Effectiveness of a third tumor necrosis factor-α-blocking agent compared with rituximab after failure of 2 TNF-blocking agents in rheumatoid arthritis

Update of the Consensus Statement of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on the use of biological and synthetic targeted therapies in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To update the consensus document of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER) regarding the use of targeted biological and synthetic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with the aim of assisting clinicians in their therapeutic decisions.

METHODS

A panel of 13 experts was assembled through an open call by SER. We employed a mixed adaptation-elaboration-update methodology starting from the 2015 Consensus Document of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on the use of biological therapies in RA. Starting with systematic reviews (SR) of recommendations from EULAR 2019, American College of Rheumatology 2021, and GUIPCAR 2017, we updated the search strategies for the PICO questions of GUIPCAR. An additional SR was conducted on demyelinating disease in relation to targeted biological and synthetic therapies. Following the analysis of evidence by different panelists, consensus on the wording and level of agreement for each recommendation was reached in a face-to-face meeting.

RESULTS

The panel established 5 general principles and 15 recommendations on the management of RA. These encompassed crucial aspects such as the importance of early treatment, therapeutic goals in RA, monitoring frequency, the use of glucocorticoids, the application of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), and targeted synthetic DMARDs. Additionally, recommendations on dose reduction of these drugs in stable patients were included. This update also features recommendations on the use of bDMARDs and Janus Kinase inhibitors in some specific clinical situations, such as patients with lung disease, a history of cancer, heart failure, or demyelinating disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This update provides recommendations on key aspects in the management of RA using targeted biological and synthetic therapies.

Comparison of drug retention of TNF inhibitors, other biologics and JAK inhibitors in RA patients who discontinued JAK inhibitor therapy

OBJECTIVES

JAK Inhibitors (JAKi) are recommended DMARDs for patients with moderate-to-severe RA who failed first-line therapy with methotrexate. There is a lack of data allowing an evidence-based choice of subsequent DMARD therapy for patients who had discontinued JAKi treatment. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of TNF inhibitor (TNFi) therapy vs JAKi vs other mode of action (OMA) biologic DMARD (bDMARD) in RA patients who were previously treated with a JAKi.

METHODS

RA patients who discontinued JAKi treatment within the Swiss RA registry SCQM were included for this observational prospective cohort study. The primary outcome was drug retention for either TNFi, OMA bDMARD or JAKi. The hazard ratio for treatment discontinuation was calculated adjusting for potential confounders. A descriptive analysis of the reasons for discontinuation was performed.

RESULTS

Four hundred treatment courses of JAKi were included, with a subsequent switch to either JAKi, TNFi or OMA bDMARD. The crude overall drug retention was higher in patients switching to another JAKi as compared with TNFi and comparable to OMA. A significant difference of JAKi vs TNFi persisted after adjusting for potential confounders.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world population of RA patients who discontinued treatment with a JAKi, switching to another JAKi resulted in a higher drug retention than switching to a TNFi. A switch to a second JAKi seems an effective therapeutic option.

Preferable outcome of Janus kinase inhibitors for a group of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis patients: from the FIRST Registry

Backgrounds

Treatment of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) is one of the greatest unmet needs in rheumatology. This study aims to find out preferable treatment options for a group of D2T RA patients who are refractory to multiple biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs).

Methods

Data were obtained from patients enrolled in the FIRST Registry who started either TNF inhibitor (TNFi), interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 immunoglobulin, or Janus-kinase inhibitor (JAKi) in the period of August 2013 to December 2020. Those who failed to ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 b/tsDMARDs were categorised as D2T RA and very D2T RA (vD2T RA), respectively. Change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index were compared among the groups using propensity-based inverse probability treatment weighted (IPTW) method.

Results

Of 2128 cases included, 353 were categorised as D2T RA. Among the D2T RA, 106 were identified as vD2T RA. JAKi showed a significant improvement in CDAI in the patients with D2T RA and vD2T RA, compared to IPTW-adjusted patients treated with the other 3 regimens. Latent class analysis of the trajectories of treatment response revealed that the proportion of a group of patients who showed poor response was lower among the JAKi subgroup than among those with other subgroups. This superiority of JAKi was more apparent among methotrexate- and glucocorticoid-free individuals. The hazard ratio of severe adverse events was comparable among the four treatment subgroups in both the D2T RA and b/tsDMARD-naïve groups.

Conclusions

This study compared responsiveness to different classes of b/tsDMARDs among D2T RA and vD2T RA patients who were refractory to multiple b/tsDMARDs. The results suggest JAKi is a preferable treatment choice for this type of D2T RA.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-022-02744-7.

Using adalimumab serum concentration to choose a subsequent biological DMARD in rheumatoid arthritis patients failing adalimumab treatment (ADDORA-switch): study protocol for a fully blinded randomised superiority test-treatment trial

Background

A substantial proportion of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients discontinues treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) due to inefficacy or intolerance. After the failure of treatment with a TNFi, treatment can be switched to another TNFi or a bDMARD with a different mode of action (non-TNFi). Measurement of serum drug concentrations and/or anti-drug antibodies (therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)) may help to inform the choice for the next step. However, the clinical utility of TDM to guide switching has not been investigated in a randomised test-treatment study.

