Clinical efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors

Exploring the effect on primary endpoints in trials testing targeted therapy interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-epidemiological study on the appropriate use of a core outcome set

OBJECTIVES

To explore which core domain is best associated with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% response in trials assessing the effect of targeted interventions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A meta-epidemiological study was performed on randomised trials investigating biologics and targeted agents compared with placebo or conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with RA. The main outcome measures were ORs for the ACR 20% response and at least one of the eight core domains according to the existing RA core outcome set (COS) analysed based on standardised mean differences.

RESULTS

115 trials involving 55 422 patients with RA were eligible. The OR for achieving ACR 20% response was 3.19 (95% CI 2.96 to 3.44) for the experimental interventions relative to the comparators. The median number of COS domains reported was 6; 18 trials reported only 1 domain, 17 all 8. Univariable meta-regression analyses indicated that each of the eight core domains was significantly associated with ACR 20% response, yet improvements in physical disability explain a successful ACR 20% response the most. Including only trials reporting on all eight core domains, univariable meta-regression analyses proved improvement in fatigue to explain a successful ACR 20% response the most.

CONCLUSIONS

Within this dataset, it is evident that the conclusions concerning our primary objective were significantly influenced by both the amount and characteristics of missing data. Our data suggest that fatigue could be more important for the primary endpoint than previously assumed, but this is based on limited data.

Abatacept in individuals at high risk of rheumatoid arthritis (APIPPRA): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. In the arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept (APIPPRA) trial, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of treating high risk individuals with the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept.

METHODS

The APIPPRA study was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial done in 28 hospital-based early arthritis clinics in the UK and three in the Netherlands. Participants (aged ≥18 years) at risk of rheumatoid arthritis positive for ACPA and rheumatoid factor with inflammatory joint pain were recruited. Exclusion criteria included previous episodes of clinical synovitis and previous use of corticosteroids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) stratified by sex, smoking, and country, to 125 mg abatacept subcutaneous injections weekly or placebo for 12 months, and then followed up for 12 months. Masking was achieved by providing four kits (identical in appearance and packaging) with pre-filled syringes with coded labels of abatacept or placebo every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the time to development of clinical synovitis in three or more joints or rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2010 criteria, whichever was met first. Synovitis was confirmed by ultrasonography. Follow-up was completed on Jan 13, 2021. All participants meeting the intention-to-treat principle were included in the analysis. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2013-003413-18).

FINDINGS

Between Dec 22, 2014, and Jan 14, 2019, 280 individuals were evaluated for eligibility and, of 213 participants, 110 were randomly assigned to abatacept and 103 to placebo. During the treatment period, seven (6%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group and 30 (29%) of 103 participants in the placebo group met the primary endpoint. At 24 months, 27 (25%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group had progressed to rheumatoid arthritis, compared with 38 (37%) of 103 in the placebo group. The estimated proportion of participants remaining arthritis-free at 12 months was 92·8% (SE 2·6) in the abatacept group and 69·2% (4·7) in the placebo group. Kaplan-Meier arthritis-free survival plots over 24 months favoured abatacept (log-rank test p=0·044). The difference in restricted mean survival time between groups was 53 days (95% CI 28-78; p<0·0001) at 12 months and 99 days (95% CI 38-161; p=0·0016) at 24 months in favour of abatacept. During treatment, abatacept was associated with improvements in pain scores, functional wellbeing, and quality-of-life measurements, as well as low scores of subclinical synovitis by ultrasonography, compared with placebo. However, the effects were not sustained at 24 months. Seven serious adverse events occurred in the abatacept group and 11 in the placebo group, including one death in each group deemed unrelated to treatment.

INTERPRETATION

Therapeutic intervention during the at-risk phase of rheumatoid arthritis is feasible, with acceptable safety profiles. T-cell co-stimulation modulation with abatacept for 12 months reduces progression to rheumatoid arthritis, with evidence of sustained efficacy beyond the treatment period, and with no new safety signals.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers Squibb.

Methotrexate Safety and Efficacy in Combination Therapies in Patients With Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

We investigated methotrexate safety and the influence of dose on efficacy outcomes in combination with three different biologic treatments and with active conventional treatment (ACT) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This post hoc analysis included 812 treatment-naïve patients with early RA who were randomized (1:1:1:1) in the NORD-STAR trial to receive methotrexate in combination with ACT, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab. Methotrexate safety, doses, and dose effects on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission were assessed after 24 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Compared with ACT, the prevalence of methotrexate-associated side effects was higher when methotrexate was combined with tocilizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.84) but not with certolizumab-pegol (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.23) or with abatacept (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75-1.16). With ACT as the reference, the methotrexate dose was significantly lower when used in combination with tocilizumab (β -4.65, 95% CI -5.83 to -3.46; P < 0.001) or abatacept (β -1.15, 95% CI -2.27 to -0.03; P = 0.04), and it was numerically lower in combination with certolizumab-pegol (β -1.07, 95% CI -2.21 to 0.07; P = 0.07). Methotrexate dose reductions were not associated with decreased CDAI remission rates within any of the treatment combinations.

CONCLUSION

Methotrexate was generally well tolerated in combination therapies, but adverse events were a limiting factor in receiving the target dose of 25 mg/wk, and these were more frequent in combination with tocilizumab versus ACT. On the other hand, methotrexate dose reductions were not associated with decreased CDAI remission rates within any of the four treatment combinations at 24 weeks.

Oral glucocorticoid use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating TNF-inhibitors, tocilizumab or abatacept: Results from the international TOCERRA and PANABA observational collaborative studies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the use of oral glucocorticoids with three classes of bDMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We included patients from 13 observational registries treated with a TNF-inhibitor, abatacept or tocilizumab and with available information on the use of oral glucocorticoids. The main outcome was oral glucocorticoid withdrawal. A McNemar test was used to analyse the change in the use of glucocorticoids after 1 year. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regressions, adjusted for patient, treatment, and disease characteristics, were used to evaluate glucocorticoid discontinuation in patients with glucocorticoids at baseline. Because of heterogeneity, analyses were done by registers and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 12,334 participants treated with TNF-inhibitors, 2100 with tocilizumab and 3229 with abatacept were included. At one-year, oral glucocorticoid use decreased in all treatment groups (odds ratio for stopping vs. starting of 2.19 [95% CI 1.58; 3.04] for TNF-inhibitors, 2.46 [1.39; 4.35] for tocilizumab; 1.73 [1.25; 2.21] for abatacept). Median time to glucocorticoid withdrawal was ≈2 years or more in most countries, with a gradual decrease over time. Compared to TNF-inhibitors, crude hazard ratios of glucocorticoid discontinuation were 0.65[0.48-0.87] for abatacept, and 1.04 [0.76-1.43] for tocilizumab, and adjusted hazard ratios were 1.1 [0.83-1.47] for abatacept, and 1.30 [0.96-1.78] for tocilizumab.

