Clinical and radiological efficacy of initial vs delayed treatment with infliximab plus methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis

Predictors of response to etanercept-methotrexate treatment: a post hoc logistic regression analysis of a randomized, open-label study in Latin American patients with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Determining potential predictors of clinical response would allow a more personalized rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment approach in heterogeneous populations such as Latin American (LA) patients.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis to identify baseline characteristics predictive of clinical remission in response to treatment with etanercept (ETN) plus methotrexate (MTX) in LA patients with moderate to severe MTX-resistant RA. We report data from the group of patients who received ETN 50 mg/week plus MTX (ETN + MTX, n = 281) in a clinical trial consisting of an initial 24-week open-label phase, followed by a 104-week extension. Remission was defined as 28-joint Disease Activity Score with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score < 2.6. Cutoff values to dichotomize baseline variables maximizing the detection of remission were obtained from Receiver Operator Curve analyses. Baseline dichotomized and categorical variables were analyzed altogether in a stepwise logistic regression model. Odds of attaining response at Weeks 24 and 128 were estimated for each significant predictor.

RESULTS

At Week 24 and Week 128, 27% (66/241) and 42% (91/219) of patients in the ETN + MTX group achieved remission. On average, patients achieving remission were younger and had lower baseline ESR, lower Physician Global Assessment (PGA) scores, lower total Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores, and lower visual analog scale (VAS) Pain scores compared with patients who did not achieve remission. The best subset of baseline variables predicting Week 24 remission in the stepwise regression model were age ≤ 49 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.93), body mass index (BMI) > 28.5 kg/m² (OR 3.24), disease duration > 3.7 years (OR 2.22), ESR ≤ 42 mm/h (OR 2.72), PGA ≤ 6 (OR 3.21), tender joint count ≤ 14 (OR 2.25), and total HAQ score ≤ 1.6 (OR 2.86). At Week 128, age ≤ 42 years (OR 2.21), SF-36 Mental Health Scale score > 39.6 (OR 2.16), White race (OR 4.07), > 18 swollen joints (OR 2.11), and VAS Pain ≤ 41 (OR 6.05) at baseline were the best subset of significant predictors of remission.

CONCLUSIONS

In LA patients with RA, younger age, higher BMI, longer disease duration, higher SF-36 Mental Health Scale score, higher swollen joint count, and overall lower disease activity predicted clinical response to ETN + MTX therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00848354.

Long-term efficacy of early infliximab-induced remission for refractory uveoretinitis associated with Behçet's disease

BACKGROUND

To evaluate long-term efficacy of infliximab (IFX) in refractory uveoretinitis associated with Behçet's disease (BD) depending on uveoretinitis duration.

METHODS

Records of 16 patients with BD (32 eyes) followed for >5 years after starting IFX, were retrospectively reviewed. Long-term efficacy was compared between patients with short duration (≤18 months, n=7) versus long duration (>18 months, n=9) of their uveoretinitis prior to starting IFX.

RESULTS

The median follow-up after starting IFX was 132 months (76-146 months). Mean frequency of attacks and the 1-year Behçet's Disease Ocular Attack Score 24 decreased significantly over 10 years. Overall, the percentage of eyes with a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ≥1.0 increased from 47% at baseline to 59% at 5 years; the percentage of eyes with a BCVA ≤0.1 was 19% at both baseline and 5 years. The frequency of ocular attacks decreased similarly in both short duration and long duration groups; however, the percentage of eyes with a BCVA ≥1.0 at 5 years was 100% in the short duration group versus 28% in the long duration group. IFX was discontinued in four patients with an excellent response to IFX therapy; all were young male patients in the short duration group with good BCVA bilaterally, and none had inflammatory recurrences over a median follow-up of 56 months off IFX.

CONCLUSION

Initiation of IFX therapy in patients with BD within 18 months of their uveoretinitis onset was more effective in maintaining good BCVA than after 18 months.

Unlocking the Value of Anti-TNF Biosimilars: Reducing Disease Burden and Improving Outcomes in Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Narrative Review

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are chronic conditions that create a significant disease burden on millions of patients while adding a major financial burden to societies and healthcare systems.

The introduction of biologic medicines has contributed majorly to improving the clinical outcomes of IMIDs and as such these modalities have gained first- or second-line positions in a wide range of treatment guidelines from different international clinical societies. However, the high cost of these biologics traditionally limited their accessibility and delayed their initiation, leaving millions of patients with unmet medical needs for a more affordable and sustainable solution.

