Rituximab is more effective than second anti-TNF therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients and previous TNFα blocker failure

Rheumatoid factor titers, but not Fc fragments, may be strongly associated with drug survival of anti-TNF agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of both the Fc fragment in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and rheumatoid factor (RF) titers on treatment survival, disease activity, and laboratory parameters in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients with RA who had started any anti-TNF therapy between January 2017 and March 2020 and who had stayed on this treatment for at least six months were included. The data of the patients were compared separately according to continuation or discontinuation of treatment and the presence or absence of Fc portion in the structure of anti-TNFs. Patients who were taking certolizumab pegol (CZP) without the Fc fragment were placed in the "without Fc group" (wo/Fc), while patients who were taking other drugs (adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, and infliximab) were placed in the "with Fc group" (w/Fc).

RESULTS

Among the 221 RA patients whose data were available, 52 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. There was a significant difference in the DAS28-CRP score between wo/Fc group and w/Fc group in the third month of treatment (p=0.012). However, this difference did not persist at the sixth month of treatment (p=0.384). According to the cox-regression results, RF titers were determined to have a significant impact on the drug survival of anti-TNF agents when adjustments were made for the effects of other candidate predictors (Hazard ratio: 1.007 (1.002-1.012), p=0.009).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that compared to the Fc fragment, RF titers were the more important risk factor in survival of anti-TNF drugs.

EULAR points to consider for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtCs) for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA).

METHODS

An EULAR Task Force was established comprising 34 individuals: 26 rheumatologists, patient partners and rheumatology experienced health professionals. Two systematic literature reviews addressed clinical questions around diagnostic challenges, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in D2T RA. PtCs were formulated based on the identified evidence and expert opinion. Strength of recommendations (SoR, scale A-D: A typically consistent level 1 studies and D level 5 evidence or inconsistent studies) and level of agreement (LoA, scale 0-10: 0 completely disagree and 10 completely agree) of the PtCs were determined by the Task Force members.

RESULTS

Two overarching principles and 11 PtCs were defined concerning diagnostic confirmation of RA, evaluation of inflammatory disease activity, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, treatment adherence, functional disability, pain, fatigue, goal setting and self-efficacy and the impact of comorbidities. The SoR varied from level C to level D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and PtCs was generally high (8.4-9.6).

CONCLUSIONS

These PtCs for D2T RA can serve as a clinical roadmap to support healthcare professionals and patients to deliver holistic management and more personalised pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies. High-quality evidence was scarce. A research agenda was created to guide future research.

Cycling of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors versus switching to different mechanism of action therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Introduction:

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), main options include cycling onto a different TNFi or switching to a biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug with a different mechanism of action (MOA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed comparative clinical efficacy of cycling versus switching.

Methods:

We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Outcomes included proportion of patients with 20%, 50%, or 70% response to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 response), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) score below 2.6 or between 2.6 and 3.2, mean change in DAS28 score, mean reduction in and proportion of patients achieving a clinically meaningful reduction (⩾0.22) in Health Assessment Questionnaire score, number of serious adverse events (AEs), and withdrawals for any reason/due to AEs/lack of treatment efficacy. To account for the wide range of study populations and designs, we developed three models to conduct the NMA: fixed-effect, random-effects, and hierarchical Bayesian. PROSPERO ID: CRD42019122993.

Results:

We identified nine randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies. The fixed-effect model suggested a 0.99 probability that switch was the better strategy for increasing odds of a clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 [odds ratio (OR): 1.35 (95% credible interval (CI): 0.96–1.81)]. The fixed-effect model also suggested that switch was associated with lower rates of withdrawal for any reasons [OR: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40–0.68)]. The random-effects and hierarchical Bayesian models suggested additional uncertainty as they considered more variability than the fixed-effect model.

Discussion:

Results suggest that switching to a drug with a different MOA is more effective and associated with lower rates of withdrawal than cycling to a different TNFi after failure of first-line TNFi. Further trials that directly compare cycling with switching are warranted to better assess comparative efficacy.

Plain language summary

Assessment of the effectiveness of different drug treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of the published literature

Multiomics and Machine Learning Accurately Predict Clinical Response to Adalimumab and Etanercept Therapy in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To predict response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) prior to treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to comprehensively understand the mechanism of how different RA patients respond differently to anti-TNF treatment.

