Impact of tapering targeted therapies (bDMARDs or JAKis) on the risk of serious infections and adverse events of special interest in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis: a systematic analysis of the literature and meta-analysis

Effect of the extended dosing interval of anti-TNF-α NANOBODY® compound ozoralizumab in patients with low disease activity rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to evaluate the effect of the extended dosing interval on the efficacy and safety of ozoralizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

In a long-term extension study (HOSHIZORA trial) for patients who had completed a phase II/III study with methotrexate or a phase III study without methotrexate, the dosing interval of ozoralizumab was allowed to extend from every 4 weeks (Q4W) to every 8 weeks (Q8W), at the physician's discretion, for patients who had maintained a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) <3.2 at the last two time points. The continuation rate, efficacy, and safety were examined in patients who had completed 24 weeks after the change in the dosing interval by the data cut-off point.

RESULTS

Of the 32 patients who maintained DAS28-ESR <3.2 and changed the interval from Q4W to Q8W, 28 (87.5%) remained on Q8W for 24 weeks. At Week 24, the percentages of patients who remained on Q8W and achieved DAS28-ESR <2.6 and <3.2 were 71.9% and 84.4%, respectively. No safety concerns were observed for 24 weeks in the Q8W group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with RA and maintained DAS28-ESR <3.2 with ozoralizumab, efficacy was sustained and well tolerated after the dosing interval was extended from Q4W to Q8W.

Inflammatory tissue priming: novel insights and therapeutic opportunities for inflammatory rheumatic diseases

Due to optimised treatment strategies and the availability of new therapies during the last decades, formerly devastating chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic sclerosis (SSc) have become less menacing. However, in many patients, even state-of-the-art treatment cannot induce remission. Moreover, the risk for flares strongly increases once anti-inflammatory therapy is tapered or withdrawn, suggesting that underlying pathological processes remain active even in the absence of overt inflammation. It has become evident that tissues have the ability to remember past encounters with pathogens, wounds and other irritants, and to react more strongly and/or persistently to the next occurrence. This priming of the tissue bears a paramount role in defence from microbes, but on the other hand drives inflammatory pathologies (the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde aspect of tissue adaptation). Emerging evidence suggests that long-lived tissue-resident cells, such as fibroblasts, macrophages, long-lived plasma cells and tissue-resident memory T cells, determine inflammatory tissue priming in an interplay with infiltrating immune cells of lymphoid and myeloid origin, and with systemically acting factors such as cytokines, extracellular vesicles and antibodies. Here, we review the current state of science on inflammatory tissue priming, focusing on tissue-resident and tissue-occupying cells in arthritis and SSc, and reflect on the most promising treatment options targeting the maladapted tissue response during these diseases.

Dose Tapering and Discontinuation of Biologic DMARDs in Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Narrative Review (2023 SPARTAN Annual Meeting Proceedings)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Limited data is available for tapering or discontinuation of biologic therapy in patients with axSpA who are in disease remission. The current review concentrates on published studies regarding dose tapering or withdrawal of biologics in axSpA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent evidence in light of randomized controlled trials suggests that tapering of b-DMARDs is a feasible strategy to maintain remission or low disease activity in axSpA patients. TNF inhibitors were the studied biologics in most of these trials. The disease flare rates were comparable to those maintained on standard dose in most of these studies, although with variable tapering strategies and follow-up. Additionally, the duration of disease in remission prior to tapering, studied primary outcome, and flare definitions were heterogeneous. Female sex, HLA-B*27 negativity, high physician global score, and high CRP were negative predictors of successful tapering, but not consistently reported in all the trials. Although designed to address efficacy, there were no safety concerns with b-DMARD tapering. Withdrawal or complete discontinuation of biologics met with increased risk of flares compared to standard dosing. Tapering of TNF inhibitors may be feasible in certain axSpA patients with an acceptable disease state; however, discontinuation is not currently recommended owing to increased risk of flare. Future studies with axSpA patients with longer remission duration prior to taper and different doses and types of b-DMARDs may provide more guidance.

