Phase II dose–response study of abatacept in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to methotrexate

Differences in patients' population and efficacy/effectiveness of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs between randomized controlled trials and real-world settings in patients with rheumatoid arthritis - using the IORRA cohort

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the differences in patients' population and efficacy/effectiveness of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

We reviewed inclusion criteria in Phase II or III RCTs of bDMARDs conducted in Japan. The Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis study participants during the period when each RCT was conducted (Cohort A) and new bDMARD users at our institute in 2016 (Cohort B) were assessed for the fulfilment of the inclusion criteria. The effectiveness of bDMARDs in our cohort and their efficacy in RCTs were compared using the inverse-variance method.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs were selected. The mean proportions of patients fulfilling all inclusion criteria of each RCT in Cohorts A and B were 2.3% and 7.6%, respectively. The pooled proportion ratios (95% confidence interval) for achieving the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), ACR50, ACR70, and disease activity score 28 remission in non-eligible cases for eight RCTs versus all corresponding RCTs were 0.38 (0.30-0.51), 0.41 (0.30-0.57), 0.54 (0.35-0.82), and 1.28 (1.10-1.56), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Few rheumatoid arthritis patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the RCTs in clinical settings. There was a difference in the efficacy/effectiveness of bDMARDs between RCTs and clinical practice.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The TNF Family of Ligands and Receptors: Communication Modules in the Immune System and Beyond

The tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and TNF receptor (TNFR) superfamilies (TNFSF/TNFRSF) include 19 ligands and 29 receptors that play important roles in the modulation of cellular functions. The communication pathways mediated by TNFSF/TNFRSF are essential for numerous developmental, homeostatic, and stimulus-responsive processes in vivo. TNFSF/TNFRSF members regulate cellular differentiation, survival, and programmed death, but their most critical functions pertain to the immune system. Both innate and adaptive immune cells are controlled by TNFSF/TNFRSF members in a manner that is crucial for the coordination of various mechanisms driving either co-stimulation or co-inhibition of the immune response. Dysregulation of these same signaling pathways has been implicated in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, highlighting the importance of their tight regulation. Investigation of the control of TNFSF/TNFRSF activities has led to the development of therapeutics with the potential to reduce chronic inflammation or promote anti-tumor immunity. The study of TNFSF/TNFRSF proteins has exploded over the last 30 yr, but there remains a need to better understand the fundamental mechanisms underlying the molecular pathways they mediate to design more effective anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer therapies.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.

METHODS

On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Long-term safety and efficacy of treatment with subcutaneous abatacept in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are methotrexate inadequate responders

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were MTX inadequate responders, in a long-term extension (LTE) to a double-dummy, double-blind study (NCT01001832).

METHODS

Patients, who had previously received SC or intravenous (IV) abatacept with MTX (6-8 mg/week) for 24 weeks, received SC abatacept (125 mg/week) with MTX for an additional 52 weeks. Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy were assessed.

RESULTS

The LTE included 112 patients. SC abatacept was generally well tolerated in the LTE, with no new safety signals. American College of Rheumatology 20, 50, and 70 response rates, disease activity score 28 (C-reactive protein) remission rates (< 2.6), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index response rates (≥ 0.3 improvement from baseline) achieved at the end of the double-blind period were maintained over the LTE and were comparable in patients who received SC or IV abatacept in the double-blind period. Seropositivity for immunogenicity occurred in 4 (3.6%) patients. Self-injection of SC abatacept was well controlled and not associated with additional safety events.

CONCLUSIONS

SC abatacept had acceptable safety and was well tolerated and effective over the LTE (76 weeks in total), with low rates of immunogenicity in Japanese patients.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.

METHODS

We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.

MAIN RESULTS

158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.

Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.

Short-Term Efficacy Reliably Predicts Long-Term Clinical Benefit in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials as Demonstrated by Model-Based Meta-Analysis

The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between short‐term and long‐term treatment effects measured by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 responses and to assess the feasibility of predicting 6‐month efficacy from short‐term data. A rheumatoid arthritis (RA) database was constructed from 68 reported trials. We focused on the relationship between 3‐ and 6‐month ACR50 treatment effects and developed a generalized nonlinear model to quantify the relationship and test the impact of covariates. The ΔACR50 at 6 months strongly correlated with that at 3 months, moderately correlated with that at 2 months, and only weakly correlated with results obtained at <2 months. A scaling factor that reflected the ratio of 6‐ to 3‐month treatment effects was estimated to be 0.997, suggesting that the treatment effects at 3 months are approaching a “plateau.” Drug classes, baseline Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints, and the magnitude of control arm response did not show significant impacts on the scaling factor. This work quantitatively supports the empirical clinical development paradigm of using 3‐month efficacy data to predict long‐term efficacy and to inform the probability of clinical success based on early efficacy readout.