METHODS

Gene expression and/or DNA methylation profiling on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), monocytes, and CD4+ T cells obtained from 80 RA patients before they began either adalimumab (ADA) or etanercept (ETN) therapy was studied. After 6 months, treatment response was evaluated according to the European League Against Rheumatism criteria for disease response. Differential expression and methylation analyses were performed to identify the response-associated transcription and epigenetic signatures. Using these signatures, machine learning models were built by random forest algorithm to predict response prior to anti-TNF treatment, and were further validated by a follow-up study.

RESULTS

Transcription signatures in ADA and ETN responders were divergent in PBMCs, and this phenomenon was reproduced in monocytes and CD4+ T cells. The genes up-regulated in CD4+ T cells from ADA responders were enriched in the TNF signaling pathway, while very few pathways were differential in monocytes. Differentially methylated positions (DMPs) were strongly hypermethylated in responders to ETN but not to ADA. The machine learning models for the prediction of response to ADA and ETN using differential genes reached an overall accuracy of 85.9% and 79%, respectively. The models using DMPs reached an overall accuracy of 84.7% and 88% for ADA and ETN, respectively. A follow-up study validated the high performance of these models.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that machine learning models based on molecular signatures accurately predict response before ADA and ETN treatment, paving the path toward personalized anti-TNF treatment.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To summarise, by a systematic literature review (SLR), the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA), informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of D2T RA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.

RESULTS

Two hundred seven (207) papers studied therapeutic strategies. Limited evidence was found on effective and safe disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with comorbidities and other contraindications that limit DMARD options (patients with obesity, hepatitis B and C, risk of venous thromboembolisms, pregnancy and lactation). In patients who previously failed biological (b-)DMARDs, all currently used b/targeted synthetic (ts-)DMARDs were found to be more effective than placebo. In patients who previously failed a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), there was a tendency of non-TNFi bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFis. Generally, effectiveness decreased in patients who previously failed a higher number of bDMARDs. Additionally, exercise, psychological, educational and self-management interventions were found to improve non-inflammatory complaints (mainly functional disability, pain, fatigue), education to improve goal setting, and self-management programmes, educational and psychological interventions to improve self-management.The identified evidence had several limitations: (1) no studies were found in patients with D2T RA specifically, (2) heterogeneous outcome criteria were used and (3) most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR underscores the scarcity of high-quality evidence on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of patients with D2T RA. Effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs decreased in RA patients who had failed a higher number of bDMARDs and a subsequent b/tsDMARD of a previously not targeted mechanism of action was somewhat more effective. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found for improvement of non-inflammatory complaints, goal setting and self-management.

Rituximab in routine care of severe active rheumatoid arthritis : A prospective, non-interventional study in Germany

OBJECTIVE

To assess safety, effectiveness and onset of effect of rituximab (RTX) in routine clinical treatment of severe, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Prospective, multi-centre, non-interventional study in rheumatological outpatient clinics or private practices in Germany. RTX-naïve adult patients were to receive RTX according to marketing authorisation and at their physician's discretion. Also according to their physician's discretion, patients could receive a second cycle of RTX (re-treatment = treatment continuation). Major outcome was the change in Disease Activity Score based on 28-joints count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) over 24 weeks and during 6 months of re-treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, 1653 patients received at least one cycle RTX; 99.2% of these had received disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) pre-treatment and 75.5% anti-tumor necrosis factor(TNF)‑α pre-treatment. After a mean interval of 8.0 months, 820 patients received RTX re-treatment. Mean DAS28-ESR decreased from 5.3 at baseline to 3.8 after 24 weeks (-1.5 [95% confidence interval, CI: -1.6; -1.4]), and from 4.1 at start of cycle 2 to 3.5 at study end (change from baseline: -1.8 [95% CI: -2.0; -1.7]). Improvements in DAS28-ESR and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score occurred mainly during the first 12 weeks of RTX treatment, with further DAS28-ESR improvement until week 24 or month 6 of re-treatment. Improvements in DAS28-ESR and EULAR responses were more pronounced in seropositive patients. RF was a predictor of DAS28-ESR change to study end. Safety analysis showed the established profile of RTX.

CONCLUSION

RTX was safe and effective in a real-life setting with rapid and sustained improvement in RA signs and symptoms.