De-escalation of Biologic Treatment in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comprehensive Review

INTRODUCTION

Biologic therapy is an effective treatment for inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. However due to cost and safety concerns, dose de-escalation strategies after achieving remission have been suggested.

AIM

To critically review available data on dose de-escalation of biologics [or other advanced therapies] in IBD. We will focus on studies evaluating de-escalation to standard dosing in patients initially optimised, and also on studies assessing de-escalation from standard dosing.

METHODS

A systematic bibliographic search was performed.

RESULTS

The mean frequency of de-escalation after previous dose intensification [12 studies, 1,474 patients] was 34%. The corresponding frequency of de-escalation from standard dosing [five studies, 3,842 patients] was 4.2%. The relapse rate of IBD following anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] de-escalation to standard dosing in patients initially dose-escalated [10 studies, 301 patients] was 30%. The corresponding relapse rate following anti-TNF de-escalation from standard dosing [nine studies, 494 patients] was 38%. The risk of relapse was lower for patients in clinical, biologic, and endoscopic/radiological remission at the time of de-escalation. A role of anti-TNF therapeutic drug monitoring in the decision to dose de-escalate has been demonstrated. In patients relapsing after de-escalation, re-escalation is generally effective. De-escalation is not consistently associated with a better safety profile. The cost-effectiveness of the de-escalation strategy remains uncertain. Finally, there is not enough evidence to recommend dose de-escalation of biologics different from anti-TNFs or small molecules.

CONCLUSIONS

Any consideration for de-escalation of biologic therapy in IBD must be tailored, taking into account the risks and consequences of a flare and patients' preferences.

Recommendations by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on risk management of biological treatment and JAK inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To present recommendations based on the available evidence and the consensus of experts, for risk management of biological treatment and JAK inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Clinical research questions relevant to the purpose of the document were identified. These questions were reformulated in PICO format (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome or outcome) by a panel of experts, selected based on their experience in the area. A systematic review of the evidence was carried out, grading according to the GRADE criteria (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Specific recommendations were then formulated.

RESULTS

6 PICO questions were proposed by the panel of experts based on their clinical relevance and the existence of recent information regarding the risk of occurrence of serious infections, the risk of reactivation of the hepatitis B virus, the risk of reactivation of the virus varicella-zoster, the risk of appearance of skin (melanoma and non-melanoma) or haematological cancer, the risk of appearance of thromboembolic disease and the risk of progression of the human papilloma virus. A total of 28 recommendations were formulated, structured by question, based on the evidence found and the consensus of the experts.

CONCLUSIONS

The SER recommendations on risk management of treatment with biologic therapies and JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis are presented.

Disease activity-guided tapering of biologics in patients with inflammatory arthritis: a pragmatic, randomized, open-label, equivalence trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether disease activity-guided tapering of biologics compared to continuation as usual care enables a substantial dose reduction while disease activity remains equivalent.

METHOD

In this pragmatic, randomized, open-label, equivalence trial, adults with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or axial spondyloarthritis in low disease activity on stable-dose biologics for ≥ 12 months were randomized 2:1 into either the tapering group, i.e. disease activity-guided prolongation of the biologic dosing interval until flare or withdrawal, or the control group, i.e. maintaince of baseline biologics with a possible small interval increase at the patients request. The co-primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population was met if superiority in ≥ 50% biologic reduction at 18 months was demonstrated and disease activity was equivalent (equivalence margins ± 0.5).

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients were randomized to tapering and 47 to control, of whom 37% (35/95) versus 2% (1/47) achieved ≥ 50% biologic reduction at 18 months. The risk difference was statistically significant [35%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 24%-45%], while disease activity remained equivalent [mean difference 0.05, 95% CI -0.12-0.29]. A statistically significant flare risk was observed [tapering 41% (39/95) vs control 21% (10/47), risk difference 20%, 95% CI 4%-35%]; but, only 1% (1/95) and 6% (3/47) had persistent flare and needed to switch to another biological drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease activity-guided tapering of biologics in patients with inflammatory arthritis enabled one-third to achieve ≥ 50% biologic reduction, while disease activity between groups remained equivalent. Flares were more frequent in the tapering group but were managed with rescue therapy.