CONCLUSION

After initiation of a bDMARD, glucocorticoid use decreased similarly in all treatment groups. However, glucocorticoid withdrawal was much slower than advocated by current international guidelines. More effort should be devoted to glucocorticoid tapering when low disease activity is achieved.

Regulatory T cells in spondyloarthropathies: genetic evidence, functional role, and therapeutic possibilities

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are a very specialized subset of T lymphocytes: their main function is controlling immune responses during inflammation. T-regs involvement in autoimmune and immune-mediated rheumatic diseases is well-described. Here, we critically review the up-to-date literature findings on the role of Tregs in spondyloarthropathies, particularly in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), a polygenic inflammatory rheumatic disease that preferentially affects the spine and the sacroiliac joints. Genetics discoveries helped in elucidating pathogenic T-regs gene modules and functional involvement. We highlight T-regs tissue specificity as crucial point, as T-regs might have a distinct epigenomic and molecular profiling depending on the different site of tissue inflammation. Furthermore, we speculate about possible therapeutic interventions targeting, or enhancing, Treg cells in spondyloarthropathies.

Real-world retention rates of biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Although biologics have their own characteristics, there are no clear criteria for selecting them to treat the patients with rheumatoid arthritis. To assist in selecting biologics, we investigated the retention rates of biologics at our institution. We examined retention rates, and reasons for dropout for biologics in 393 cases and 605 prescriptions (of which 378 prescriptions were as naive) at our hospital since October 2003. Throughout the entire course of the study, etanercept (ETN) was the most frequently used biologic, followed by adalimumab (ADA) and tocilizumab (TCZ). When narrowed down to the later period from 2010, ETN was still the most used, followed by TCZ and abatacept (ABT). When the retention rates were compared in biologic naive patients, the retention rates were TCZ, ABT, ETN, certolizumab pegol (CZP), golimumab (GLM), infliximab (IFX), and ADA, in that order. The retention rates were better with the first use of each biologic. The main reasons for dropout were primary ineffectiveness, secondary ineffectiveness, and infection. ETN was the most used biologic in our hospital, with an increasing trend toward the use of non-TNF inhibitors. Retention rates were higher in non-TNF inhibitors.

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.

TIGIT-Fc fusion protein alleviates murine lupus nephritis through the regulation of SPI-B-PAX5-XBP1 axis-mediated B-cell differentiation

OBJECTIVES

T cell immunoglobulin and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif (ITIM) domain (TIGIT) is a newly discovered immune checkpoint (IC) that exhibits immunosuppressive function in the regulation of immune system. Activation of TIGIT signaling has emerged as a promising approach for autoimmune disease immunotherapy, such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

METHODS

We generated a chimeric protein, TIGIT-immunoglobulin (Ig), by fusing the extracellular domain of murine TIGIT to the Fc region of mouse IgG2a, which was used to investigated the effect of activating the TIGIT signaling in murine lupus models (MRL/lpr and chronic graft-versus-host disease mice). Treated mice were harvested, and samples of serum, kidney, and spleen were collected for outcome evaluation. In vitro treatment of TIGIT-Ig in B cells was used for exploring the roles of TIGIT in toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7)-mediated B cell differentiation and antibody production.

RESULTS

TIGIT-Ig treatment delayed disease progression in both lupus models, accompanied by a decrease in the production of anti-double stranded DNA antibodies (anti-dsDNA), proteinuria, proteinuria/creatinine, and Ig kidney deposition. Additionally, the group treated with TIGIT-Ig displayed a decreased proportion of T helper cell (Th)1 cells, T follicular helper (Tfh) cells, and B-cell subsets, including germinal center B cells (GC B), plasmablasts, and plasma cells, compared to the group treated with control IgG. Interestingly, we also observed an increased proportion of Tregs in the spleen of the TIGIT-Ig group. We have discovered a new way in which activating the TIGIT pathway can regulate B-cell differentiation through the SPI-B-PAX5-XBP1 pathway, resulting in a reduction in autoantibodies.

CONCLUSION

Together, TIGIT may be a promising IC target for SLE treatment.

Should We Use bDMARDs as an Induction Therapy in Early and Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis? Results at 5 years from the ERA UCLouvain Brussels Cohort

INTRODUCTION

This study sought to analyze the benefit of an early induction therapy with a biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) during the first year of treatment with a 5-year follow-up in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA).

METHODS

We included ERA patients from the UCLouvain Brussels cohort who met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2010 classification criteria and were naïve to DMARDs. ERA patients were divided into two groups according to whether they received an induction bDMARD therapy or a standard therapy with methotrexate (MTX). Clinical response after the induction treatment at 6 and 12 months followed by a MTX maintenance therapy at 36 and 60 months was evaluated.

RESULTS

Data from 470 ERA patients were collected, 189 received a bDMARD and 281 initiated MTX alone. In the bDMARD group, disease activity and HAQ were higher at baseline. A total of 391 patients were followed up to 5 years. We then divided each group into two subgroups according to the last treatment they received at 5 years: bDMARD > MTX (n = 95), bDMARD > bDMARD (n = 59); MTX > MTX (n = 134), MTX > bDMARD (n = 103). During the induction, we observed a clinical response with a large number of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission. According to a treat-to-target (T2T) approach, remission rate was stable on MTX monotherapy or rescued by the addition or prolongation of a bDMARD. Interestingly, bDMARD followed by a MTX maintenance therapy experienced a stable and sustained DAS28-CRP remission rate in 53% of the ERA patients at year 5.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term remission is an achievable goal in ERA. Our results suggest that a bDMARD induction therapy followed by MTX maintenance therapy could be an interesting option.

Benefits of Autoantibody Enrichment in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: Analysis of Efficacy Outcomes in Four Pooled Abatacept Trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of abatacept is enhanced in anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive versus -negative patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Four early RA abatacept trials were analyzed to understand the differential impact of abatacept among patients with SeroPositive Early and Active RA (SPEAR) compared to non-SPEAR patients.

METHODS

Pooled patient-level data from AGREE, AMPLE, AVERT, and AVERT-2 were analyzed. Patients were classified as SPEAR if they were ACPA +, RF +, disease duration < 1 year, and Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 3.2 at baseline; non-SPEAR otherwise. Outcomes included: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 at week 24; mean change from baseline to week 24 for DAS28 (CRP), Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI), ACR core components; DAS28 (CRP) and SDAI remission. Adjusted regression analyses among abatacept-treated patients compared SPEAR and non-SPEAR patients, and in full trial population estimating how the efficacy of abatacept versus comparators [adalimumab + methotrexate, methotrexate] was modified by SPEAR status.

