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

Disease-Modifying Medications in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in the USA: Trends from 2016 to 2021

BACKGROUND

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), since their introduction in 1990, have revolutionized the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Newer DMARDs have recently been approved, influencing treatment patterns and clinical guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To update the current prescribing patterns of DMARDs in the pharmacotherapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to include the pandemic era.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cross-sectional multi-year study. Using Optum's Clinformatics® Data Mart Database, we summarized trends in the prevalence of DMARD use in the USA from 2016 to 2021 by year for adult patients ≥ 18 years old with at least one medical RA claim and one pharmacy/medical claim of a DMARD medication. Trends included type of DMARD, class of DMARD (conventional (csDMARDs), biologics [tumor necrosis factor (TNFi) and Non-TNFi), and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKs)], and triple therapy [methotrexate (MTX), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), sulfasalazine (SUL)] used.

RESULTS

The total sample from 2016 to 2021 was 670,679 commercially insured patients. The average age was 63.7 years (SD 13.6), and 76.7% were female and 70% were White. csDMARDs remain the most prescribed (ranging from 77.2 to 79.2%). Although JAKs were the least prescribed DMARD class, their proportion more than doubled from 2016 (1.5%) to 2021 (4%). MTX utilization declined from 40% in 2016 to 34% in 2021. In contrast, HCQ use increased during the pandemic era from < 25% in 2018 to 30% in 2021. Although there is evidence of the therapeutic benefit of triple therapy, its use was very low (~ 1%) compared to biologics only (~ 17%) or biologics+MTX (~ 10%).

CONCLUSION

About half of patients with RA were on DMARDs. As expected, csDMARDs were highly used consistently. The COVID-19 pandemic might have influenced the use of HCQ and infusion DMARDs. Triple therapy use remains low.

Budget impact analysis and treatment availability with biosimilar TNF inhibitors in rheumatic diseases in Poland: real-world evidence using a nationwide database

OBJECTIVES

Although several years have passed since biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs were introduced to the market, considerable disparities in access still remain. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) have proven to be highly effective and safe for treating patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The emergence of biosimilars is promising for cost reduction and more equitable, widespread access.

METHODS

A retrospective budget impact analysis based on final drug prices was conducted using 12 687 treatment courses for infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. Estimated and real-life savings for public payer were calculated from an 8-year perspective of TNFi use. Data on the treatment cost and on the evolution in the number of patients treated was provided.

RESULTS

From a public payer perspective, the estimated total savings amount to over €243 million for TNFi, with over €166 million attributed to treatment cost reduction in RMDs. Real-life savings were calculated as €133 million and €107 million, respectively. The rheumatology sector generated between 68% and 92% of total savings across models, depending on the adopted scenario. The overall decrease in mean annual cost of treatment ranged between 75% and 89% in the study frame. If all budget savings were spent on reimbursement of additional TNFi, a hypothetical total of almost 45 000 patients with RMDs could be treated in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first nation-level analysis that shows estimated and real-life direct cost-savings for TNFi biosimilars. Transparent criteria for reinvesting savings should be developed on both a local and an international levels.

Perioperative treatment with TNF inhibitors does not affect survival of total hip arthroplasty in inflammatory arthritis: a registry-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Aim of this study was to investigate the effect of perioperative exposure to TNF inhibitors (TNFi) on the long-term survival of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in inflammatory arthritis patients from a large regional register of arthroplasty procedures (RIPO).

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of data from RIPO for THAs performed between 2008 and 2019. After extraction of the procedures of interest from the RIPO dataset, cross-matching with administrative databases were used to identify patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), primary osteoarthritis (OA), and treatments of interest. Three different cohorts of patients were identified: perioperative TNFi-treated patients (6 months before or after the surgery), perioperative non-bDMARD/tsDMARD (biologic or targeted-synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs), and OA.

RESULTS

At an average follow-up of 5 years, survival rates (using any revision surgery as an endpoint) were not significantly different when perioperative TNFi users and non-bDMARD/tsDMARD patients were compared (p = 0.713), and between TNFi-treated and OA controls (p = 0.123). At the latest available follow-up, 2.5% patients in the TNFi cohort, 3% in the non-bDMARD/tsDMARD cohort, and 0.8% in the OA cohort underwent revision surgery. No significant differences were found comparing the risk of postoperative infection or aseptic loosening among groups.