Molecular profiling of rheumatoid arthritis patients reveals an association between innate and adaptive cell populations and response to anti-tumor necrosis factor

Background

The goal of this study is to use comprehensive molecular profiling to characterize clinical response to anti-TNF therapy in a real-world setting and identify reproducible markers differentiating good responders and non-responders in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Whole-blood mRNA, plasma proteins, and glycopeptides were measured in two cohorts of biologic-naïve RA patients (n = 40 and n = 36) from the Corrona CERTAIN (Comparative Effectiveness Registry to study Therapies for Arthritis and Inflammatory coNditions) registry at baseline and after 3 months of anti-TNF treatment. Response to treatment was categorized by EULAR criteria. A cell type-specific data analysis was conducted to evaluate the involvement of the most common immune cell sub-populations. Findings concordant between the two cohorts were further assessed for reproducibility using selected NCBI-GEO datasets and clinical laboratory measurements available in the CERTAIN database.

Results

A treatment-related signature suggesting a reduction in neutrophils, independent of the status of response, was indicated by a high level of correlation (ρ = 0.62; p < 0.01) between the two cohorts. A baseline, response signature of increased innate cell types in responders compared to increased adaptive cell types in non-responders was identified in both cohorts. This result was further assessed by applying the cell type-specific analysis to five other publicly available RA datasets. Evaluation of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio at baseline in the remaining patients (n = 1962) from the CERTAIN database confirmed the observation (odds ratio of good/moderate response = 1.20 [95% CI = 1.03–1.41, p = 0.02]).

Conclusion

Differences in innate/adaptive immune cell type composition at baseline may be a major contributor to response to anti-TNF treatment within the first 3 months of therapy.

A Combined Transcriptomic and Genomic Analysis Identifies a Gene Signature Associated With the Response to Anti-TNF Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most frequent autoimmune disease involving the joints. Although anti-TNF therapies have proven effective in the management of RA, approximately one third of patients do not show a significant clinical response. The objective of this study was to identify new genetic variation associated with the clinical response to anti-TNF therapy in RA.

Methods: We performed a sequential multi-omic analysis integrating different sources of molecular information. First, we extracted the RNA from synovial biopsies of 11 RA patients starting anti-TNF therapy to identify gene coexpression modules (GCMs) in the RA synovium. Second, we analyzed the transcriptomic association between each GCM and the clinical response to anti-TNF therapy. The clinical response was determined at week 14 using the EULAR criteria. Third, we analyzed the association between the GCMs and anti-TNF response at the genetic level. For this objective, we used genome-wide data from a cohort of 348 anti-TNF treated patients from Spain. The GCMs that were significantly associated with the anti-TNF response were then tested for validation in an independent cohort of 2,706 anti-TNF treated patients. Finally, the functional implication of the validated GCMs was evaluated via pathway and cell type epigenetic enrichment analyses.

Results: A total of 149 GCMs were identified in the RA synovium. From these, 13 GCMs were found to be significantly associated with anti-TNF response (P < 0.05). At the genetic level, we detected two of the 13 GCMs to be significantly associated with the response to adalimumab (P = 0.0015) and infliximab (P = 0.021) in the Spain cohort. Using the independent cohort of RA patients, we replicated the association of the GCM associated with the response to adalimumab (P = 0.0019). The validated module was found to be significantly enriched for genes involved in the nucleotide metabolism (P = 2.41e-5) and epigenetic marks from immune cells, including CD4+ regulatory T cells (P = 0.041).

Conclusions: These findings show the existence of a drug-specific genetic basis for anti-TNF response, thereby supporting treatment stratification in the search for response biomarkers in RA.

Real-world Comparative Effectiveness of Tocilizumab Monotherapy vs. Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors with Methotrexate in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Controlled clinical studies have shown that the efficacy of tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy is superior to that of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) monotherapy and comparable to that of TCZ plus methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study compared the real-world effectiveness of TCZ monotherapy vs. TNFis plus MTX in US patients with RA.

METHODS

TCZ-naïve patients from the Corrona RA registry with prior exposure to ≥ 1 TNFi who initiated TCZ monotherapy or TNFi + MTX were included. Outcomes included mean change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), achievement of low disease activity (LDA; CDAI ≤ 10), achievement of modified American College of Rheumatology (mACR) 20/50 responses, and mean change in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) at 6 months. Patients initiating TNFi + MTX were grouped by MTX dose (≤ 10 mg; > 10 to ≤ 15 mg; > 15 to ≤ 20 mg; > 20 mg); outcomes in each group were compared with TCZ monotherapy using trimmed populations (excluding patients outside the propensity score distribution overlap).