RESULTS

The study included 1400 SPEAR and 673 non-SPEAR patients; most were female (79.35%), white (77.38%), and with a mean age 49.26 (SD 12.86) years old. Around half with non-SPEAR were RF + and three-quarters ACPA +. Stronger improvements from baseline to week 24 were observed in almost all outcomes for abatacept-treated SPEAR versus non-SPEAR patients or versus SPEAR patients treated with comparators. Larger improvements were observed for SPEAR patients among the abatacept-treated population, and more strongly improved efficacy among SPEAR patients for abatacept than comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis, including large patient numbers of early-RA abatacept trials, confirmed beneficial treatment effects of abatacept in patients with SPEAR versus non-SPEAR.

Sustained Remission and Outcomes with Abatacept plus Methotrexate Following Stepwise Dose De-escalation in Patients with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

One target of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment is to achieve early sustained remission; over the long term, patients in sustained remission have less structural joint damage and physical disability. We evaluated Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission with abatacept + methotrexate versus abatacept placebo + methotrexate and impact of de-escalation (DE) in anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients with early RA.

METHODS

The phase IIIb, randomized, AVERT-2 two-stage study (NCT02504268) evaluated weekly abatacept + methotrexate versus abatacept placebo + methotrexate.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

SDAI remission (≤ 3.3) at week 24. Pre-planned exploratory endpoint: maintenance of remission in patients with sustained remission (weeks 40 and 52) who, from week 56 for 48 weeks (DE period), (1) continued combination abatacept + methotrexate, (2) tapered abatacept to every other week (EOW) + methotrexate for 24 weeks with subsequent abatacept withdrawal (abatacept placebo + methotrexate), or (3) withdrew methotrexate (abatacept monotherapy).

RESULTS

Primary study endpoint was not met: 21.3% (48/225) of patients in the combination and 16.0% (24/150) in the abatacept placebo + methotrexate arm achieved SDAI remission at week 24 (p = 0.2359). There were numerical differences favoring combination therapy in clinical assessments, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and week 52 radiographic non-progression. After week 56, 147 patients in sustained remission with abatacept + methotrexate were randomized (combination, n = 50; DE/withdrawal, n = 50; abatacept monotherapy, n = 47) and entered DE. At DE week 48, SDAI remission (74%) and PRO improvements were mostly maintained with continued combination therapy; lower remission rates were observed with abatacept placebo + methotrexate (48.0%) and with abatacept monotherapy (57.4%). Before withdrawal, de-escalating to abatacept EOW + methotrexate preserved remission.

CONCLUSIONS

The stringent primary endpoint was not met. However, in patients achieving sustained SDAI remission, numerically more maintained remission with continued abatacept + methotrexate versus abatacept monotherapy or withdrawal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02504268. Video abstract (MP4 62241 KB).

Association between disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and bone turnover biomarkers

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been linked to an increased risk of osteoporosis as well as fractures. Patients diagnosed with RA had a 25% increased risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a recent population-based cohort study that compared them to people without RA. Several studies have found a correlation between osteoporosis and the presence of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1, and 6. These cytokines play a crucial part in the process of bone resorption by boosting osteoclast activation and encouraging osteoclast differentiation. Based on the correlation between RA, osteoporosis, and inflammation, it is possible that systemic immunosuppression with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) can help individuals with RA have a lower chance of developing osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures. There is little information on how different DMARDs, biologic or non-biologic, affect RA patients' bone metabolism. In this study, we present an overview of the influence that targeted therapies, such as biologics, non-biologics, and small molecule inhibitors, have on bone homeostasis in RA patients.

Therapeutic Utility and Adverse Effects of Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Inflammatory Arthritis

Targeting specific pathologic pro-inflammatory cytokines or related molecules leads to excellent therapeutic effects in inflammatory arthritis, including rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. Most of these agents, known as biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), are produced in live cell lines and are usually monoclonal antibodies. Several types of monoclonal antibodies target different pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin (IL)-17A, IL-6, and IL-23/12. Some bDMARDs, such as rituximab and abatacept, target specific cell-surface molecules to control the inflammatory response. The therapeutic effects of these bDMARDs differ in different forms of inflammatory arthritis and are associated with different adverse events. In this article, we summarize the therapeutic utility and adverse effects of bDMARDs and suggest future research directions for developing bDMARDs.

Effectiveness of TNF-inhibitors, abatacept, IL6-inhibitors and JAK-inhibitors in 31 846 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in 19 registers from the 'JAK-pot' collaboration

BACKGROUND

JAK-inhibitors (JAKi), recently approved in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have changed the landscape of treatment choices. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of four current second-line therapies of RA with different modes of action, since JAKi approval, in an international collaboration of 19 registers.

METHODS

In this observational cohort study, patients initiating tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i), abatacept (ABA) or JAKi were included. We compared the effectiveness of these treatments in terms of drug discontinuation and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) response rates at 1 year. Analyses were adjusted for patient, disease and treatment characteristics, including lines of therapy and accounted for competing risk.

RESULTS

We included 31 846 treatment courses: 17 522 TNFi, 2775 ABA, 3863 IL-6i and 7686 JAKi. Adjusted analyses of overall discontinuation were similar across all treatments. The main single reason of stopping treatment was ineffectiveness. Compared with TNFi, JAKi were less often discontinued for ineffectiveness (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83), as was IL-6i (aHR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and more often for adverse events (aHR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.33). Adjusted CDAI response rates at 1 year were similar between TNFi, JAKi and IL-6i and slightly lower for ABA.

CONCLUSION

The adjusted overall drug discontinuation and 1 year response rates of JAKi and IL-6i were similar to those observed with TNFi. Compared with TNFi, JAKi were more often discontinued for adverse events and less for ineffectiveness, as were IL-6i.

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.

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.

Identification of poor prognostic joint locations in an early rheumatoid arthritis cohort at risk of rapidly progressing disease: a post-hoc analysis of the Phase III AGREE study

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a heterogeneous disease with established poor prognostic factors such as seropositivity, joint damage, and high disease activity at an early, treatment-naïve stage of disease. However, few studies have examined if specific joint locations are correlated with these factors in such a population. This analysis explored the potential correlation of individual swollen and erosive joints with other disease characteristics at baseline and with remission rates in a post-hoc analysis of the Phase III randomized AGREE study.