CONCLUSION

Risk of revision surgery is not increased in patients with inflammatory arthritis perioperatively exposed to TNFi. Our results support the long-term safety of this class of molecules on survival of prosthetic implants.

Past, Present and (Foreseeable) Future of Biological Anti-TNF Alpha Therapy

Due to the key role of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) in the pathogenesis of immunoinflammatory diseases, TNF-α inhibitors have been successfully developed and used in the clinical treatment of autoimmune disorders. Currently, five anti-TNF-α drugs have been approved: infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol and etanercept. Anti-TNF-α biosimilars are also available for clinical use. Here, we will review the historical development as well as the present and potential future applications of anti-TNF-α therapies, which have led to major improvements for patients with several autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC), psoriasis (PS) and chronic endogenous uveitis. Other therapeutic areas are under evaluation, including viral infections, e.g., COVID-19, as well as chronic neuropsychiatric disorders and certain forms of cancer. The search for biomarkers able to predict responsiveness to anti-TNF-α drugs is also discussed.

Methotrexate-related adverse events and impact of concomitant treatment with folic acid and tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors: An assessment using the FDA adverse event reporting system

Methotrexate (MTX) is an essential anti-rheumatic drug used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Prevention or management of adverse reactions, including interstitial lung disease (ILD), hepatotoxicity, myelosuppression, and infection, remains fundamental for safe MTX therapy. Using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) (JAPIC AERS), we performed disproportionality analyses of adverse events related to MTX use and the impact of concomitant medications. Upon analyzing all reported cases in FAERS between 1997 and 2019, the crude reporting odds ratios (cRORs; 95% confidence intervals) for ILD, hepatotoxicity, myelosuppression, and tuberculosis (TB) in relation to MTX use were 4.00 (3.83-4.17), 1.99 (1.96-2.02), 3.66 (3.58-3.74), and 7.97 (7.65-8.3), respectively. Combining MTX with folic acid (FA) or tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFis) tended to reduce cRORs for these adverse events (except for TB). Multiple logistic regression analysis in patients with RA was conducted to calculate adjusted reporting odds ratios (aRORs) for age, sex, and MTX treatment patterns (MTX alone and combined with FA and TNFi). Higher age (except for hepatotoxicity) and male sex were significantly associated with adverse events. Combining FA or TNFi with MTX reduced aRORs for MTX-related hepatotoxicity and myelosuppression; in contrast, the effect of FA was not obvious in ILD or TB. Although studies assessing spontaneous reporting systems have limitations such as reporting bias, data from our logistic regression analysis demonstrated that adding FA to MTX-based therapy could help reduce the dose-dependent adverse events of MTX, thereby providing clinical evidence that supports the beneficial effect of FA. This study also demonstrated the usefulness of FAERS in comparing adverse events based on treatment patterns.

Experts document on methotrexate use in combined therapy with biological or targeted synthetic disease modifying drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop recommendations for the management of methotrexate (MTX) when considering the combination with biological (b) or targeted synthetic (ts) disease modifying drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Eleven experts on RA were selected. Two coordinators formulated 13 questions about the combination therapy of MTX with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs. A systematic review was conducted to answer the questions. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established as well as the search strategies (Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2019). Two reviewers selected the articles and collected data. Simultaneously, EULAR and ACR meeting abstracts were evaluated. Based on this evidence, the coordinators proposed preliminary recommendations that the experts discussed and voted in a nominal group meeting. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation was established using the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine and the level of agreement with a Delphi. Agreement was established if at least 80% of the experts voted 'yes' (yes/no).

RESULTS

The systematic review retrieved 513 citations of which 61 were finally included. A total of 10 recommendations were generated, voted and accepted. The level of agreement was very high in all of them and it was achieved in the first Delphi round. Final recommendations cover aspects such as the optimal MTX dosage, tapering strategy or patients' risk management.

CONCLUSIONS

This document is intended to help clinicians solve usual clinical questions and facilitate decision making when treating RA patients with MTX in combination with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs.

Patient perspectives on biological treatments for inflammatory arthritis: A multi-center study in Korea

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient’s perception of the use of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and provide a basis for physicians to understand the patient’s perspective.