The introduction of cost-efficient biosimilar anti-TNFs within Europe since 2013 has allowed more patients with IMIDs to access biologic therapies earlier and for longer, potentially altering the course of the disease into a milder phenotype and reducing the long-term disease burden. This review provides the latest evidence for the impact of biosimilars on patient outcomes and demonstrates their clinical value beyond a reduction in price.

Long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of infliximab as first-line treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Early biological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may reverse the autoimmune response in some patients resulting in favorable long-term outcomes. Although the cost-effectiveness of this strategy has been questioned, biosimilar entries warrant the revision of clinical and pharmaco-economic evidence. Areas covered: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 24 May 2018 in Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL, comparing infliximab with non-biological therapy in patients with RA naïve to methotrexate. We performed meta-analyses for efficacy outcomes at month 6 and years 1 and 2. Six RCTs were identified, involving 1832 patients. At month 6 ACR70 response and remission, and at year 1 ACR20/ACR70 responses and remission were improved significantly with first-line infliximab versus control. The differences were not significant at year 2. We reviewed cost-utility studies, up to 31 October 2018 in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL and the CRD HTA databases. Four studies indicated that first-line use of originator infliximab calculated at 2005-2008 prices was not cost-effective. Expert opinion: We demonstrated the efficacy benefits of first-line infliximab therapy up to 1 year in methotrexate-naïve RA. We highlighted the need for standardized reporting of outcomes and conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of first-line biosimilar therapy in RA.

Lipidoid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles loaded with TNF siRNA suppress inflammation after intra-articular administration in a murine experimental arthritis model

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common autoimmune disease, which is characterized by painful chronic inflammation in the joints, and novel safe and efficacious treatments are urgently needed. RNA interference (RNAi) therapy based on small interfering RNA (siRNA) is a promising approach for silencing specific genes involved in inflammation. However, delivery of siRNA to the target site, i.e. the cytosol of immune cells, is a challenge. Here, we designed lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles (LPNs) composed of lipidoid and poly(DL-lactic-co-glycolic acid) loaded with a therapeutic cargo siRNA directed against the proinflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which plays a key role in the progression of RA. We compared their efficacy and safety with reference lipidoid-based stable nucleic acid lipid particles (SNALPs) in vitro and in vivo. Cryogenic transmission electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy and small-angle X-ray scattering revealed that the mode of loading of siRNA in lamellar structures differs between the two formulations. Thus, siRNA was tightly packed in LPNs, while LPNs displayed lower adhesion than SNALPs. The LPNs mediated a higher TNF silencing effect in vitro than SNALPs in the RAW 264.7 macrophage cell line activated with lipopolysaccharide. For both types of delivery systems, macropinocytosis was involved in cellular uptake. In addition, clathrin-mediated endocytosis contributed to uptake of SNALPs. LPNs loaded with TNF siRNA mediated sequence-specific suppression of inflammation in a murine experimental arthritis model upon intra-articular administration. Hence, the present study demonstrates that LPN-mediated TNF knockdown constitutes a promising approach for arthritis therapy of TNF-mediated chronic inflammatory conditions.

Turkish League Against Rheumatism (TLAR) Recommendations for the Pharmacological Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: 2018 Update Under Guidance of Current Recommendations

Objectives

This study aims to report the assessment of the Turkish League Against Rheumatism (TLAR) expert panel on the compliance and adaptation of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2016 recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Turkey.

Patients and methods

The EULAR 2016 recommendations for the treatment of RA were voted by 27 specialists experienced in this field with regard to participation rate for each recommendation and significance of items. Afterwards, each recommendation was brought forward for discussion and any alteration gaining ≥70% approval was accepted. Also, Turkish version of each item was rearranged. Last version of the recommendations was then revoted to determine the level of agreement. Levels of agreement of the two voting rounds were compared with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. In case of significant difference, the item with higher level of agreement was accepted. In case of no difference, the changed item was selected.

Results

Four overarching principles and 12 recommendations were assessed among which three overarching principles and one recommendation were changed. The changed overarching principles emphasized the importance of physical medicine and rehabilitation specialists as well as rheumatologists for the care of RA patients in Turkey. An alteration was made in the eighth recommendation on treatment of active RA patients with unfavorable prognostic indicators after failure of three conventional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Remaining principles were accepted as the same although some alterations were suggested but could not find adequate support to reach significance.

Conclusion

Expert opinion of the TLAR for the treatment of RA was composed for practices in Turkish rheumatology and/or physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics.