Methods

ADDORA-switch is a 24-week, multi-centre, triple-blinded, superiority test-treatment randomised controlled trial. A total of 84 RA patients failing adalimumab treatment (treatment failure defined as DAS28-CRP > 2.9) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to a switching strategy to either TNFi or non-TNFi based on adalimumab serum trough level (intervention group) or random allocation (control group). The primary outcome is the between-group difference in mean time-weighted DAS28 over 24 weeks.

Discussion

The trial design differs in many aspects from previously published and ongoing TDM studies and is considered the first blinded test-treatment trial using TDM in RA. Several choices in the design of this trial are described, and overarching principles regarding test-treatment trials and clinical utility of TDM are discussed in further detail.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register NL8210. Registered on 3 December 2019 (CMO NL69841.091.19).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05358-7.

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

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.

Improving rheumatoid arthritis comparative effectiveness research through causal inference principles: systematic review using a target trial emulation framework

OBJECTIVES

Target trial emulation is an intuitive design framework that encourages investigators to formulate their comparative effectiveness research (CER) question as a hypothetical randomised controlled trial (RCT). Our aim was to systematically review CER studies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to provide examples of design limitations that could be avoided using target trial emulation, and how these limitations might introduce bias.

METHODS

We searched for head-to-head CER studies of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA. Study designs were reviewed for seven components of the target trial emulation framework: eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, assignment procedures, follow-up period, outcome, causal contrasts of interest (ie, intention-to-treat (ITT) or per-protocol effect) and analysis plan. Hypothetical trials corresponding to the reported methods were assessed to identify design limitations that would have been avoided with an explicit target trial protocol. Analysis of the primary effectiveness outcome was chosen where multiple analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We found 31 CER studies, of which 29 (94%) had at least one design limitation belonging to seven components. The most common limitations related to: (1) eligibility criteria: 19/31 (61%) studies used post-baseline information to define baseline eligibility; (2) causal contrasts: 25 (81%) did not define whether ITT or per-protocol effects were estimated and (3) assignment procedures: 13 (42%) studies did not account for confounding by indication or relied solely on statistical confounder selection.

CONCLUSIONS

Design limitations were found in 94% of observational CER studies in RA. Target trial emulation is a structured approach for designing observational CER studies that helps to avoid potential sources of bias.

Cost-effectiveness of different treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the DREAM registry

Background

Adjusting medication of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) until predefined disease activity targets are met, i.e. Treat-to-Target (T2T), is the currently recommended treatment approach. However, not much is known about long-term cost-effectiveness of different T2T strategies.

We model the 5-year costs and effects of a step-up approach (MTX mono - > MTX + csDMARD combination - > Adalimumab - > second anti-TNF) and an initial combination therapy approach (MTX + csDMARD - > MTX + csDMARD higher dose - > anti-TNFs) from the healthcare and societal perspectives, by adapting a previously validated Markov model.

Methods

We constructed a Markov model in which 3-monthly transitions between DAS28-defined health states of remission (≤2.6), low (2.6 < DAS28 ≤ 3.2), moderate (3.2 < DAS28 ≤ 5.1), and high disease activity (DAS28 > 5.1) were simulated. Modelled patients proceeded to subsequent treatments in case of non-remission at each (3-month) cycle start. In case of remission for two consecutive cycles medication was tapered, until medication-free remission was achieved. Transition probabilities for individual treatment steps were estimated using data of Dutch Rheumatology Monitoring registry Remission Induction Cohort I (step-up) and II (initial combination). Expected costs, utility, and ICER after 5 years were compared between the two strategies. To account for parameter uncertainty, probabilistic sensitivity analysis was employed through Gamma, Normal, and Dirichlet distributions. All utilities, costs, and transition probabilities were replaced by fitted distributions.

Results

Over a 5-year timespan, initial combination therapy was less costly and more effective than step-up therapy. Initial combination therapy accrued €16,226.3 and 3.552 QALY vs €20,183.3 and 3.517 QALYs for step-up therapy. This resulted in a negative ICER, indicating that initial combination therapy was both less costly and more effective in terms of utility gained. This can be explained by higher (±5%) remission percentages in initial combination strategy at all time points. More patients in remission generates less healthcare and productivity loss costs and higher utility. Additionally, higher remission percentages caused less bDMARD use in the initial combination strategy, lowering overall costs.

Conclusion

Initial combination therapy was found favourable over step-up therapy in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis, when considering cost-effectiveness. Initial combination therapy resulted in more utility at a lower cost over 5 years.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s41927-019-0064-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Second-line biologic therapy optimization in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE

The Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO) reviewed the most consistent literature to indicate the best strategy for the second-line biologic choice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature to identify English-language articles on efficacy of second-line biologic choice in RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data were extracted from available randomized, controlled trials, national biologic registries, national healthcare databases, post-marketing surveys, and open-label observational studies.