Methods

Methotrexate (MTX)-naïve, erosive, RF- and/or ACPA-positive early RA patients (N = 509) were retrospectively evaluated. Baseline joint swelling was analyzed for large and small joints. Baseline erosions were analyzed for wrist, MCP1–5, IP1, PIP2–5 and MTP1–5. Remission rates were assessed after 6 months of treatment with abatacept (ABA) + MTX (N = 256) or MTX (N = 253). The following statistical tests were used: Chi-Square or Fisher’s exact test (categorical variables); Student’s t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test (continuous variables); continuity-corrected Chi-square test (efficacy remission endpoints).

Results

Baseline swelling was most frequent in wrist (91.9%) and MCP2 joint (89.1%), while baseline erosion was most frequent in MTP5 joint (43.5%). Swollen shoulder was significantly correlated (p < 0.0001) with swelling of almost all other large or medium joints. Baseline swelling in the knee, temporomandibular joint (TMJ), wrist and elbow was highly correlated (p < 0.001) with higher tender and swollen joint counts, higher DAS28(CRP) and higher SDAI and CDAI. Baseline swelling was not correlated with erosion per joint, except for MCP2. The largest difference in mean Boolean remission rates at 6 months was in patients with baseline swollen wrist favoring ABA + MTX (14.0% vs 4.4%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Swelling in the large and medium joints (knee, TMJ, elbow and wrist) was highly correlated with severe disease activity while MCP2 swelling seemed to be correlated with joint damage. The correlation of joint locations at an early, treatment-naïve stage with poor prognostic factors, higher disease activity and joint damage, could establish a rapidly progressing anatomical pattern in early RA.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00122382, registered July 2005.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-022-00252-4.

Prevalence of adverse reactions to intravenously administered originator biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A 5-year retrospective study

Background

Few Saudi studies have examined adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving intravenous (IV) originator biologics. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the prevalence, types, and predictors of ADRs following long-term IV originator biologic use in patients with RA.

Patients and methods

This retrospective, single-center study included adult patients with RA who received IV originator biologics between 2015 and 2020. Medical records were reviewed and data regarding ADRs were collected and evaluated for causality using the Naranjo scale. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the odds for and factors associated with developing ADRs for each biologic.

Results

A total of 129 patients (87.6% women) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 54 (13) years were included in this study. A total of 1963 doses of tocilizumab (38.76%), rituximab (38.76%), abatacept (13.95%), and infliximab (8.53%), were administered during the study period. ADRs with a Naranjo score ≥ 1 were experienced by 103 (78%) patients, with an average of 2.2 events per patient. Infection (26.6%) and skin and mucous membrane disorders (14.18%) were the most commonly reported ADRs. Abatacept was associated with a significantly higher risk of multiple ADRs than the other biologics (adjusted odds ratio: 3.145, 95% confidence interval 1.004–9.854, p = 0.049).

Conclusion

There was a high prevalence of ADRs among patients with RA receiving biologics. Abatacept was associated with a greater risk of multiple ADRs than other biologics. Infection was the most common ADR. Future multicenter longitudinal studies are warranted.

HLA-DRB1 risk alleles for RA are associated with differential clinical responsiveness to abatacept and adalimumab: data from a head-to-head, randomized, single-blind study in autoantibody-positive early RA

Background

Certain risk alleles associated with autoantibody-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been linked to poorer prognoses. In patients with autoantibody-positive RA, abatacept shows differential efficacy to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Our aim was to investigate the relationship between clinical response to abatacept and to adalimumab and presence of risk alleles encoding human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) in RA.

Methods

In this head-to-head study, biologic-naïve adults with early (≤ 12 months), moderate-to-severe RA and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR), autoantibody-positive for both anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide 2 and rheumatoid factor, were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg weekly or subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks with stable, weekly oral MTX. An open-label period to 48 weeks followed, during which adalimumab-treated patients were switched to abatacept. Patients were genotyped for HLA-DRB1 alleles and classified as SE-positive (≥ 1 SE allele) or SE-negative (no SE alleles). Efficacy was assessed at weeks 24 and 48.

Results

Forty patients each received abatacept (9 SE-negative, 30 SE-positive, one unknown) or adalimumab (9 SE-negative, 31 SE-positive). Mean age and disease duration were 46.0 years and 5.5 months, respectively. At week 24, a greater percentage of abatacept patients achieved 50% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR50) compared with adalimumab patients (73% vs 45%, respectively) and estimate of difference (95% confidence interval [CI]), 28 (5, 48). In SE-positive patients, ACR50 estimate of difference (95% CI) was 32 (7, 55). During the open-label period, responses were sustained in the abatacept non-switch group and showed trends toward further improvement in the adalimumab-to-abatacept switch group at week 48, in both the overall and the SE-positive subpopulation. No new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions

In MTX-IR patients with early, autoantibody-positive RA, abatacept resulted in numerically higher efficacy responses versus adalimumab after 24 weeks, with more pronounced treatment differences in SE-positive patients. After 48 weeks, responses were sustained in patients who continued abatacept while those who switched to abatacept showed further clinical improvement, overall, and in SE-positive patients. This supports co-stimulation blockade as an effective treatment strategy for patients with early, autoantibody-positive RA, particularly among SE-positive patients.

Trial registration

NIH US National Library of Medicine, NCT02557100. Registered on September 23, 2015.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-021-02607-7.

Prevalence and predictors of adverse events with methotrexate mono- and combination-therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to summarize rates of adverse events (AEs) in patients with RA or inflammatory arthritis starting MTX as monotherapy or in combination with other csDMARDs, and to identify reported predictors of AEs.

METHODS

Three databases were searched for studies reporting AEs in MTX-naïve patients with RA. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies were included. Prevalence rates of AEs were pooled using random effects meta-analysis, stratified by study design.

RESULTS

Forty-six articles (34 RCTs and 12 observational studies) were identified. The pooled prevalence of total AEs was 80.1% in RCTs (95% CI: 73.5, 85.9), compared with 23.1% in observational studies (95% CI: 12.3, 36.0). The pooled prevalence of serious AEs was 9.5% in RCTs (95% CI: 7.4, 11.7), and 2.1% in observational studies (95% CI: 1.0, 3.4). MTX discontinuation due to AEs was higher in observational studies (15.5%, 95% CI: 9.6, 22.3) compared with RCTs (6.7%, 95% CI: 4.7, 8.9). Gastrointestinal events were the most commonly reported AEs (pooled prevalence: 32.7%, 95% CI: 18.5, 48.7). Five studies examined predictors of AEs. RF status, BMI and HAQ score were associated with MTX discontinuation due to AEs; ACPA negativity, smoking and elevated creatinine were associated with increased risk of elevated liver enzymes.

