaluated among relatively small analysis populations.

Objectives

Our objective was to investigate the overall safety profile and incidence rate of AEs of special interest (AESIs), including serious infections and tuberculosis, in CT-P13-treated patients.

Methods

Data were pooled from six observational studies representing authorised indications of CT-P13 (ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, adult and paediatric Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis). Patients were analysed by indication and treatment (patients who received CT-P13 or those who switched from reference infliximab to CT-P13 ≤ 6 months prior to enrolment or during the study).

Results

Overall, 4393 patients were included (n = 3677 CT-P13 group; n = 716 switched group); 64.03% of patients had inflammatory bowel disease and 6.31% of patients were antidrug antibody positive. Overall, 32.94% and 9.58% of patients experienced treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-emergent serious AEs, respectively. Across indications, TEAEs were more frequent with CT-P13 than with the switched group. Infections including tuberculosis were the most frequent serious AESI overall (2.48%) and by treatment group or indication. In total, 14 patients (0.32%) reported active tuberculosis. Overall incidence rates per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) were 3.40 (2.788–4.096) for serious infections including tuberculosis and 0.44 (0.238–0.732) for active tuberculosis. Infusion-related reactions were the second most frequent AESI following infection including tuberculosis.

Conclusion

The CT-P13 safety profile appears consistent with previous studies for CT-P13 and reference infliximab, supporting the favourable risk/benefit balance for CT-P13 treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-020-00421-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.