To taper or not to taper biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in axial spondyloarthritis anno 2023: That is the question

The 2022 ASAS-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) propose to consider dose reduction of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for patients in sustained remission. However, this recommendation does not offer clear guidance for daily clinical practice. In this review, we analyze randomized clinical trials and real-world data on tapering and discontinuation of bDMARDs in patients with axSpA. We discuss the scientific rationale and benefits of tapering, identify advice to apply tapering in current practice, and delineate aspects to be investigated in future research.

Patient-tailored dose reduction of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in axial spondyloarthritis

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors have been widely used in the field of axial spondyloarthritis, with current guidelines now recommending dose reduction instead of withdrawal of biologics. Systemic review and meta-analyses in literature have summarized present tapering strategies and principles in published heterogeneous studies. In this study, we reviewed and provided an update on present evidence based on prospective and retrospective studies from 2008 to 2022 by performing a literature review of related publications on remission or relapse from PubMed. We further stated the core issues concerning dose reduction, including the timing, optimization, intensity, maintenance, monitoring, factors associated with tapering and solutions to de-escalation failure. Remission/relapse should be the principal consideration in dose reduction implementation for individuals without comorbidities. As a treat-to-target scope of this multifaceted systemic disease, extra-articular manifestations such as uveitis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, cardiovascular complication, hip involvement and progressed structural damage influence patient-tailored dose reduction plans. Safety concerns and costs should be integrated into the decision-making schedule to optimize the individualized dose reduction paradigm.

Tapering or discontinuation of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in axial spondyloarthritis: A review of the literature and discussion on current practice

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have taken up an important role in the management of axial spondyloarthritis. Once stable remission or low disease activity has been achieved with bDMARDs, it may be possible to maintain this state with lower levels of these drugs. Studies consistently demonstrate that tapering of tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFi) is not inferior to full-dose continuation in terms of maintaining treatment response, while data for tapering of interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) is lacking. Complete discontinuation of TNFi and IL-17i, however, often results in relapse and should not be recommended at this moment. Clear safety benefits of tapering or discontinuation have not been shown, although studies were typically not designed to address this. Current evidence does not support specific tapering or discontinuation strategies, although stepwise disease activity-guided regimens do allow for a more personalized approach and might be preferred. The definition of what constitutes an appropriate disease state to initiate tapering or discontinuation is unclear, and requires further study. Also, reliable predictors of successful tapering and discontinuation have not yet been identified. Fortunately, if tapering or discontinuation fails, most patients are able to regain disease control when reverted to the original bDMARD regimen. Finally, most patients indicate that, when asked, they would be willing to try tapering if the rationale is clear and if it is in their best interests. The decision to taper or discontinue should be made through shared decision-making, as this could improve the likelihood of success.

Treat-to-target dose reduction and withdrawal strategy of TNF inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVES

Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are effective in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but are associated with a small (0.6%) increase in serious infection risk, patient burden due to need for self-injection and high costs. Treat-to-target (T2T) tapering might ameliorate these drawbacks, but high-quality evidence on T2T tapering strategies is lacking in PsA and axSpA.

METHODS

We performed a pragmatic open-label, monocentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority (NI) trial on T2T tapering of TNFi. Patients with PsA and axSpA using a TNFi with ≥6 months stable low disease activity (LDA) were included. Patients were randomised 2:1 to disease activity-guided T2T with or without tapering until withdrawal and followed-up to 12 months. Primary endpoint was the difference in proportion of patients having LDA at 12 months between groups, compared with a prespecified NI margin of 20%, estimated using a Bayesian prior.

RESULTS

122 patients (64 PsA and 58 axSpA) were randomised to a T2T strategy with (N=81) or without tapering (N=41). The proportion of patients in LDA at 12 months was 69% for the tapering and 73% for the no-tapering group: adjusted difference 5% (Bayesian 95% credible interval: -10% to 19%) which confirms NI considering the NI margin of 20%. The mean percentage of daily defined dose was 53% for the tapering and 91% for the no-tapering group at month 12.