Patients and methods: Between December 2018 and June 2019, a total of 307 patients (162 males, 145 females; mean age: 48 years; range, 18 to 81 years) were included in this investigator-initiated, multi-center, observational, and cross-sectional study in six rheumatology centers. We asked patients using bDMARDs to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to complete a questionnaire regarding major considerations and satisfaction with bDMARDs, preferred administration route, knowledge about bDMARDs, experiences of adverse events, non-adherence, and expectations of their healthcare provider. The satisfaction of physician and clinical information on the patient's disease and treatment were also collected.

Results: Of the patients, 139 had RA and 168 had AS. Median disease duration was six years in RA and five years in AS. A total of 80.1% of the patients and 77.1% of the physicians indicated being satisfied or very satisfied with the therapeutic effect of the current bDMARD. Most patients were open to intravenous or subcutaneous injection, with the most preferred route of administration being subcutaneous (41.3%), followed by intravenous (32.0%), and oral (26.7%). The patients considered therapeutic effect to be more important than cost or convenience while choosing a bDMARD (69.3%), and most were willing to be educated about therapeutic effects (46.1%). Only 35.2% of the patients reported well and/or very well knowledge about the therapeutic effects, side effects, and administration methods of their current bDMARD, and 86.6% cited their physician as the primary source of information about biological treatment.

Conclusion: Patients value therapeutic effect more than cost or convenience while selecting a bDMARD, and consider their physicians to be the primary information source. Therefore, it is important for physicians to provide appropriate education and encourage patients to cooperate actively with treatment.

Effect of mandarin peel extract on experimentally induced arthritis in male rats

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with joint damage. For treatment, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), steroidal agents, and immune-suppressants are used. Their side-effects require a safe and effective natural alternative.

ANIMALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six male albino rats, half kept under observation for 1 week (group I) and others for 2 weeks (group II) were used. Each group was subdivided into: normal (A), RA (B), and oral mandarin-peel extract (MPE) treated (C). Ankle diameter, serum levels of RF, interleukin (IL)-1β, TNFα, IL-4, IL-10, liver homogenates malondialdehyde (MDA), glutathione (GSH), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and nitric oxide (NO) were measured together with the histopathological examination.

RESULTS

MPE treatment was associated with increased serum IL-4, IL-10, liver homogenates GSH, and SOD, and decreased ankle diameter, serum RF, IL-1β, TNFα, liver homogenates MDA, NO, inflammatory cell infiltrate, and necrosis. Two weeks' treatment was better.

CONCLUSIONS

MPE has useful effects in alleviating the disturbed ankle diameter, serum pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators, oxidative stress, and ankle joint histopathology in rheumatic rats.

Conventional disease-modifying agents in rheumatoid arthritis - a review of their current use and role in treatment algorithms

Despite the development of targeted therapies, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) remain the cornerstone of treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A literature search was conducted on treatment recommendations and relevant papers regarding new insights on therapeutics in rheumatoid arthritis. Methotrexate is considered the “anchor drug” due to its high efficacy as monotherapy and in combination with other conventional and targeted agents. Leflunomide and sulfasalazine are sound alternatives, whereas (hydroxy)chloroquine is primarily used in combination with other csDMARDs.

Their use is encouraged in all treatment phases – in combination with targeted agents, and with other csDMARDs. Combining different csDMARDs is especially attractive in lower income settings given the evidence proving (almost) equal efficacy and safety of the csDMARD combination approach compared to the combination of targeted agents with a csDMARD.

The aim of this review is to provide a clinically oriented insight into the pharmacology of each csDMARD and their place in treatment algorithms.

Risk of Serious Infection Among Initiators of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors Plus Methotrexate Versus Triple Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of serious infections between the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) plus methotrexate (MTX) versus triple therapy among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Using claims data from Truven MarketScan (2003-2014), we conducted a cohort study to compare RA patients receiving MTX who added a TNFi (TNFi plus MTX group) versus MTX plus hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine (triple therapy group). The primary outcome was any serious infection (i.e., a composite end point of hospitalized bacterial and opportunistic infections or herpes zoster). Secondary outcomes were individual components of the composite end point. To adjust for baseline confounding, we used propensity score (PS)-based fine stratification and weighting. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model estimated the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the outcomes.

