Head-to-Head Comparison of Etanercept vs. Adalimumab in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Crossover Clinical Trial

Adalimumab exhibits superiority over etanercept in terms of a numerically higher response rate and equivalent adverse events: A real-world finding

INTRODUCTION

Adalimumab (ADA) and etanercept (ETN) are the most commonly applied biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management in China; however, the evidence regarding their superiority is controversial. In addition, in real-world clinical settings, many factors may affect the application of these agents, such as dosage and administration period. Therefore, the present real-world study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ADA and ETN treatment in RA patients via the propensity score matching method.

METHODS

In total, 105 RA patients receiving ADA (n = 66) or ETN (n = 39) were reviewed in this retrospective study. The propensity score matching method was used to eliminate discrepancies in baseline features. Clinical response, low disease activity (LDA), and remission were evaluated based on the DAS28.

RESULTS

Before propensity score matching, compared with ETN, ADA yielded higher rates of clinical response at W24 (97.0% vs. 84.6%, p = .021), LDA at W12 (78.8% vs. 51.3%, p = .003), and remission at W24 (75.8% vs. 46.2%, p = .002). After propensity score matching, compared with ETN, ADA only achieved a higher rate of clinical response at W24 (96.3% vs. 77.8%, p = .043), whereas the rates of LDA and remission were not different between ADA and ETN treatments at any time point (all p > .05). In addition, the incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the ADA and ETN treatments (all p > .05).

CONCLUSION

ADA shows superiority over ETN in terms of a numerically greater response rate and equivalent adverse events.

Clinical and Economic Benefit of Advanced Therapies for the Treatment of Active Ankylosing Spondylitis

INTRODUCTION

Recent changes to treatment guidelines for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) have listed first-line advanced therapies as tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-17, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. This study sought to assess the comparative clinical and economic benefit of advanced therapies approved for AS.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials for JAK inhibitors (upadacitinib [UPA], tofacitinib [TOF]), anti-IL-17 therapies (secukinumab [SEC], ixekizumab [IXE]), and TNF inhibitors (adalimumab [ADA], etanercept [ETN], golimumab [GOL]) used for the treatment of active AS. Clinical efficacy was evaluated by Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society 40 (ASAS40) criteria and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) was used to generate response rates synthesized via a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated as the reciprocal of incremental response rate of each treatment versus placebo. Cost per ASAS40 responder (CPR) was calculated as the 12-week treatment costs divided by ASAS40 response rates. Data were stratified by biologic treatment status (i.e., biologic naïve [bio-naïve] or inadequate response or intolerance to biologics [bio-IR]) for efficacy and CPR analyses.

RESULTS

Among bio-naïve patients, the response rate for ASAS40 was 53.6% for UPA-treated patients, whereas most other treatments had response rates between 41% and 49%. NNTs were lowest for UPA-treated patients at 2.8 (other therapies 3.2-4.8). Estimated CPR among UPA-treated patients was lowest (UPA $39.5k vs others $44.2k-102.5k). Efficacy and CPR trends were similar among bio-IR and TNF-IR patients. Among bio-naïve and bio-IR patients, the rate of AEs leading to discontinuation was lowest among UPA and SEC-treated patients (0.0, others 0.6-3.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to other treatments assessed in this study, UPA demonstrated numerically greater clinical and economic benefit for the treatment of AS. Head-to-head or real-world comparisons of these therapies are warranted and may inform clinical decision-making.

Efficacy and safety of biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the ASAS-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To update the evidence on efficacy and safety of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) to inform the 2022 update of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ASAS-EULAR) recommendations for the management of axSpA.

METHODS

Systematic literature review (2016-2021) on efficacy and safety of bDMARDs in axSpA (radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA)/non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA)). Eligible study designs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), strategy trials and observational studies (the latter only for safety and extra-musculoskeletal manifestations). All relevant efficacy/safety outcomes were included.

RESULTS

In total, 148 publications were included. Efficacy of golimumab and certolizumab was confirmed. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilar-originator equivalence was demonstrated. RCT (n=15) data on efficacy of interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) demonstrated clinically relevant effects (risk ratio vs placebo to achieve ASAS40 response 1.3-15.3 (r-axSpA, n=9), 1.4-2.1 (nr-axSpA, n=2)). Efficacy of secukinumab/ixekizumab was demonstrated in TNFi-naïve and TNFi-inadequate responders. IL-23 and IL-12/23 inhibitors (risankizumab/ustekinumab) failed to show relevant benefits. Tapering of TNFi by spacing was non-inferior to standard-dose treatment. The first axSpA treat-to-target trial did not meet its primary endpoint, but showed improvements in secondary outcomes. No new risks were identified with TNFi use in observational studies (data lacking for IL-17i). Secukinumab (n=1) and etanercept (n=2) were associated with increased risk of uveitis in observational studies compared to monoclonal TNFi.

CONCLUSIONS

New evidence supports the efficacy and safety of TNFi (originators/biosimilars) and IL-17i in r-axSpA and nr-axSpA, while IL-23i failed to show relevant effects. Observational studies are needed to confirm long-term IL-17i safety.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021257588.

JKAP serves as a potential biomarker for the evaluation of inflammatory condition, disease activity, and treatment response to TNF inhibitor in ankylosing spondylitis patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the value of JKAP as a biomarker in estimating treatment response to TNF inhibitor in AS patients.

METHODS

Totally, 63 AS patents who planned to receive adalimumab (TNF inhibitor) treatment were enrolled. Baseline JKAP level was determined in serum samples. All patients received 40 mg adalimumab every two weeks for 12 weeks. At W2, W4, W8, and W12, ASAS40 response rates were evaluated.

RESULTS

JKAP was negatively correlated with CRP (P = 0.032), BASDAI score (P = 0.021), BASFI score (P = 0.045), ASDASCRP score (P = 0.038), TNF-α (P = 0.031), IL-6 (P = 0.025) and IL-17A (P = 0.022). The ASAS40 response rates were 17.5%, 31.7%, 44.4% and 55.5% at W2, W4, W8 and W12, respectively. Baseline JKAP level was lower in patients with ASAS40 response than those without ASAS40 response (25.8 (13.2-42.7) pg/mL vs. 47.3 (26.7-71.2) pg/mL, P = 0.003). Multivariate logistic regression disclosed that JKAP level (P = 0.049) and CRP level (P = 0.014) independently correlated with ASAS40 response; further analyses disclosed that they exhibited acceptable to good ability in distinguishing patients with ASAS40 response from those without ASAS40 response.

CONCLUSION

JKAP serves as a potential biomarker for evaluation of inflammatory condition, disease activity, especially for assessing treatment response to TNF inhibitor in AS patients.