CONCLUSIONS

A T2T TNFi strategy with tapering attempt is non-inferior to a T2T strategy without tapering with regard to the proportion of patients still in LDA at 12 months, and results in a substantial reduction of TNFi use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL 6771.

Janus kinase versus TNF inhibitors: where we stand today in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

In recent decades, Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment landscape has evolved with the induction of new biological and targeted therapies that provide significant therapeutic benefits in patients with sustained disease.

AREAS COVERED

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were the first biologics used in the treatment of RA. Although they present a significant efficacy, an insufficient response of some patients led to further research and discovery of targeted therapies, such as Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), which act at a molecular level, regulating many cytokines. Clinical benefits have been seen with both TNFi and JAKi as monotherapy and combined with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Still, some significant side effects have been reported with JAKi, and several questions remain about their safety and selectivity in action. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the mechanism of action, the clinical efficacy, and safety of TNFi vs. JAKi.

EXPERT OPINION

TNFi and JAKi are particularly useful in treating inflammatory arthropathies. Both drug categories are recommended by ACR and EULAR institutions in RA patients suffering from moderate to severe disease. Safety data in long-term studies are required to determine the optimal benefit to the risk profile of JAKi use.

De-escalation of Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Agents and Reduction in Adverse Effects: A Systematic Review

Background: The long-term use of anti-TNF-α agents can lead to adverse effects, such as infections and immune-mediated cutaneous reactions. Whether de-escalation by dose reduction or interval lengthening reduces these adverse effects is uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare the incidence of infections and skin manifestations after anti-TNF-α dose de-escalation with standard dosing. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 14 January 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing anti-TNF-α de-escalation strategies with standard dosing among patients with inflammatory conditions, that report on infections, skin manifestations, or both, were included. The risk of bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane risk-of bias tool (RCTs) or the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (non-RCTs). Results: Fourteen RCTs and six observational studies (or 2706 patients) were included. Eight RCTs had low risk of bias or some concerns. Four non-RCTs were of good methodological quality. The studies described patients with axial spondyloarthritis (8 studies, 780 patients), rheumatoid arthritis (7 studies, 1458 patients), psoriasis (3 studies, 332 patients), or inflammatory bowel disease (2 studies, 136 patients). De-escalation strategies included interval lengthening (12 studies, 1317 patients), dose reduction (6 studies, 1130 patients), or both (2 studies, 259 patients). Overall, the occurrence of infections and skin manifestations did not differ between standard treatment and de-escalation. The disappearance of infections or skin manifestations after de-escalation was only reported in two studies. The majority of studies focused on etanercept and adalimumab. Heterogeneity in reporting of infections and skin manifestations precluded meta-analysis. Conclusion: We found that anti-TNF-α de-escalation does not reduce infections or skin reactions. A de-escalation strategy should not be recommended for the sole purpose of reducing drug-related adverse effects. The meticulous documentation of adverse effects is recommended to further address this question. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021252977.

Risk of flare after tapering or withdrawal of b-/tsDMARDs in patients with RA or axSpA: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate flare risk when tapering or withdrawing biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b-/tsDMARDs) compared to continuation in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) in sustained remission or low disease activity.

METHODS

Articles were identified in Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Eligible trials were randomised, controlled trials comparing tapering and/or withdrawal of b- and/or tsDMARDs with standard dose in IA. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed with risk ratio (RR), or Peto's Odds Ratio (POR) for sparse events, and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis comprised 22 trials: 11 assessed tapering and 7 addressed withdrawal (4 assessed both). Only trials with a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) population were identified. An increased flare risk was demonstrated when b-/tsDMARD tapering was compared to continuation, RR = 1.45 (95%CI: 1.19 to 1.77, I2 = 42.5%), and potentially increased for persistent flare, POR = 1.56 (95%CI: 0.97 to 2.52, I2 = 0%). Comparing tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) withdrawal to continuation, a highly increased flare risk (RR = 2.28, 95%CI: 1.78 to 2.93, I2 = 78%) and increased odds of persistent flare (POR = 3.41, 95%CI: 1.91 to 6.09, I2 = 49%) was observed. No clear difference in flare risk between RA or axSpA was observed.