RESULTS

After PS stratification (PSS) and weighting, we included a total of 45,208 TNFi plus MTX initiators and 1,387 triple therapy initiators. Mean age was 53 years and 70% were female. The incidence rate of any serious infection per 100 person-years was 2.46 in the TNFi plus MTX group and 2.03 in the triple therapy group. The PSS-weighted HR for any serious infection comparing TNFi plus MTX versus triple therapy was 1.23 (95% CI 0.87-1.74). For the secondary outcomes, the PSS-weighted HR was 1.41 (95% CI 0.85-2.34) for bacterial infection and 0.80 (95% CI 0.55-1.18) for herpes zoster.

CONCLUSION

In this real-world cohort of RA patients, we noted no substantially different risk of any serious infection, bacterial infection, or herpes zoster after initiating TNFi plus MTX versus triple therapy, although CIs were wide.

Experts document on methotrexate use in combined therapy with biological or targeted synthetic disease modifying drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop recommendations for the management of methotrexate (MTX) when considering the combination with biological (b) or targeted synthetic (ts) disease modifying drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Eleven experts on RA were selected. Two coordinators formulated 13 questions about the combination therapy of MTX with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs. A systematic review was conducted to answer the questions. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established as well as the search strategies (Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2019). Two reviewers selected the articles and collected data. Simultaneously, EULAR and ACR meeting abstracts were evaluated. Based on this evidence, the coordinators proposed preliminary recommendations that the experts discussed and voted in a nominal group meeting. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation was established using the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine and the level of agreement with a Delphi. Agreement was established if at least 80% of the experts voted 'yes' (yes/no).

RESULTS

The systematic review retrieved 513 citations of which 61 were finally included. A total of 10 recommendations were generated, voted and accepted. The level of agreement was very high in all of them and it was achieved in the first Delphi round. Final recommendations cover aspects such as the optimal MTX dosage, tapering strategy or patients' risk management.

CONCLUSIONS

This document is intended to help clinicians solve usual clinical questions and facilitate decision making when treating RA patients with MTX in combination with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs.

Joint Estimation of Remission and Response for Methotrexate-Based DMARD Options in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Bivariate Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

To jointly estimate American College of Rheumatology (ACR50) response (a more commonly reported outcome) and remission (a more clinically relevant outcome) for methotrexate (MTX)‐based treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

We conducted a bivariate network meta‐analysis (NMA) to compare MTX monotherapy and MTX‐based conventional and biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combinations for RA. The correlation between the outcomes was derived from an incident RA cohort study, whereas the treatment effects were derived from randomized trials in the network of evidence. The analyses were conducted separately for MTX‐naïve and MTX–inadequate response (IR) populations in a Bayesian framework with uninformative priors.

Results

From the cohort study, the correlation between ACR50 response and Disease Activity Score 28 remission at 6 months was moderate (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.58). In the bivariate NMA for MTX‐naïve populations, most combinations of MTX with either biologic or tofacitinib were statistically superior to MTX alone for both ACR50 response and remission. Triple therapy (MTX + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine) was the only nonbiologic DMARD statistically superior to MTX for either ACR50 response (odds ratio [OR] 95% credible interval: 2.1 [1.0, 4.3]) or remission (OR: 2.5 [1.0, 5.8]). In the MTX‐IR analysis, all treatments except MTX + sulfasalazine were statistically superior to MTX alone. Compared to analyzing the outcomes separately, the bivariate model often resulted in more precise estimates and allowed remission to be estimated for all treatments.

Conclusion

Borrowing the strength of correlation between outcomes allowed us to demonstrate a statistically significant benefit for remission across most MTX‐based DMARD combinations, including triple therapy.

Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment. A Back to the Drawing Board Project or High Expectations for Low Unmet Needs?

Despite the significant progress in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) therapeutics, there are several reports in the literature claiming that the size of unmet needs in RA is large. In the era before biologics, there was indeed a significant number of patients who did not achieve low disease activity (LDA) or disease remission due to limited therapeutic choices in the doctors' armamentarium. Treatment wise, great progress has been achieved over the last decades with the discovery and introduction in therapeutics of new molecules, such as the biological (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and the targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs. Today, with such a plethora of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs, tsDMARDs, and bDMARDs, why are we unable to successfully treat RA patients? What is wrong? However, a new drug for RA does not mean it is necessary to switch to a new treatment. It is very easy to change and switch therapies when the patient complains about pain and stiffness. In this setting, it is obligatory to rule out other comorbidities and disorders that may be the cause of the pain first. Thus, clinicians must have a deep knowledge of the drug therapy and be able to adjust the treatment when needed. A minute clinical examination must be carried out on every visit with close monitoring of the patient. A treat-to-target (T2T) approach and the application of the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) recommendations and strategies should minimize the unmet needs.