Predictors of Remission Maintenance after Etanercept Tapering or Withdrawal in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from the PRIZE Study

Objective:

To explore the influence of early treatment response to etanercept-methotrexate therapy on sustained remission after tapering/withdrawal of etanercept in methotrexate/biologic-naïve patients with early rheumatoid arthritis in the PRIZE study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00913458).

Method:

In the initial 52-week open-label phase, enrolled patients received once-weekly etanercept 50 mg plus methotrexate. Patients who achieved DAS28 ≤3.2 at week 39 and <2.6 at week 52 were randomized to etanercept 25 mg plus methotrexate, methotrexate monotherapy, or placebo once weekly for 39 weeks in the double-blind phase. The relationships between responses in the open-label phase and sustained remission (DAS28 <2.6 at weeks 76 and 91, without glucocorticoid rescue therapy from weeks 52 to 64) in the double-blind phase were analyzed.

Results:

In the open-label phase, 70% of patients achieved DAS28 remission at week 52. In the double-blind phase, 63%, 40%, and 23% of patients had sustained DAS28 remission in the reduced-dose combination-therapy, methotrexate-monotherapy, and placebo groups, respectively. In patients receiving reduced-dose combination therapy, sustained remission was more likely in those who achieved DAS28 remission (p = 0.005) or low disease activity (p=0.044) in a shorter time, and who had a lower DAS28 (p = 0.016) or achieved ACR/EULAR Boolean remission (p < 0.05) at the end of the open-label phase. In patients receiving methotrexate monotherapy, sustained remission was associated with a lower acute-phase response (C-reactive protein, p = 0.007; erythrocyte sedimentation rate, p = 0.016) at the end of the open-label phase.

Conclusion:

Fast response and suppression of inflammation with etanercept-methotrexate therapy may predict successful etanercept tapering/withdrawal in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.

Comparison of Adalimumab and Etanercept for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Psoriasis: An Indirect Comparison Using Individual Patient Data from Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes between adalimumab and etanercept in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

Study groups included patients randomized to adalimumab or placebo (REVEAL and CHAMPION trials) and those randomized to etanercept or placebo (M10-114 and M10-315 trials). Week 12 outcomes were compared between patients receiving adalimumab and those receiving etanercept after adjusting for cross-trial differences in patient characteristics using propensity score weighting and after subtracting effects of placebo. Outcomes included proportion of patients achieving 75% or more, 90% or more, and 100% reductions from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75, PASI90, PASI100, respectively), symptom resolution (pruritus = 0; psoriatic pain = 0), lesion resolution (minimal scores for plaque signs erythema, desquamation, and induration, and by body regions head, upper limbs, trunk, and lower limbs), absence of skin-related quality-of-life impact (Dermatology Life Quality Index [DLQI] = 0), "complete disease control" (patient's global assessment [PtGA] = 0), and adverse events.

RESULTS

After adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced among study groups (adalimumab = 875 vs. placebo = 427; etanercept = 260 vs. placebo = 130). Compared with etanercept, adalimumab was associated with significantly better placebo-adjusted outcomes (PASI75: 62.3% vs. 42.6%; PASI90: 35.9% vs. 12.1%; PASI100: 13.1% vs. 4.9%; pruritus: 24.7% vs. 13.0%; psoriatic pain: 27.4% vs. 8.7%; DLQI: 27.7% vs. 11.7%; and PtGA: 16.4% vs. 10.6%; all P < 0.05), except for similar rates of adverse events and head-specific lesion resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with etanercept, adalimumab treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis was associated with greater PASI reduction, higher rates of resolution of skin signs and symptoms, and greater improvements in dermatological life quality.

Clinical efficacy, radiographic, and safety results of golimumab monotherapy in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite prior therapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Final results of the GO-MONO trial through week 120

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the safety and efficacy of golimumab through week 120 in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) previously treated with DMARDs.

METHODS

Japanese patients with active RA despite prior DMARDs were randomized to placebo (Group 1, n = 105), golimumab 50 mg (Group 2, n = 101), or golimumab 100 mg (Group 3, n = 102). At week 16, Group 1 patients crossed over to golimumab 50mg; after week 52, a one-time golimumab dose reduction from 100 to 50 mg was permitted. Assessments included ACR20/50/70 responses and good/moderate DAS28-ESR responses. Radiographic progression was assessed with the van der Heijde-modified Sharp (vdH-S) score. Safety and efficacy were assessed through week 120.