CONCLUSION

The review provides an up-to-date overview of the prevalence of AEs associated with MTX in patients with RA. The findings should be communicated to patients to help them make informed choices prior to commencing MTX.

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.

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.

Radiographic progression in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systemic literature review of trials performed by industry

Objectives

To summarise radiographic data in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as part of the radiographic inhibition claim of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) approved for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

A systemic literature review was performed using the Medline database from 1994 to February 2020. The results were grouped based on the scoring methods (Sharp, Genant modification, van der Heijde modification) and RA patient populations.

Results

One hundred sixty-eight publications were selected. After detailed assessment, 52 RCTs (7 methotrexate (MTX)-naive, 23 MTX inadequate response (IR), 9 DMARDs IR and 3 tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi) IR studies) were finally included. Information on patient population, scoring method used, reader reliability, statistical analyses and detailed radiographic data on baseline and change scores over multiple follow-up periods are presented.

Conclusion

The data gathered in this review serve as a repository for the design of future trials with radiographic damage as an outcome.

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.

MTX optimization or adding bDMARD equally improve disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the prospective study STRATEGE

Objectives

The STRATEGE (Therapeutic Strategy in Patients Treated With Methotrexate for Rheumatoid Arthritis) study aimed to describe treatment strategies in current practice in RA biologic DMARD (bDMARD)-naïve patients with an inadequate response to MTX therapy, and to compare clinical efficacy of the different therapeutic strategies on disease activity after 6 months.

Methods

The main inclusion criteria of this prospective, observational, multicentre study were confirmed RA diagnosis, treatment by MTX monotherapy and need for therapeutic management modification.

Results

The 722 patients included had a mean (s.d.) RA duration of 5.3 (6.7) years, a mean DAS28 of 4.0 (1.1); they were all receiving MTX monotherapy, 68% oral, at a mean dose of 15.0 (4.1) mg/week. Two major strategies were identified: (i) MTX monotherapy dose and/or route optimization (72%) and (ii) bDMARD initiation ± MTX (16%). MTX dosing was modified for 70% of patients, maintained (dose and route) for 28% of patients and interrupted for 2%. bDMARDs were started when the MTX mean dose was 17.4 mg/week, 56% parenterally; MTX was maintained concomitantly for 96% of patients. Six-month follow-up results adjusted by propensity score showed that both options were equally successful in improving disease activity and physical function, with 63 and 68% of good-to-moderate EULAR responses, respectively.

Conclusion

The STRATEGE study shows the importance of initial MTX treatment optimization before initiation of a biological treatment and emphasizes the importance of treat-to-target strategy.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02288520.

BT2 Suppresses Human Monocytic-Endothelial Cell Adhesion, Bone Erosion and Inflammation

Introduction

Inflammation and bone erosion are processes key to the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis, a systemic autoimmune disease causing progressive disability and pain, impacting around 1.3 million people in the United States alone. However, many patients do not respond sufficiently to existing therapies or benefit is not sustained and alternate therapeutic approaches are lacking. We recently identified the dibenzoxazepinone BT2, which inhibits ERK phosphorylation, from a high-throughput chemical screen and identified its ability to inhibit angiogenesis and vascular leakiness.

Methods

Here we evaluated BT2 for potential anti-inflammatory activity in in vitro models of human monocytic-endothelial cell adhesion, monocytic cell extravasation and collagen antibody-induced arthritis in mice.

Results

BT2 inhibits human monocytic cell adhesion to IL-1ß-treated human endothelial cells and inhibits monocytic transendothelial migration toward MCP-1. In mice rendered arthritic, single systemic administration of BT2 prevented footpad swelling, bone destruction and TRAP⁺ cells in the joints. BT2 suppressed inducible circulating levels of IL-1ß, IL-2 and IL-6 to normal levels without affecting levels of IL-4 or IL-10 among other cytokines. BT2 also inhibited the expression of pro-inflammatory adhesion molecules ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 in arthritic joints. There was no evidence of toxicity following intraperitoneal, gavage or intraarticular administration of BT2.

Conclusion

BT2 is a novel small molecule inhibitor of joint inflammation, bone erosion, pro-inflammatory cytokine and adhesion molecule expression. This suggests the potential clinical utility of BT2 as a new anti-inflammatory agent.

Joint Statement (DZK, DGRh, DDG) on the Tuberculosis Risk with Treatment Using Novel Non-TNF-Alpha Biologicals

BACKGROUND

 While the risk of tuberculosis (TB) reactivation is adequately documented in relation to TNF-alpha inhibitors (TNFi), the question of what the tuberculosis risk is for newer, non-TNF biologics (non-TNFi) has not been thoroughly addressed.

METHODS

 We conducted a systematic review of randomized phase 2 and phase 3 studies, and long-term extensions of same, published through March 2019. Of interest was information pertaining to screening and treating of latent tuberculosis (LTBI) in association with the use of 12 particular non-TNFi. Only rituximab was excluded. We searched MEDLINE and the ClinicalTrial.gov database for any and all candidate studies meeting these criteria.

RESULTS

 677 citations were retrieved; 127 studies comprising a total of 34,293 patients who received non-TNFi were eligible for evaluation. Only 80 out of the 127 studies, or 63 %, captured active TB (or at least opportunistic diseases) as potential outcomes and 25 TB cases were reported. More than two thirds of publications (86/127, 68 %) mentioned LTBI screening prior to inclusion of study participants in the respective trial, whereas in only 4 studies LTBI screening was explicitly considered redundant. In 21 studies, patients with LTBI were generally excluded from the trials and in 42 out of the 127 trials, or 33 %, latently infected patients were reported to receive preventive therapy (PT) at least 3 weeks prior to non-TNFi treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

 The lack of information in many non-TNFi studies on the number of patients with LTBI who were either excluded prior to participating or had been offered PT hampers assessment of the actual TB risk when applying the novel biologics. Therefore, in case of insufficient information about drugs or drug classes, the existing recommendations of the German Central Committee against Tuberculosis should be applied in the same way as is done prior to administering TNFi. Well designed, long-term "real world" register studies on TB progression risk in relation to individual substances for IGRA-positive cases without prior or concomitant PT may help to reduce selection bias and to achieve valid conclusions in the future.