RESULTS

Patients in all groups experienced improvement in CDAI at 6 months (mean change, - 6.9 to - 9.7), with no significant differences between the TCZ monotherapy and TNFi + MTX groups. Achievement of LDA and mACR responses at 6 months were comparable between the TCZ monotherapy and TNFi + MTX groups; overall, 26.8-38.0% of patients achieved LDA, 24.3-37.6% achieved mACR20 response and 13.2-20.8% achieved mACR50 response. The mean change in mHAQ at 6 months was - 0.1 in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world population of US patients with RA who had prior TNFi exposure, there was no evidence of a difference in the effectiveness of TCZ monotherapy compared with that of TNFi + MTX, regardless of MTX dose, at 6 months for improving RA disease activity.

FUNDING

Corrona, LLC. Plain language summary available for this article.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After a Change in Targeted Therapy

BACKGROUND

Targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or alternative mechanisms of action (MOAs), such as a T-cell co-stimulation modulator (abatacept), Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib), or interleukin-6 inhibitor (tocilizumab).

OBJECTIVE

To examine treatment persistence and healthcare costs in patients with RA who changed therapy by cycling therapy (ie, switching within the same drug class), or switching between, the TNF inhibitors and alternative MOA medication classes.

METHODS

We analyzed medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured patients who cycled or switched between targeted DMARD agents between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2014 (ie, the index date), to determine treatment patterns (ie, treatment switching, discontinuation, restarting after a gap ≥60 days, or persistence) and costs (plan- and patient-paid) for 1 year postindex. The cost per persistent patient was the total healthcare cost divided by the number of treatment-persistent patients.

RESULTS

The analysis included 6203 patients who cycled between TNF inhibitors, 2640 patients who switched from TNF inhibitors to alternative MOA agents, 699 patients who cycled between alternative MOA agents, and 687 patients who switched from alternative MOA agents to TNF inhibitors. The 1-year treatment persistence rates (with P values vs TNF inhibitor cyclers) were 45.2% for TNF inhibitor cyclers, 50.3% for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (P <.001), 51.4% for alternative MOA agent cyclers (P = .002), and 46.1% for alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor switchers (P = .63). Compared with TNF inhibitor cyclers, the cost per persistent patient was lower for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (-$16,853 RA-related; -$19,280 targeted DMARDs), alternative MOA agent cyclers (-$21,662 RA-related; -$25,153 targeted DMARDs), and alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor cyclers (-$7206 RA-related; -$7919 targeted DMARDs).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with RA, patients who switched from a TNF inhibitor to an alternative MOA agent and those who cycled between alternative MOA agents had significantly higher treatment persistence rates and a substantially lower cost per persistent patient than those who cycled between TNF inhibitors. These findings support the evaluation of switching medication classes for patients with RA when a targeted therapy fails.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Changing Biologics in the USA

Introduction

After a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fails tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, clinical guidelines support either cycling to another TNFi or switching to a different mechanism of action (MOA), but payers often require TNFi cycling before they reimburse switching MOA. This study examined treatment persistence, cost, and cost per persistent patient among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers.

Methods

This study of Commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data from the Optum Research Database included patients with RA and at least one claim for a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2012 and September 2015 who changed to another TNFi or a different MOA therapy (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) within 1 year. The index date was the date of the change in therapy. Treatment persistence was defined as no subsequent switch or 60-day gap in therapy for 1 year post-index. RA-related costs included plan-paid and patient-paid amounts for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Medication costs included index and post-index costs of TNFi and different MOA therapies.

Results

There were 581 (38.3%) MOA switchers and 935 (61.7%) TNFi cyclers. The treatment persistence rate was significantly higher for MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers (47.7% versus 40.2%, P = 0.004). Mean 1-year healthcare costs were significantly lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers for total RA-related costs ($37,804 versus $42,116; P < 0.001) and medication costs ($29,001 versus $34,917; P < 0.001). When costs were divided by treatment persistence, costs per persistent patient were lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers: $25,436 lower total RA-related cost and $25,999 lower medication costs.

Conclusion

MOA switching is associated with higher treatment persistence and lower healthcare costs than TNFi cycling. Reimbursement policies that require patients to cycle TNFi before switching MOA may result in suboptimal outcomes for both patients and payers.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients with prior TNFi exposure in the US Corrona registry

BACKGROUND

We compared the effectiveness of abatacept (ABA) vs tocilizumab (TCA) in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experienced patients.