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.

How to Get the Most from Methotrexate (MTX) Treatment for Your Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient?-MTX in the Treat-to-Target Strategy

Methotrexate (MTX) is a remarkable drug with a key role in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at every stage of its evolution. Its attributes include good overall efficacy for signs and symptoms, inhibition of structural damage and preservation of function with acceptable and manageable safety, a large dose-titratable range, options for either an oral or parenteral route of administration, and currently unrivalled cost-effectiveness. It has a place as a monotherapy and also as an anchor drug that can be safely used in combination with other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or used concomitantly with biological DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs. MTX is not without potential issues regarding toxicity, notably hepatotoxicity and bone marrow toxicity, as well as tolerability problems for some, but not all, patients. But many of these issues can be mitigated or managed. In the face of a welcome expansion in available targeted therapies for the treatment of RA, MTX looks set to remain at the foundation of pharmacotherapy for the majority of people living with RA and other inflammatory rheumatic diseases. In this article, we provide an evidence-based discussion as to how to achieve the best outcomes with this versatile drug in the context of a treat-to-target strategy for the management of RA.

Dose adjustments and discontinuation in TNF inhibitors treated patients: when and how. A systematic review of literature

Objectives

To review the available evidence concerning the possibility of discontinuing and/or tapering the dosage of TNF inhibitors (TNFi) in RA patients experiencing clinical remission or low disease activity.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature concerning the low dosage and discontinuation of TNFi in disease-controlled RA patients was performed by evaluation of reports published in indexed international journals (Medline via PubMed, EMBASE), in the time frame from 8 April 2013 to 15 January 2016.

Results

We analysed the literature evaluating the efficacy and the safety of two different strategies using TNFi, decreasing dosage or discontinuation, in patients experiencing clinical remission or low disease activity. After the analysis of online databases, 25 references were considered potentially relevant and 16 references were selected. The majority of data concerned etanercept and adalimumab. Results suggested the induction of stable clinical remission or low disease activity by using TNFi followed by a dosage tapering and/or discontinuation of such drugs may be associated with the maintenance of a good clinical response in a subset of patients affected by early disease.

Conclusion

RA patients treated early with TNFi and achieving their therapeutic clinical targets seem to maintain their clinical response after tapering or discontinuing TNFi. These data may allow physicians a more dynamic and tailored management of RA patients.

Novel treatment strategies in rheumatoid arthritis

New treatment strategies have substantially changed the course of rheumatoid arthritis. Many patients can achieve remission if the disease is recognised early and is treated promptly and continuously; however, some individuals do not respond adequately to treatment. Rapid diagnosis and a treat-to-target approach with tight monitoring and control, can increase the likelihood of remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In this Series paper, we describe new insights into the management of rheumatoid arthritis with targeted therapy approaches using classic and novel medications, and outline the potential effects of precision medicine in this challenging disease. Articles are included that investigate the treat-to-target approach, which includes adding or de-escalating treatment. Rheumatoid arthritis treatment is impeded by delayed diagnosis, problematic access to specialists, and difficulties adhering to treat-to-target principles. Clinical management goals in rheumatoid arthritis include enabling rapid access to optimum diagnosis and care and the well informed use of multiple treatments approved for this disease.

CT-P13 in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The first biosimilar infliximab, CT-P13 infliximab-dyyb was approved in 2013 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and in 2016 by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has been used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for 4 years. Areas covered: CT-P13 with the three brand names on the market has highly similar efficacy and safety profiles but lower price than originator infliximab and are approved in more than 80 countries. One of the most important determinants of the implementation of CT-P13 in the treatment of RA is scientific evidence from clinical studies and real-world pharmacovigilance data. Here, we review all available clinical data supporting the similarity of CT-P13 to originator infliximab in its clinical efficacy and safety for the treatment of RA and related arthritis. In addition, we consider the role of CT-P13 in therapeutic strategies for RA treatment. Expert commentary: With its highly similar efficacy and safety profile to originator infliximab and its lower price, CT-P13 is expected to be very useful in RA treatment, whether it is applied earlier or switched from originator infliximab or other biologics. Future educational initiatives will be important to overcome misunderstandings about biosimilars and to improve the implementation of CT-P13.