Biologic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Context of Biosimilars, Genetics, Epigenetics and COVID-19 Treatment

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects around 1.2% of the adult population. RA is one of the main reasons for work disability and premature retirement, thus substantially increasing social and economic burden. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were shown to be an effective therapy especially in those rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, who did not adequately respond to conventional synthetic DMARD therapy. However, despite the proven efficacy, the high cost of the therapy resulted in limitation of the widespread use and unequal access to the care. The introduction of biosimilars, which are much cheaper relative to original drugs, may facilitate the achievement of the therapy by a much broader spectrum of patients. In this review we present the properties of original biologic agents based on cytokine-targeted (blockers of TNF, IL-6, IL-1, GM-CSF) and cell-targeted therapies (aimed to inhibit T cells and B cells properties) as well as biosimilars used in rheumatology. We also analyze the latest update of bDMARDs' possible influence on DNA methylation, miRNA expression and histone modification in RA patients, what might be the important factors toward precise and personalized RA treatment. In addition, during the COVID-19 outbreak, we discuss the usage of biologicals in context of effective and safe COVID-19 treatment. Therefore, early diagnosing along with therapeutic intervention based on personalized drugs targeting disease-specific genes is still needed to relieve symptoms and to improve the quality of life of RA patients.

Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.

DESIGN

Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study.

SETTING

Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms.

RESULTS

812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms.

CONCLUSIONS

All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.

Disease activity measures at baseline predict structural damage progression: data from the randomized, controlled AMPLE and AVERT trials

Objective

Data from two double-blind, randomized, Phase III studies were analysed to investigate the ability of Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3, DAS28 (CRP), modified (M)-DAS28 (CRP) and Simplified or Clinical Disease Activity Indices to predict structural damage progression in RA.

Methods

This post hoc analysis included data from the 2-year Abatacept vs adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE RA subjects with background MTX (AMPLE) trial in biologic-naïve patients with active RA (<5 years) and an inadequate response to MTX, and the 12-month treatment period of the Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment (AVERT) trial in MTX-naïve patients with early RA (⩽2 years) and poor prognostic indicators. Adjusted logistic regression analysis assessed the relationship between baseline disease activity and structural damage progression (defined as change from baseline greater than the smallest detectable change) at 12 and 24 months in AMPLE and 6 and 12 months in AVERT. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the impact of baseline disease activity on structural damage progression were calculated.

Results

Adjusted logistic regression analyses included all randomized and treated patients in AMPLE (N = 646) and those who received abatacept plus MTX or MTX monotherapy in AVERT (N = 235). Baseline Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3, DAS28 (CRP) and M-DAS28 (CRP) scores significantly predicted structural progression at months 12 and 24 in AMPLE (P < 0.05) and months 6 and 12 in AVERT (P < 0.01), and were stronger predictors than Simplified or Clinical Disease Activity Indices.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis of two patient populations with RA, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3, DAS28 (CRP) and M-DAS28 (CRP) were good at predicting structural damage.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00929864 (AMPLE); NCT01142726 (AVERT).

Poor prognostic factors in predicting abatacept response in a phase III randomized controlled trial in psoriatic arthritis

In ASTRAEA (NCT01860976), abatacept significantly increased American College of Rheumatology criteria 20% (ACR20) responses at Week 24 versus placebo in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This post hoc analysis explored relationships between prospectively identified baseline characteristics [poor prognostic factors (PPFs) ] and response to abatacept. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg weekly or placebo for 24 weeks; those without ≥ 20% improvement in joint counts at Week 16 switched to open-label abatacept. Potential predictors of ACR20 response were identified by treatment arm using multivariate analyses. Likelihood of ACR20 response to abatacept versus placebo was compared in univariate and multivariate analyses in subgroups stratified by the PPF, as defined by EULAR and/or GRAPPA treatment guidelines. Odds ratios (ORs) were generated using logistic regression to identify meaningful differences (OR cut-off: 1.2). 424 patients were randomized and treated (abatacept n = 213; placebo n = 211). In abatacept-treated patients, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), high Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (CRP), presence of dactylitis, and ≥ 3 joint erosions were identified as predictors of response (OR > 1.2). In placebo-treated patients, only dactylitis was a potential predictor of response. In the univariate analysis stratified by PPF, ACR20 response was more likely (OR > 1.2) with abatacept versus placebo in patients with baseline PPFs than in those without; multivariate analysis confirmed this finding. Response to abatacept versus placebo is more likely in patients with features indicative of high disease activity and progressive disease; these characteristics are recognized as PPFs in treatment guidelines for PsA.

Update on the Pathomechanism, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease that involves multiple joints bilaterally. It is characterized by an inflammation of the tendon (tenosynovitis) resulting in both cartilage destruction and bone erosion. While until the 1990s RA frequently resulted in disability, inability to work, and increased mortality, newer treatment options have made RA a manageable disease. Here, great progress has been made in the development of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) which target inflammation and thereby prevent further joint damage. The available DMARDs are subdivided into (1) conventional synthetic DMARDs (methotrexate, hydrochloroquine, and sulfadiazine), (2) targeted synthetic DMARDs (pan-JAK- and JAK1/2-inhibitors), and (3) biologic DMARDs (tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors, TNF-receptor (R) inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors, IL-6R inhibitors, B cell depleting antibodies, and inhibitors of co-stimulatory molecules). While DMARDs have repeatedly demonstrated the potential to greatly improve disease symptoms and prevent disease progression in RA patients, they are associated with considerable side-effects and high financial costs. This review summarizes our current understanding of the underlying pathomechanism, diagnosis of RA, as well as the mode of action, clinical benefits, and side-effects of the currently available DMARDs.

CTLA4-Ig (abatacept): a promising investigational drug for use in type 1 diabetes

Introduction: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is an autoimmune disease that results from the destruction of insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas; it leads to the under or nonproduction of insulin. T1D is associated with numerous life-threatening micro- and macro-vascular complications and early deaths, hence the development of preventative strategies is a priority for research.Areas covered: The authors outline the drawbacks of available treatments for T1D and assess the three key strategies for prevention, including immunomodulatory therapies which hold the most potential. This article examines CTLA4-Ig and its efficacy and safety profiles. Finally, the pharmacokinetic parameters and pharmacodynamic markers of abatacept are shown in vivo and in clinical trials, guiding dosage regimen recommendations for future investigational studies.Expert opinion: Immunomodulation is one of the promising strategies for decelerating the progression of beta-cell destruction after the onset of T1D. It holds the advantage of specific immune modulation without systemic general immunosuppression. Preclinical and clinical studies have yielded promising data on the use of CTLA4-Ig in T1D. Variations in response to CTLA4-Ig might be partially explained by the existence of multiple T1D subtypes with varying baseline innate inflammatory/regulatory bias and the rate of C-peptide decline.