METHODS

We identified rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from a large observational US cohort (1 January 2010-31 May 2014) who had discontinued at least one TNFi and initiated ABA or TCZ in moderate or high disease activity based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and had no prior exposure to the comparator drug. Using propensity score matching (1:1) stratified by prior TNF use (1 TNFi vs ≥2 TNFis), effectiveness at 6 months after initiation was evaluated. Mean change in CDAI over 6 months following initiation was the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes of achievement of low disease activity/remission (CDAI ≤ 10) and mean change in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) score.

RESULTS

The 264 pairs of propensity score-matched ABA and TCZ initiators were well matched with no substantial differences in the baseline characteristics, defined as standardized differences >0.1 in the stratification. Both treatment groups had similar mean change in CDAI at 6 months (-11.3 in ABA vs -9.9 in TCZ; mean difference -1.27, 95% CI -3.65, 1.11). Similar proportions of both treatment groups achieved low disease activity/remission (adjusted odds ratio for ABA vs TCZ 0.99, 95% CI 0.69, 1.43). Mean change in mHAQ was -0.12 in ABA initiators vs -0.11 in TCZ initiations (mean difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.09, 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving either ABA or TCZ had substantial improvement in clinical disease activity. In this propensity score-matched sample, similar outcomes were observed for both treatment cohorts.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus subsequent anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with prior exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies in the United States Corrona registry

Introduction

Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite anti–tumor necrosis factor(anti-TNF)agent treatment can switch to either a subsequent anti-TNF agent or a biologic with an alternative mechanism of action, such as rituximab; however, there are limited data available to help physicians decide between these 2 strategies. The objective of this analysis was to examine the effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus a subsequent anti-TNF agent in anti-TNF–experienced patients with RA using clinical practice data from the Corrona registry.

Methods

Rituximab-naive patients from the Corrona registry with prior exposure to ≥1 anti-TNF agent who initiated rituximab or anti-TNF agents (2/28/2006-10/31/2012) were included. Two cohorts were analyzed: the trimmed population (excluding patients who fell outside the propensity score distribution overlap) and the stratified-matched population (stratified by 1 vs ≥2 anti-TNF agents, then matched based on propensity score). The primary effectiveness outcome was achievement of low disease activity (LDA)/remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index ≤10) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included achievement of modified American College of Rheumatology (mACR) 20/50/70 responses and meaningful improvement (≥0.25) in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) score at 1 year. New cardiovascular, infectious and cancer events were reported.

Results

Estimates for LDA/remission, mACR response and mHAQ improvement were consistently better for rituximab than for anti-TNF agent users in adjusted analyses. The odds ratio for likelihood of LDA/remission in rituximab versus anti-TNF patients was 1.35 (95 % CI, 0.95-1.91) in the trimmed population and 1.54 (95 % CI, 1.01-2.35) in the stratified-matched population. Rituximab patients were significantly more likely than anti-TNF patients to achieve mACR20/50 and mHAQ improvement in the trimmed population and mACR20 and mHAQ in the stratified-matched population. The rate of new adverse events per 100 patient-years was similar between groups.

Conclusions

In anti-TNF–experienced patients with RA, rituximab was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving LDA/remission, mACR response and physical function improvement, with a comparable safety profile, versus subsequent anti-TNF agent users.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01402661. Registered 25 July 2011.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0776-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What is the best biological treatment for rheumatoid arthritis? A systematic review of effectiveness

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of the biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis through a systematic review of observational studies.

METHODS: The studies were searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and LILACS databases (until August 2014), in the grey literature and conducted a manual search. The assessed criteria of effectiveness included the EULAR, the disease activity score (DAS), the Clinical Disease Activity Index, the Simplified Disease Activity Index, the American College of Rheumatology and the Health Assessment Questionnaire. The meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager^® 5.2 software using a random effects model. A total of 35 studies were included in this review.