Biologic-free remission of established rheumatoid arthritis after discontinuation of abatacept: a prospective, multicentre, observational study in Japan

Objective. The aim of this study was to determine whether biologic-free remission of RA is possible with discontinuation of abatacept.

Methods. Japanese RA patients in 28-joint DAS with CRP (DAS28-CRP) remission (<2.3) after >2 years of abatacept treatment in a phase II study and its long-term extension entered this 52 week, multicentre, non-blinded, prospective, observational study. At enrolment, the patients were offered the option to continue abatacept or not. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who remained biologic-free at 52 weeks after discontinuation. Clinical, functional and structural outcomes were compared between those who continued and those who discontinued abatacept.

Results. Of 51 patients enrolled, 34 discontinued and 17 continued abatacept treatment. After 52 weeks, 22 of the 34 patients (64.7%) remained biologic-free. Compared with the continuation group, the discontinuation group had a similar remission rate (41.2% vs 64.7%, P = 0.144) although they had a significantly higher mean DAS28-CRP score at week 52 (2.9 vs 2.0, P = 0.012). The two groups were also similar with regard to mean HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score (0.6 for both, P = 0.920), mean change in total Sharp score (ΔTSS; 0.80 vs 0.32, P = 0.374) and proportion of patients in radiographic remission (ΔTSS ≤ 0.5) at the endpoint (64.3% vs 70.6%, P = 0.752). Those attaining DAS28-CRP < 2.3 or < 2.7 without abatacept at the endpoint had significantly lower HAQ-DI score and/or CRP at enrolment. Non-serious adverse events occurred in three patients who continued or resumed abatacept.

Conclusion. Biologic-free remission of RA is possible in some patients after attaining clinical remission with abatacept. Lower baseline HAQ-DI or CRP may predict maintenance of remission or low disease activity after discontinuation of abatacept.

Trial registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/ (UMIN000004137).

Pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety profiles of etanercept monotherapy in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis: review of seven clinical trials

Conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including methotrexate, may not be tolerated by all patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and limited international data for etanercept (ETN) monotherapy are available. The aim of this review was to summarize the clinical program for ETN monotherapy in Japanese patients with RA, which has included a pharmacokinetic study, clinical trials for registration, long-term studies, and once-weekly dosing studies. Pharmacokinetic results showed that serum concentrations of ETN were linear with dose levels and were similar to other international studies. Across interventional studies, 652 Japanese patients with active RA were treated with ETN. In the registration studies, ETN treatment led to consistent improvement in American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 scores, European League Against Rheumatism Good Response, Disease Activity Score 28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate remission, and Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index. In the long-term studies, efficacy was maintained for up to 180 weeks. Similar results were seen in the once-weekly studies. Across the studies, more than 870 patient-years of exposure to ETN were recorded. Discontinuations owing to lack of efficacy or adverse events were modest and no new safety signals were recorded. These studies demonstrated that ETN monotherapy is efficacious and well-tolerated in Japanese patients with RA.

Efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar compared to other biological drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed treatment comparison

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar and other available biologicals for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), namely abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab and tocilizumab.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of MEDLINE database until August 2013 was carried out to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Bayesian mixed treatment comparison method was applied for the pairwise comparison of treatments. Improvement rates by the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 and ACR50) at week 24 were used as efficacy endpoints, and the occurrence of serious adverse events was considered to assess the safety of the biologicals.

RESULTS

Thirty-six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. All the biological agents proved to be superior to placebo. For ACR20 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest odds ratio (OR) compared to placebo, OR 7.69 [95% CI 3.69-14.26], followed by abatacept OR 3.7 [95% CI 2.17-6.06], tocilizumab OR 3.69 [95% CI 1.87-6.62] and infliximab-biosimilar OR 3.47 [95% CI 0.85-9.7]. For ACR50 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest OR compared to placebo OR 8.46 [3.74-16.82], followed by tocilizumab OR 5.57 [95% CI 2.77-10.09], and infliximab-biosimilar OR 4.06 [95% CI 1.01-11.54]. Regarding the occurrence of serious adverse events, the results show no statistically significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and placebo, OR 1.87 [95% CI 0.74-3.84]. No significant difference regarding efficacy and safety was found between infliximab-biosimilar and the other biological treatments.

CONCLUSION

This is the first indirect meta-analysis in RA that compares the efficacy and safety of biosimilar-infliximab to the other biologicals indicated in RA. We found no significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and other biological agents in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.

