Immunogenicity of subcutaneous TNF inhibitors and its clinical significance in real-life setting in patients with spondyloarthritis

Key messages

Considerable proportion of patients with SpA have been immunized to the subcutaneous anti-TNF drug they are using. Concomitant use of MTX protects from immunization, whereas SASP does not. Patients with SpA using subcutaneous anti-TNF drugs can benefit from monitoring of the drug trough levels.

Abstract

Immunization to biological drugs can lead to decreased efficacy and increased risk of adverse effects. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to assess the extent and significance of immunization to subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients in real-life setting. A serum sample was taken 1–2 days before the next drug injection. Drug trough concentrations, anti-drug antibodies (ADAb) and TNF-blocking capacity were measured in 273 patients with axSpA using subcutaneous anti-TNF drugs. The clinical activity of SpA was assessed using the Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and the Maastricht AS Entheses Score (MASES). ADAb were found in 11% of the 273 patients: in 21/99 (21%) of patients who used adalimumab, in 0/83 (0%) of those who used etanercept, in 2/79 (3%) of those who used golimumab and in 6/12 (50%) of those who used certolizumab pegol. Use of methotrexate reduced the risk of formation of ADAb, whereas sulfasalazine did not. Presence of ADAb resulted in decreased drug concentration and reduced TNF-blocking capacity. However, low levels of ADAb had no effect on TNF-blocking capacity and did not correlate with disease activity. The drug trough levels were below the consensus target level in 36% of the patients. High BMI correlated with low drug trough concentration. Patients with low drug trough levels had higher disease activity. The presence of anti-drug antibodies was associated with reduced drug trough levels, and the patients with low drug trough levels had higher disease activity. The drug trough levels were below target level in significant proportion of patients and, thus, measuring the drug concentration and ADAb could help to optimize the treatment in SpA patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00296-021-04955-8.

OP0018 A MULTICENTER RANDOMIZED STUDY IN EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS TO COMPARE ACTIVE CONVENTIONAL THERAPY VERSUS THREE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENTS: 24 WEEK EFFICACY RESULTS OF THE NORD-STAR TRIAL

Background:

The optimal first-line treatment of patients (pts) with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is yet to be established.

Objectives:

The primary aim was to assess and compare the proportion of pts who achieved remission with active conventional therapy (ACT) and with three different biologic therapies after 24 wks. Secondary aims were to assess and compare other efficacy measures.

Methods:

The investigator-initiated NORD-STAR trial (NCT01491815) was conducted in the Nordic countries and Netherlands. In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-assessor study pts with treatment-naïve, early RA with DAS28>3.2, and positive RF or ACPA, or CRP >10mg/L were randomized 1:1:1:1. Methotrexate (25 mg/week after one month) was combined with: 1) (ACT): oral prednisolone (tapered quickly);or: sulphasalazine, hydroxychloroquine and mandatory intra-articular (IA) glucocorticoid (GC) injections in swollen joints <wk 20; 2) certolizumab 200 mg EOW SC (CZP); 3) abatacept 125 mg/wk SC (ABA); tocilizumab 162 mg/wk SC (TCZ). IA GC was allowed in all arms <wk 20. Primary outcome was clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at wk 24. Secondary outcomes included CDAI remission over time and other remission criteria. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed by adjusted logistic regression with non-responder imputation (NRI). Non-inferiority analyses had a pre-specified margin of 15%.

Results:

812 pts were randomized. Age was 54.3±14.7 yrs (mean±SD), 31.2% were male, DAS28 5.0±1.1, 74.9% were RF and 81.9% ACPA positive. Fig 1 shows the adjusted CDAI remission rates over time with 95% CI. Table shows crude remission and response rates and absolute differences in adjusted remission and response rates (superiority analysis). Differences in remission and response rates with CZP and TCZ, but not with ABA, remained within the pre-defined non-inferiority margin versus ACT, Fig 2.

Figure 1.

CDAI remission over time (adj. estimates with 95% CI)

Figure 2.