RESULTS

ACR20 response rates at week 52 in Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were 70.6%, 71.4%, and 81.9%, respectively, and maintained through week 104 (87.2%, 85.1%, 88.9%, respectively) and week 120 (86.1%, 87.0%, 89.5%, respectively). Similar trends were observed for ACR50, ACR 70, and DAS28-ESR. Median change in total vdH-S at weeks 52, 104, and 120 ranged from 0.0 to 1.5 across treatment groups. Through week 120, 93.8%/97.1% had an AE with golimumab 50 mg/100 mg, respectively, and 19.7%/11.8% had an SAE. Infections were the most common AE.

CONCLUSION

Clinical response to golimumab 50 mg and 100 mg was maintained over 2 years in Japanese patients with active RA despite prior DMARDs.

Rheumatoid arthritis: Recent advances on its etiology, role of cytokines and pharmacotherapy

An autoimmune disease is defined as a clinical syndrome resulted from an instigation of both T cell and B cell or individually, in the absence of any present infection or any sort of distinguishable cause. Clonal deletion of auto reactive cells remains the central canon of immunology for decades, keeping the role of T cell and B cell aside, which are actually the guards to recognize the entry of foreign body. According to NIH, 23.5 million Americans are all together affected by these diseases. They are rare, but with the exception of RA. Rheumatoid arthritis is chronic and systemic autoimmune response to the multiple joints with unknown ethology, progressive disability, systemic complications, early death and high socioeconomic costs. Its ancient disease with an old history found in North American tribes since 1500 BCE, but its etiology is yet to be explored. Current conventional and biological therapies used for RA are not fulfilling the need of the patients but give only partial responses. There is a lack of consistent and liable biomarkers of prognosis therapeutic response, and toxicity. Rheumatoid arthritis is characterized by hyperplasic synovium, production of cytokines, chemokines, autoantibodies like rheumatoid factor (RF) and anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA), osteoclastogensis, angiogenesis and systemic consequences like cardiovascular, pulmonary, psychological, and skeletal disorders. Cytokines, a diverse group of polypeptides, play critical role in the pathogenesis of RA. Their involvement in autoimmune diseases is a rapidly growing area of biological and clinical research. Among the proinflammatory cytokines, IL-1α/β and TNF-α trigger the intracellular molecular signalling pathway responsible for the pathogenesis of RA that leads to the activation of mesenchymal cell, recruitment of innate and adaptive immune system cells, activation of synoviocytes which in term activates various mediators including tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin-1 (IL-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and interleukin-8 (IL-8), resulting in inflamed synovium, increase angiogenesis and decrease lymphangiogensis. Their current pharmacotherapy should focus on their three phases of progression i.e. prearthritis phase, transition phase and clinical phase. In this way we will be able to find a way to keep the balance between the pro and anti-inflammatory cytokines that is believe to be the dogma of pathogenesis of RA. For this we need to explore new agents, whether from synthetic or natural source to find the answers for unresolved etiology of autoimmune diseases and to provide a quality of life to the patients suffering from these diseases specifically RA.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.

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 (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.

METHODS

In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

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.

Non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions in patients with early arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis

Objective

To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) on pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, in order to inform the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of early arthritis (EA).

Methods

The expert committee defined research questions concerning non-pharmacological interventions, patient information and education, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, glucocorticoid (GC) and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) use, as well as on disease monitoring. The SLR included articles published after the last EULAR SLR until November 2015 found in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases and abstracts from the 2014 and 2015 American College of Rheumatology and EULAR conferences.

Results

Exercise programmes may improve pain and physical function in patients with EA. Patients with EA treated within the first 3 months of symptoms have better clinical and radiological outcomes than those treated beyond 3 months. The clinical and radiological efficacy of GCs is confirmed, with similar efficacy of oral and parenteral administrations. Long-term data raise concerns regarding cardiovascular safety when using GCs. Step-up DMARD therapy is as effective as intensive DMARD therapy ‘ab initio’ for the long-term outcome of EA. Short-term superiority of intensive therapy with bDMARDs is not maintained on withdrawal of bDMARD. Patients with early psoriatic arthritis have better skin and joint outcomes when tight control is used compared to standard care.

Conclusions

The findings confirm the beneficial effect of exercise programmes and the importance of early drug therapy and tight control. They support the use of methotrexate and GCs as first-line drugs, although the long-term use of GCs raises safety concerns.