CTLA-4: From mechanism to autoimmune therapy

CD28 and CTLA-4 are both important stimulatory receptors for the regulation of T cell activation. Because receptors share common ligands, B7.1 and B7.2, the expression and biological function of CTLA-4 is important for the negative regulation of T cell responses. Therefore, elimination of CTLA-4 can result in the breakdown of immune tolerance and the development of several diseases such as autoimmunity. Inhibitory signals of CTLA-4 suppress T cell responses and protect against autoimmune diseases in many ways. In this review, we summarize the structure, expression and signaling pathway of CTLA-4. We also highlight how CTLA-4 defends against potentially self-reactive T cells. Finally, we discuss how the CTLA-4 regulates a number of autoimmune diseases that indicate manipulation of this inhibitory molecule is a promise as a strategy for the immunotherapy of autoimmune diseases.

T cell co-stimulation and co-inhibition in cardiovascular disease: a double-edged sword

The role of inflammation in cardiovascular disease (CVD) is now widely accepted. Immune cells, including T cells, are influenced by inflammatory signals and contribute to the onset and progression of CVD. T cell activation is modulated by T cell co-stimulation and co-inhibition pathways. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting T cell inhibition pathways have revolutionized cancer treatment and improved survival in patients with cancer. However, ICIs might induce cardiovascular toxicity via T cell re-invigoration. With the rising use of ICIs for cancer treatment, a timely overview of the role of T cell co-stimulation and inhibition molecules in CVD is desirable. In this Review, the importance of these molecules in the pathogenesis of CVD is highlighted in preclinical studies on models of CVD such as vein graft disease, myocarditis, graft arterial disease, post-ischaemic neovascularization and atherosclerosis. This Review also discusses the therapeutic potential of targeting T cell co-stimulation and inhibition pathways to treat CVD, as well as the possible cardiovascular benefits and adverse events after treatment. Finally, the Review emphasizes that patients with cancer who are treated with ICIs should be monitored for CVD given the reported association between the use of ICIs and the risk of cardiovascular toxicity.

Comparative Effectiveness of Combining MTX with Biologic Drug Therapy Versus Either MTX or Biologics Alone for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

Compare benefits and harms of biologic drug therapies for adults with early RA within 1 year of diagnosis.

DATA SOURCES

English language articles from the 2012 review to October 2017 identified through MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, gray literature, expert recommendations, reference lists of published literature, and supplemental evidence data requests.

STUDY SELECTION

Two persons independently selected studies based on predefined inclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer extracted data; a second reviewer checked accuracy. Two independent reviewers assigned risk of bias ratings.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We identified 22 eligible studies with 9934 participants. Combination therapy with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) or non-TNF biologics plus methotrexate (MTX) improved disease control, remission, and functional capacity compared with monotherapy of either MTX or a biologic. Network meta-analyses found higher ACR50 response (50% improvement) for combination therapy of biologic plus MTX than for MTX monotherapy (relative risk range 1.20 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04 to 1.38] to 1.57 [95% CI, 1.30 to 1.88]). No significant differences emerged between treatment discontinuation rates because of adverse events or serious adverse events. Subgroup data (disease activity, prior therapy, demographics, serious conditions) were limited.

LIMITATIONS

Trials enrolled almost exclusively selected populations with high disease activity. Network meta-analyses were derived from indirect comparisons relative to MTX due to the dearth of head-to-head studies comparing interventions. No eligible data on biosimilars were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative and network meta-analyses suggest that the combination of MTX with TNF or non-TNF biologics reduces disease activity and improves remission when compared with MTX monotherapy. Overall adverse event and discontinuation rates were similar between treatment groups.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017079260 ).

Low rates of remission with methotrexate monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: review of randomised controlled trials could point towards a paradigm shift

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has improved substantially during the last decades, mainly due to the development and introduction in everyday practice of new, highly efficacious, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), more optimal usage of them, earlier diagnosis and tighter control of disease activity targeting at remission. Methotrexate is still today the anchor drug and the first-line treatment after diagnosis. However, numerous studies comparing methotrexate and biologic DMARDs, as well as new targeted synthetic DMARDs, both in early as in more established disease, have shown consistently better efficacy of the latter compared with methotrexate, with methotrexate yielding remission to maximum half of patients. This could suggest a new paradigm shift with earlier start of a biologic or a targeted synthetic DMARD, with the possibility of subsequent discontinuation in case of achievement of stable remission. Several strategy trials, however, have shown that there might be a clinical and structural benefit of initial, aggressive therapy, possibly even associated with higher chance of remaining in remission, after cessation of the biologic DMARD and continuing with methotrexate alone, but they have failed to show a clear advantage of such an aggressive treatment strategy. This might become a valuable option for the future treatment algorithm of RA, especially for a subgroup of patients with RA, but further confirmation from future research is needed. The crucial role of glucocorticoid use as part of the combination strategy should be acknowledged, and strategy trials should include this combination as an active comparator.

Arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of RA with abatacept (the APIPPRA study): a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial protocol

TRIAL DESIGN

We present a study protocol for a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial that seeks to test the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a 52-week period of treatment with the first-in-class co-stimulatory blocker abatacept for preventing or delaying the onset of inflammatory arthritis.

METHODS

The study aimed to recruit 206 male or female subjects from the secondary care hospital setting across the UK and the Netherlands. Participants who were at least 18 years old, who reported inflammatory sounding joint pain (clinically suspicious arthralgia) and who were found to be positive for serum autoantibodies associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were eligible for enrolment. All study subjects were randomly assigned to receive weekly injections of investigational medicinal product, either abatacept or placebo treatment over the course of a 52-week period. Participants were followed up for a further 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was defined as the time to development of at least three swollen joints or to the fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for RA using swollen but not tender joints, whichever endpoint was met first. In either case, swollen joints were confirmed by ultrasonography. Participants, care givers, and those assessing the outcomes were all blinded to group assignment. Clinical assessors and ultrasonographers were also blinded to each other's assessments for the duration of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited experience of the design and implementation of trials for the prevention of inflammatory joint diseases. We discuss the rationale behind choice and duration of treatment and the challenges associated with defining the "at risk" state and offer pragmatic solutions in the protocol to enrolling subjects at risk of RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN46017566 . Registered on 4 July 2014.

Does Triple Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Therapy Improve upon Methotrexate as the Initial Treatment of Choice for a Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient?

Although many treatment options exist for the initial management of rheumatoid arthritis, there has long been discussion about whether initial treatment should be with methotrexate (MTX) as monotherapy or in combination with other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). Although studies initially showed additional benefit from combining MTX with other csDMARDs, this benefit disappears when glucocorticoids are added to MTX, a strategy recommended in current guidelines as a short-term bridging approach until MTX therapy exhibits its full efficacy. Also concomitant use of glucocorticoids, with MTX may not be inferior to combination therapy of MTX with TNF-inhibitors.