RESULTS: The participants anti-tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNF) naïve, who used adalimumab (P = 0.0002) and etanercept (P = 0.0006) exhibited greater good EULAR response compared to the participants who used infliximab. No difference was detected between adalimumab and etanercept (P = 0.05). The participants who used etanercept exhibited greater remission according to DAS28 compared to the participants who used infliximab (P = 0.01). No differences were detected between adalimumab and infliximab (P = 0.12) or etanercept (P = 0.79). Better results were obtained with bDMARD associated with methotrexate than with bDMARD alone. The good EULAR response and DAS 28 was better for combination with methotrexate than bDMARD monotherapy (P = 0.03 e P < 0.00001). In cases of therapeutic failure, the participants who used rituximab exhibited greater DAS28 reduction compared to those who used anti-TNF agents (P = 0.0002). The participants who used etanercept achieved greater good EULAR response compared to those who did not use that drug (P = 0.007). Studies that assessed reduction of the CDAI score indicated the superiority of abatacept over rituximab (12.4 vs +1.7) and anti-TNF agents (7.6 vs 8.3). The present systematic review with meta-analysis found that relative to anti-TNF treatment-naïve patients, adalimumab and etanercept were more effective when combined with methotrexate than when used alone. Furthermore, in case of therapeutic failure with anti-TNF agents; rituximab and abatacept (non anti-TNF) and etanercept (as second anti-TNF) were more effective. However, more studies of effectiveness were found for the rituximab.

CONCLUSION: The best treatment for treatment-naïve patients is adalimumab or etanercept combined with methotrexate. For anti-TNF therapeutic failure, the best choice is rituximab, abatacept or etanercept.

Pre-treatment whole blood gene expression is associated with 14-week response assessed by dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in infliximab-treated rheumatoid arthritis patients

Approximately 30% of rheumatoid arthritis patients achieve inadequate response to anti-TNF biologics. Attempts to identify molecular biomarkers predicting response have met with mixed success. This may be attributable, in part, to the variable and subjective disease assessment endpoints with large placebo effects typically used to classify patient response. Sixty-one patients with active RA despite methotrexate treatment, and with MRI-documented synovitis, were randomized to receive infliximab or placebo. Blood was collected at baseline and genome-wide transcription in whole blood was measured using microarrays. The primary endpoint in this study was determined by measuring the transfer rate constant (K_trans) of a gadolinium-based contrast agent from plasma to synovium using MRI. Secondary endpoints included repeated clinical assessments with DAS28(CRP), and assessments of osteitis and synovitis by the RAMRIS method. Infliximab showed greater decrease from baseline in DCE-MRI K_trans of wrist and MCP at all visits compared with placebo (P<0.001). Statistical analysis was performed to identify genes associated with treatment-specific 14-week change in K_trans. The 256 genes identified were used to derive a gene signature score by averaging their log expression within each patient. The resulting score correlated with improvement of K_trans in infliximab-treated patients and with deterioration of K_trans in placebo-treated subjects. Poor responders showed high expression of activated B-cell genes whereas good responders exhibited a gene expression pattern consistent with mobilization of neutrophils and monocytes and high levels of reticulated platelets. This gene signature was significantly associated with clinical response in two previously published whole blood gene expression studies using anti-TNF therapies. These data provide support for the hypothesis that anti-TNF inadequate responders comprise a distinct molecular subtype of RA characterized by differences in pre-treatment blood mRNA expression. They also highlight the importance of placebo controls and robust, objective endpoints in biomarker discovery.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01313520

Response to Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs after Discontinuation of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Agents for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

The aim of this study was to compare the response between subsequent use of anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) agents and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) with other mechanism of action (MOA) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with history of anti-TNF treatment as their first bDMARD.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted at eight community-based rheumatology practices in the United States in 2012. Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) response was measured by comparing baseline and 6-month scores. Poor response was defined as decrease <1.8 points, follow-up score >12, or treatment discontinuation before 6 months. Percentages of patients with good and good or moderate RAPID3 response were compared for second and third biologics. Multivariate models controlled for potential confounders.

Results

Of 176 patients whose charts were abstracted, 122 (69.3%) received another anti-TNF agent after they discontinued their first anti-TNF. RAPID3 scores were available for 160 patients. A patient receiving a second bDMARD with another MOA had a higher good or moderate response than a patient receiving anti-TNF (53.5 vs. 30.7%, p = 0.01). In the multivariate models, treatment with another MOA was more likely to produce a good RAPID3 response [odds ratio (OR), 2.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05–5.58] or a good or moderate response (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.23–3.97) than treatment with an anti-TNF.