RESULTS

Some previously stated variables, including the patients׳ preference, the indication for anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monotherapy in potential childbearing women, and the intravenous route with dose titration in obese subjects resulted valid for all the three rheumatic conditions. In RA, golimumab as second-line biologic has the highest level of evidence in anti-TNF failure. The switching strategy is preferable for responder patients who experience an adverse event, whereas serious or class-specific side effects should be managed by the choice of a differently targeted drug. Secondary inadequate response to etanercept (ETN) should be treated with a biologic agent other than anti-TNF. After two or more anti-TNF failures, the swapping to a different mode of action is recommended. Among non-anti-TNF targeted biologics, to date rituximab (RTX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) have the strongest evidence of efficacy in the treatment of anti-TNF failures. In PsA and AS patients failing the first anti-TNF, the switch strategy to a second is advisable, taking in account the evidence of adalimumab efficacy in patients with uveitis. The severity of psoriasis, of articular involvement, and the predominance of enthesitis and/or dactylitis may drive the choice toward ustekinumab or secukinumab in PsA, and the latter in AS.

CONCLUSION

Taking in account the paucity of controlled trials, second-line biologic therapy may be reasonably optimized in patients with RA, SpA, and PsA.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of abatacept, rituximab, and TNFi treatment after previous failure with TNFi treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a pragmatic multi-centre randomised trial

Introduction

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose treatment with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is failing, several biological treatment options are available. Often, another TNFi or a biological with another mode of action is prescribed. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three biologic treatments with different modes of action in patients with RA whose TNFi therapy is failing.

Methods

We conducted a pragmatic, 1-year randomised trial in a multicentre setting. Patients with active RA despite previous TNFi treatment were randomised to receive abatacept, rituximab or a different TNFi. The primary outcome (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints) and the secondary outcomes (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and 36-item Short Form Health Survey scores) were analysed using linear mixed models. Cost-effectiveness was analysed on the basis of incremental net monetary benefit, which was based on quality-adjusted life-years (calculated using EQ-5D scores), and all medication expenditures consumed in 1 year. All analyses were also corrected for possible confounders.

Results

Of 144 randomised patients, 5 were excluded and 139 started taking abatacept (43 patients), rituximab (46 patients) or a different TNFi (50 patients). There were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to multiple measures of RA outcomes. However, our analysis revealed that rituximab therapy is significantly more cost-effective than both abatacept and TNFi over a willingness-to-pay range of 0 to 80,000 euros.

Conclusions

All three treatment options were similarly effective; however, when costs were factored into the treatment decision, rituximab was the best option available to patients whose first TNFi treatment failed. However, generalization of these costs to other countries should be undertaken carefully.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register number NTR1605. Registered 24 December 2008.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0630-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Comparative effectiveness of biologic antirheumatic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis after failure to respond to a first TNF inhibitor

Evaluation of: Gomez-Reino JJ, Maneiro JR, Ruiz J et al. Comparative effectiveness of switching to alternative tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists versus switching to rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who failed previous TNF antagonists: the MIRAR Study. Ann. Rheum. Dis. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201324 (2012) (Epub ahead of print). Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic immune-mediated disease affecting approximately 1% of the population. The prognosis of this chronic condition has considerably improved over the past decade with the earlier use of antirheumatic drugs and the introduction of new biologic therapies. Current treatment guidelines recommend using these agents after a failed response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, but the relative positioning of the various available biologic agents is not yet well established. All biologic agents have been proven to be superior to placebo in large trials, but only very few randomized controlled trials have compared directly competing therapeutic options. This article evaluates the effectiveness of rituximab compared with an alternative TNF antagonist (anti-TNF) in rheumatoid arthritis patients who experienced a previous failed response to anti-TNF. The results of this large observational cohort study suggest that rituximab offers a greater benefit on rheumatoid arthritis disease activity than alternative monoclonal anti-TNFs.

Evolution of radiographic joint damage in rituximab-treated versus TNF-treated rheumatoid arthritis cases with inadequate response to TNF antagonists

Background

Observational studies have suggested that patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who experience inadequate response to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents respond more favourably to rituximab (RTX) than to an alternative anti-TNF agent. However, the relative effectiveness of these agents on long-term outcomes, particularly in radiographic damage, remains unclear.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of RTX against anti-TNF agents in preventing joint damage in patients with RA who have experienced inadequate response to at least one prior anti-TNF agent.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study within the Swiss registry of patients with RA who discontinued at least one anti-TNF agent and subsequently received either RTX or an alternative anti-TNF agent. The primary outcome, progression of radiographic joint erosions (Ratingen erosion score)over time, and the secondary outcome, functional disability (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index), were analysed using regression models for longitudinal data and adjusted for potential confounders.

Results

Of the 371 patients included, 104 received RTX and 267 received an alternative anti-TNF agent. During the 2.6-year median follow-up period, the rates of Ratingen erosion score progression were similar between patients taking RTX and patients taking an alternative anti-TNF agent (p=0.67). The evolution of the Health Assessment Questionnaire score was statistically significantly better in the RTX group (p=0.016), but the magnitude of the effect was probably not clinically relevant.

Conclusion

This observational study suggests that RTX is as effective as an alternative anti-TNF agent in preventing erosions in patients with RA who have previously experienced inadequate response to anti-TNF agents.