Effect of Biological Disease-modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs on Airway and Interstitial Lung Disease in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) represent an important advance in alleviating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but their effect on rheumatic airway disease (AD) and interstitial lung disease (ILD) is still unclear. This study was performed to evaluate the association of the use of different bDMARDs with new-onset or worsening of RA-AD/ILD. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of RA patients who received bDMARDs and assessed their AD/ILD before and after drug initiation in our hospital over the past 10 years. We evaluated the serial changes in computed tomography (CT), classified patients according to AD/ILD progression, and analyzed associations between clinical characteristics and outcomes. Results We enrolled 49 patients. Thirty patients received tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), 12 received abatacept (ABT), and the remaining 7 received tocilizumab (TCZ). Seventeen patients had ILD, 10 had AD, and 6 had both AD and ILD before the initiation of bDMARDs. New emergence or exacerbation of AD/ILD was observed in 18 patients after drug initiation, while the remaining 31 remained stable or improved. Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed that pre-existing AD was an independent risk factor against the emergence or exacerbation of RA-AD/ILD, and ABT use was a protective factor against it. Conclusion Our study showed that pre-existing RA-AD is associated with future worsening of RA-AD/ILD, and ABT over other bDMARDs was associated with a better prognosis. Future studies to confirm our results are needed.

Safety of Abatacept Versus Placebo in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Integrated Data Analysis of Nine Clinical Trials

Objective

To assess the safety of abatacept treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using integrated data from multiple clinical trials.

Methods

Data from nine double‐blind, placebo‐controlled studies of abatacept treatment (seven intravenous, two subcutaneous) in patients with RA were pooled, focusing on safety events in the double‐blind treatment period of each study. Incidence rates (IRs) of adverse events (AEs) per 100 patient‐years of exposure were calculated for abatacept‐ and placebo‐treated patients. AEs in abatacept‐treated patients were combined regardless of dose and formulation.

Results

In total, 2653 patients received abatacept and 1485 received placebo, with 2357 and 1254 patient‐years of exposure, respectively. The mean (SD) durations of exposure in the abatacept and placebo groups were 10.8 (3.3) and 10.3 (3.5) months, respectively. The IRs (95% confidence interval [CI]) for serious AEs were 14.8 (13.3, 16.5) and 14.6 (12.5, 17.0) in the abatacept and placebo groups, respectively. Death occurred in 12 (0.5%) and 12 (0.8%) patients in the abatacept and placebo groups, respectively, and was most commonly caused by cardiac disorders. Malignancies were observed in 31 patients (1.2%) treated with abatacept (IR: 1.32 [95% CI: 0.90, 1.87]) versus 14 (0.9%; IR: 1.12 [0.61, 1.88]) who received placebo. Solid organ tumor was the most frequent malignancy reported in both groups (abatacept: 1.0%; IR: 1.11 [95% CI: 0.72, 1.62]; placebo: 0.8%; 0.96 [0.50, 1.67]).

Conclusion

In this integrated analysis, the IRs of safety events in the abatacept and placebo groups were similar with no new safety concerns identified.

Multicenter, observational clinical study of abatacept in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis

The aim of this study was to assess abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patient. Patients (20 men, 89 women, aged 61.9 ± 10.4 y) who responded inadequately to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug were treated with abatacept for 24-months. Disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28-CRP) was evaluated. Of 109 patients, 82 (75.2%) were on methotrexate (MTX; mean dosage 9.0 ± 2.7 mg/week); 48 (44.0%) were naive to biologics and 61 (56.0%) had failed biologics. The 1- and 2-year retention rates were 77% and 53%, respectively. At 24-months, the DAS28-CRP remission rates were 54.5% in the biologic-naïve patients, and 28.2% in the biologic-failure patients (p < .01), while the structural remission rates were 83.9% and 73.1%, respectively (p = .461). Abatacept was equally effective in RA patients who were and were not on concomitant MTX. Biologic-naïve was associated with better clinical outcome. Abatacept was effective in patients who showed decreasing anti-CCP antibody titers or serum MMP-3 levels during treatment. Infection was the most frequent adverse effect of abatacept therapy. In conclusion, abatacept is more effective in biologic-naïve than in biologic-failure RA patients with or without concomitant use of MTX. Abatacept is more effective in RA patients with than without decreasing serum MMP-3 or anti-CCP antibody titers during treatment.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells Improve Rheumatoid Arthritis Progression by Controlling Memory T Cell Response

In the last years, mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)-based therapies have become an interesting therapeutic opportunity for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) due to their capacity to potently modulate the immune response. RA is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disorder with an incompletely understood etiology. However, it has been well described that peripheral tolerance defects and the subsequent abnormal infiltration and activation of diverse immune cells into the synovial membrane, are critical for RA development and progression. Moreover, the imbalance between the immune response of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cells, in particular between memory Th17 and memory regulatory T cells (Treg), respectively, is well admitted to be associated to RA immunopathogenesis. In this context, MSCs, which are able to alter the frequency and function of memory lymphocytes including Th17, follicular helper T (Tfh) cells and gamma delta (γδ) T cells while promoting Treg cell generation, have been proposed as a candidate of choice for RA cell therapy. Indeed, given the plasticity of memory CD4⁺ T cells, it is reasonable to think that MSCs will restore the balance between pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory memory T cells populations deregulated in RA leading to prompt their therapeutic function. In the present review, we will discuss the role of memory T cells implicated in RA pathogenesis and the beneficial effects exerted by MSCs on the phenotype and functions of these immune cells abnormally regulated in RA and how this regulation could impact RA progression.

Targeted antibody therapy and relevant novel biomarkers for precision medicine for rheumatoid arthritis

Over the past two decades, the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has progressed remarkably, encompassing the development of new diagnostic tools and efficacious biological agents, such as monoclonal antibodies against inflammatory cytokines and surface markers on immune cells. In addition to the significant efficacy of these biological agents, biomarkers for RA are under consideration for their potential to classify heterogeneous patients into several groups based on clinical and immunological phenotypes for the prediction of clinical course and prognosis and the facilitation of appropriate and precise treatment with the appropriate therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Biomarkers, particularly those for the prediction and monitoring of the responses to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies for RA, are in demand, with many approaches examined in recent years. In this article, we have summarized the background research on biomarkers and introduced recent topics in the field that enable the possible clinical applications of biomarkers, especially those related to pathogenic cytokines, to guide the treatment of RA.