Phase III, multicenter, open-label, long-term study of the safety of abatacept in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

Objectives

To examine the long-term safety of intravenous (IV) abatacept treatment in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) or other conventional or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Methods

This Phase III, open-label, long-term study (NCT00484289) comprised Japanese patients with RA who had completed abatacept Phase I or Phase II studies, and new patients intolerant to MTX. Patients from Phase I and Phase II studies received a weight-tiered dosing equivalent of 10 mg/kg abatacept, with MTX at doses up to 8 mg/week; newly enrolled patients received weight-tiered 10 mg/kg abatacept monotherapy. Safety and efficacy were assessed.

Results

A total of 217 patients (Phase I, n = 13; Phase II, n = 178; newly enrolled, n = 26) were treated with IV abatacept for a mean of 3 years. Serious adverse events occurred in 67/217 (30.9%) patients. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. For all cohorts combined, American College of Rheumatology 20% response rates ranged from 61.3 to 81.8% for as-observed and last observation carried forward analyses over 192 weeks. Following initial response, clinical and functional outcomes were maintained for up to 3 years.

Conclusions

In Japanese patients with RA, IV abatacept with and without background MTX showed tolerable safety and sustained efficacy over 3 years.

Efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of abatacept administered subcutaneously or intravenously in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate: a Phase II/III, randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) abatacept and background methotrexate (MTX) in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR).

METHODS

Double-dummy, double-blind study (NCT01001832); 118 adults with ≥ 10 swollen joints, ≥ 12 tender joints and C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 0.8 mg/dL randomized 1:1 to SC abatacept (125 mg weekly) with IV loading (∼10 mg/kg on Day 1), or IV abatacept (∼10 mg/kg monthly) for 169 days, both also receiving MTX (6-8 mg/week). Primary endpoint was Day 169 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response; other efficacy endpoints, safety and immunogenicity were assessed.

RESULTS

Similar proportions of patients achieved ACR20 responses at Day 169 with SC (91.5% [95% CI 81.3, 97.2]) and IV abatacept (83.1% [71.0, 91.6]). ACR50/70 responses, adjusted mean changes from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores and remission rates (28-joint Disease Activity Score [CRP] < 2.6) were also comparable between groups. Serious adverse event frequencies (5.1% vs. 3.4%) were similar with both formulations. One patient per group tested seropositive for immunogenicity. Weekly SC abatacept dosing achieved mean serum concentrations > 10 μg/mL (minimum therapeutic target).

CONCLUSIONS

SC abatacept demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to IV abatacept, with low immunogenicity rates, in MTX-IR Japanese patients with RA.

A randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial of a novel cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 fusion protein, Leining, in Chinese active rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate

To assess the clinical efficacy as well as safety profiles of Leining, a novel cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 fusion protein, versus placebo in the treatment of Chinese active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with an inadequate clinical response to methotrexate (MTX). In this 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study, a total of 440 Chinese patients with active RA with an inadequate response to MTX were randomly assigned to receive Leining (10 mg/kg) or placebo. Clinical response was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology 20 % improvement criteria ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70, with ACR20 as the primary major endpoints. Disease activity scores in 28 joints with erythrocyte sedimentation rate assessment (DAS28-ESR) were used to evaluate disease activity. After 24 weeks of treatment, significantly more patients in Leining group achieved ACR20 response than those in placebo group (70.61 vs. 46.36 %; p < 0.001). Similarly, ACR50 and ACR70 responses of Leining group were significantly higher than those of placebo group (40.30 vs. 22.73 %; p < 0.001 and 16.67 vs. 7.27 %; p < 0.05, respectively). DAS28-ESR in Leining group was significantly reduced compared to that in placebo group, with greater clinically meaningful (>1.2 unit) improvement (54.85 vs. 29.09 %, p < 0.05). Both the rates of remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.6) and low disease activity (DAS28-ESR < 3.2) were greater in the Leining group than those in the placebo group (12.42 vs. 2.73 %; p < 0.05 and 15.45 vs. 2.73 %; p < 0.05 respectively). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in both Leining and placebo groups. No neutralizing antibodies were detected. Leining demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy compared with placebo in Chinese patients with active RA despite MTX therapy. Administration of Leining in combination with MTX for 24 weeks was well tolerated.

A paradigm shift in rheumatoid arthritis over the past decade

Recent advances have improved our understanding of the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and the development of new therapeutics, including biological agents, have thus made it possible to strive for remission as a primary goal. Biological agents targeting a specific molecule have powerful functional capabilities, and the introduction of biological therapies has brought about revolutionary progress in RA management, culminating in a paradigm shift. There is clear evidence that a delay in treatment initiation and poor control of disease activity are associated with joint damage progression, so treatment should be started immediately after the diagnosis of RA and adapted according to disease activity as assessed by validated composite measures. In this review, we will summarize the changes in the classification and remission criteria and describe the clinical efficacies of biological agents in RA. We also discuss new promising therapies and propose future perspectives in the rheumatology field.