CONCLUSION

A high risk for flare and persistent flare was demonstrated for TNFi withdrawal whereas an increased risk for flare but not for persistent flare was observed for b-/tsDMARD tapering. Thus, tapering seems to be the more favourable approach.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42019136905).

Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor dose adaptation in psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis (TAPAS): a retrospective cohort study

Objectives

We investigated the effect of disease activity-guided dose optimization (DAGDO) of TNF inhibitor (TNFi) on disease activity and TNFi dose in PsA and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients with low disease activity (LDA).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in PsA and axSpA patients doing well on TNFi and eligible for TNFi DAGDO. Three different treatment periods were defined: (i) full dose continuation period, (ii) TNFi DAGDO period, and (iii) period with stable TNFi dose after DAGDO. A mixed-model analysis was used to estimate mean Disease Activity Score 28-joint count CRP (DAS28-CRP) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) during these periods, and a mean percentage of the daily defined dose (%DDD) was calculated as secondary outcome.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-four patients (153 PsA and 171 axSpA) were included, with a mean of 6.5 DAS28-CRP and 6.4 BASDAI measurements and a median follow-up duration of 46 and 44 months, respectively. A corrected difference of 0.06 (95% CI: −0.09, 0.21) in mean DAS28-CRP was found for the TNFi DAGDO period and 0.03 (95% CI: −0.14, 0.20) for the period with stable TNFi dose, compared with full dose continuation period. Differences for BASDAI were 0.03 (95% CI: −0.21, 0.27) and 0.05 (95% CI: −0.24, 0.34), respectively. The mean %DDD for the three treatment periods was for PsA 108%, 62% and 78%, and for axSpA 108%, 62% and 72%, respectively.

Conclusion

DAGDO of TNFi reduces drug exposure and has no negative effects on disease activity in PsA and axSpA patients compared with full dose continuation.

Tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: an overview for daily practice

In this Review, we discuss the possibility of drug tapering in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission or low disease activity, for glucocorticoids and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. We review international guidelines and recommendations, as well as remaining uncertainties, and provide an overview of the current literature. Three strategies of tapering are discussed: (1) tapering by discontinuation of one of the drugs in combination therapy regimens, (2) tapering by reducing the dose of one of the drugs in combination therapy regimens, and (3) tapering by dose reduction of monotherapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. We discuss the outcomes and robustness of evidence of trials and observational cohorts, and we give a trajectory for further research and drug tapering in daily practice.

Challenges for biosimilars: focus on rheumatoid arthritis

Healthcare systems worldwide are struggling to find ways to fund the cost of innovative treatments such as gene therapies, regenerative medicine, and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). As the world's best known mAbs are close to facing patent expirations, the biosimilars market is poised to grow with the hope of bringing prices down for cancer treatment and autoimmune disorders, however, this has yet to be realized. The development costs of biosimilars are significantly higher than their generic equivalents due to therapeutic equivalence trials and higher manufacturing costs. It is imperative that academics and relevant companies understand the costs and stages associated with biologics processing. This article brings these costs to the forefront with a focus on biosimilars being developed for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). mAbs have remarkably changed the treatment landscape, establishing their superior efficacy over traditional small chemicals. Five blockbuster TNFα mAbs, considered as first line biologics against RA, are either at the end of their patent life or have already expired and manufacturers are seeking to capture a significant portion of that market. Although in principle, market-share should be available, withstanding that the challenges regarding the compliance and regulations are being resolved, particularly with regards to variation in the glycosylation patterns and challenges associated with manufacturing. Glycan variants can significantly affect the quality attributes requiring characterization throughout production. Successful penetration of biologics can drive down prices and this will be a welcome change for patients and the healthcare providers. Herein we review the biologic TNFα inhibitors, which are on the market, in development, and the challenges being faced by biosimilar manufacturers.