Non-inferiority analysis of protocol population. Estimated differences in CDAI remission rates between Arm 1 (active conventional therapy) and Arms 2, 3, and 4 (biologic arms) as reference with 95% confidence intervals, adjusted for gender, ACPA status, country, age, body-mass index and baseline DAS28-CRP. ABA, abatacept; CZP, certolizumab-pegol; MTX, methotrexate; TCZ, tocilizumab.

Conclusion:

High remission rates were found across all four treatment arms at 24 wks. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for ABA versus ACT (+9%) and for CZP (+4%), but not for TCZ (-1%). With the predefined 15% margin, ACT was non-inferior to CZP and TCZ, but not to ABA. This underscores the efficacy of active conventional therapy based on MTX combined with glucocorticoids and may guide future treatment strategies for early RA.

Table.

Primary and key secondary outcomes at 24 weeks (ITT)

Active conventional therapy (ACT)Certolizumab+MTXAbatacept+MTXTocilizumab+MTXNo of pts (ITT)200203204188§Crude remission and response ratesCDAI remission42.0%47.8%52.5%41.0%ACR/EULAR Boolean remission34.0%38.4%37.3%31.4%DAS28 remission63.5%68.5%69.6%63.3%SDAI remission41.5%49.8%51.5%42.6%EULAR good response71.5%76.9%79.9%71.3%Difference (95% CI) in rates with Arm 1 as reference (adjusted)CDAI remissionRef4% (-5 to 13%)9% (0.1 to 19%)-1% (-10 to 9%)ACR/EULAR Boolean remissionRef4% (-6 to 13%)5% (-5 to 14%)-4% (-13 to 6%)DAS28 remissionRef3% (-6 to 11%)5% (-4 to 13%)-1% (-10 to 8%)SDAI remissionRef6% (-3 to 18%)9% (-0.3 to 18%)1% (-8 to 11%)EULAR good responseRef4% (-4 to 14%)8% (-2 to 18%)0.4% (-10 to 11%)

§17 patients allocated to Tocilizumab did not receive it due to its unavailability and were excluded from ITT.

Acknowledgments:

Manufacturers provided CZP and ABA.

Disclosure of Interests:

Merete L. Hetland Grant/research support from: BMS, MSD, AbbVie, Roche, Novartis, Biogen and Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Speakers bureau: Orion Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, CellTrion, Merck and Samsung Bioepis, Espen A Haavardsholm Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Pfizer Inc, MSD Norway, Roche Norway, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Lilly, Paid instructor for: UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Lilly, Roche, MSD, Anna Rudin Consultant of: Astra/Zeneca, Dan Nordström Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., Michael Nurmohamed Grant/research support from: Not related to this research, Consultant of: Not related to this research, Speakers bureau: Not related to this research, Björn Gudbjornsson Speakers bureau: Novartis and Amgen, Jon Lampa Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, Kim Hørslev-Petersen: None declared, Till Uhlig Consultant of: Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Grünenthal, Novartis, Gerdur Gröndal: None declared, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Marte Heiberg: None declared, Jos Twisk: None declared, Simon Krabbe: None declared, Kristina Lend: None declared, Inge Olsen: None declared, Joakim Lindqvist: None declared, Anna-Karin H Ekwall Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Kathrine L. Grøn Grant/research support from: BMS, Meliha C Kapetanovic: None declared, Francesca Faustini: None declared, Riitta Tuompo: None declared, Tove Lorenzen: None declared, Giovanni Cagnotto: None declared, Eva Baecklund: None declared, Oliver Hendricks Grant/research support from: Pfizer, MSD, Daisy Vedder: None declared, Tuulikki Sokka-Isler: None declared, Tomas Husmark: None declared, Maud-Kristine A Ljosa: None declared, Eli Brodin: None declared, Torkell Ellingsen: None declared, Annika Soderbergh: None declared, Milad Rizk Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Åsa Reckner: None declared, Per Larsson: None declared, Line Uhrenholt Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Novartis (not related to the submitted work), Søren Andreas Just: None declared, David Stevens: None declared, Trine Bay Laurberg Consultant of: UCB Pharma (Advisory Board), Gunnstein Bakland Consultant of: Novartis, UCB, Ronald van Vollenhoven Grant/research support from: BMS, GSK, Lilly, UCB, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Biotest, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Servier, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, UCB