Conclusion

In patients who have discontinued anti-TNF agents as their first bDMARD, RAPID3 response rates are better for those receiving agents with a different MOA rather than another anti-TNF. Physicians should consider using a bDMARD with a different MOA as the next bDMARD for RA patients whose anti-TNF agent has failed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40744-014-0002-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

G protein signaling modulator-3: a leukocyte regulator of inflammation in health and disease

G protein signaling modulator-3 (GPSM3), also known as G18 or AGS4, is a member of a family of proteins containing one or more copies of a small regulatory motif known as the GoLoco (or GPR) motif. GPSM3 interacts directly with Gα and Gβ subunits of heterotrimeric G proteins to regulate downstream intracellular signals initiated by G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) that are activated via binding to their cognate ligands. GPSM3 has a selective tissue distribution and is highly expressed in immune system cells; genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have recently revealed that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in GPSM3 are associated with chronic inflammatory diseases. This review highlights the current knowledge of GPSM3 function in normal and pathologic immune-mediated conditions.

Loss of response to anti-tumor necrosis factors: what is the next step?

The management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) presenting with loss of response (LOR) to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologics is an increasingly encountered challenge for clinicians caring for these patients. Clinical decisions are complicated by the lack of consistent terminology and diagnostic criteria to define LOR, the myriad of causes that may give rise to symptoms mimicking LOR, and the multiplicity of possible medical interventions. Choosing the best next step is dependent first on accurate identification of the etiology of symptoms and specifically on ascertaining that IBD activity is responsible for the flares. At this point, some patients with mild symptoms may improve without any intervention, so watchful waiting should be borne in mind for these cases, at least for a limited period of time. Otherwise, dose intensification or a switch to another anti-TNF should be contemplated, and the decision may be aided by results of drug/anti-drug antibody levels. A switch to another biologic with a different mode of action should also be considered, as well as less well evidence-based options, which may nevertheless benefit some difficult patients. These include the addition of an immunomodulator to reverse immunogenicity and restore clinical response, retreatment with a previously failed anti-TNF and other experimental interventions. Before any of these is contemplated, the patient's adherence to anti-TNF therapy should be verified as it may contribute to LOR in up to 20% of patients.

The comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus anti-tumour necrosis factor switching for rheumatoid arthritis patients previously treated with an anti-tumour necrosis factor

Objective

We compared the effectiveness of abatacept (ABA) versus a subsequent anti-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (anti-TNF) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with prior anti-TNF use.

Methods

We identified RA patients from a large observational US cohort (2/1/2000–8/7/2011) who had discontinued at least one anti-TNF and initiated either ABA or a subsequent anti-TNF. Using propensity score (PS) matching (n:1 match), effectiveness was measured at 6 and 12 months after initiation based on mean change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), modified American College of Rheumatology (mACR) 20, 50 and 70 responses, modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) and CDAI remission in adjusted regression models.

Results

The PS-matched groups included 431 ABA and 746 anti-TNF users at 6 months and 311 ABA and 493 anti-TNF users at 12 months. In adjusted analyses comparing response following treatment with ABA and anti-TNF, the difference in weighted mean change in CDAI (range 6–8) at 6 months (0.46, 95% CI −0.82 to 1.73) and 12 months was similar (−1.64, 95% CI −3.47 to 0.19). The mACR20 responses were similar at 6 (28–32%, p=0.73) and 12 months (35–37%, p=0.48) as were the mACR50 and mACR70 (12 months: 20–22%, p=0.25 and 10–12%, p=0.49, respectively). Meaningful change in mHAQ was similar at 6 and 12 months (30–33%, p=0.41 and 29–30%, p=0.39, respectively) as was CDAI remission rates (9–10%, p=0.42 and 12–13%, p=0.91, respectively).

Conclusions

RA patients with prior anti-TNF exposures had similar outcomes if they switched to a new anti-TNF as compared with initiation of ABA.

[Personalized medicine for rheumatoid arthritis : serological and clinical patient profiles to optimize B and T cell targeted therapy]

Nowadays B and T-cell directed biologics in addition to TNF inhibitors are established as effective and safe treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis. As shown by the approval of rituximab for the treatment of systemic vasculitis, these drugs can also be useful for the treatment of other systemic autoimmune diseases; however, to optimize therapeutic strategies, predictive factors for treatment response as well as a good characterized safety profile are essential. So far implementation of real personalized medicine is not feasible in the field of rheumatology, but first biomarkers have already been identified and provide promising results. In this context, it has been shown that a B-cell directed therapy with rituximab is more effective in seropositive patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In addition, characterization of the cytokine milieu as well as of circulating and tissue infiltrating B and T-cell subsets might be useful for prediction of treatment response in the near future.