Rheumatoid arthritis management of early disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Early effective treatment has led to major improvements in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. This review aims to address the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis, in particular the different therapeutic strategies evaluated in clinical trials to achieve optimal disease control.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) has significantly improved patient outcomes. Overall, studies using bDMARD induction have shown early clinical improvements, with high proportions achieving remission with minimal radiographic progression. As these drugs are still relatively costly, conventional synthetic DMARDs, as monotherapy or in combination, remain the mainstay of treatment initiation. Good, albeit somewhat slower, responses can be achieved with these drugs. Strategies incorporating glucocorticoids and a treat-to-target approach (i.e. regular monitoring of disease activity and early treatment escalation with a conventional synthetic or b-DMARD, if needed) have shown additional benefit. In patients achieving low disease activity or remission, bDMARD dose reduction and withdrawal, and even drug-free remission have been possible in some.

SUMMARY

In patients with early rheumatoid arthritis, conventional synthetic DMARDs and glucocorticoids used within a treat-to-target setting, and the addition of a bDMARD if required, outcomes have improved significantly. A proportion of patients are able to deescalate treatment after bDMARD therapy, with a significant minority achieving drug-free remission.

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.

Optimizing biological treatments for rheumatoid arthritis

The area of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment has been revolutionized during the last decades with the development of biological therapies and their introduction into daily clinical practice contributing greatly to this dramatic change. However, several aspects of the use of these highly effective but expensive therapies remain far from optimal. To date, there is no clear evidence for the optimal sequence of biological agents, and the choice of a second- or third-line biologic is random. The effect of drug levels and the presence of neutralizing anti-drug antibodies remain unclear. In addition, the identification of prognostic factors of response, both clinical and histopathological, is crucial for a more individualized treatment approach.

Urine metabolome profiling of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

BACKGROUND

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are a group of complex and prevalent diseases where disease diagnostic and activity monitoring is highly challenging. The determination of the metabolite profiles of biological samples is becoming a powerful approach to identify new biomarkers of clinical utility. In order to identify new metabolite biomarkers of diagnosis and disease activity, we have performed the first large-scale profiling of the urine metabolome of the six most prevalent IMIDs: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

Using nuclear magnetic resonance, we analyzed the urine metabolome in a discovery cohort of 1210 patients and 100 controls. Within each IMID, two patient subgroups were recruited representing extreme disease activity (very high vs. very low). Metabolite association analysis with disease diagnosis and disease activity was performed using multivariate linear regression in order to control for the effects of clinical, epidemiological, or technical variability. After multiple test correction, the most significant metabolite biomarkers were validated in an independent cohort of 1200 patients and 200 controls.

RESULTS

In the discovery cohort, we identified 28 significant associations between urine metabolite levels and disease diagnosis and three significant metabolite associations with disease activity (P FDR < 0.05). Using the validation cohort, we validated 26 of the diagnostic associations and all three metabolite associations with disease activity (P FDR < 0.05). Combining all diagnostic biomarkers using multivariate classifiers we obtained a good disease prediction accuracy in all IMIDs and particularly high in inflammatory bowel diseases. Several of the associated metabolites were found to be commonly altered in multiple IMIDs, some of which can be considered as hub biomarkers. The analysis of the metabolic reactions connecting the IMID-associated metabolites showed an over-representation of citric acid cycle, phenylalanine, and glycine-serine metabolism pathways.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that urine is a source of biomarkers of clinical utility in IMIDs. We have found that IMIDs show similar metabolic changes, particularly between clinically similar diseases and we have found, for the first time, the presence of hub metabolites. These findings represent an important step in the development of more efficient and less invasive diagnostic and disease monitoring methods in IMIDs.

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.

A multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label pilot study on the feasibility of discontinuation of adalimumab in established patients with rheumatoid arthritis in stable clinical remission

Objectives

Treatment with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) blockers, once started as therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), is usually continued indefinitely. The aim of this trial was to assess the possibility of discontinuing treatment with adalimumab (ADA) while maintaining remission in patients with RA with established disease in stable remission on combination therapy with ADA and methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

In a randomised, controlled, open-label pilot study of patients with RA in stable remission treated with ADA+MTX, patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to continue with ADA plus MTX (arm AM) or MTX monotherapy (arm M) for 52 weeks. Flare was defined as Disease Activity Score (DAS28) ≥2.6 or a change in DAS28 (ΔDAS28) of >1.2 from baseline at any time. Patients in arm M with a flare restarted ADA. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in remission at week 28.

Results

31 patients were enrolled in the study and randomised to arm AM (n=16) or arm M (n=15). At 28 weeks, 15/16 patients (94%) and 5/15 patients (33%) in arms AM and M, respectively, were in remission (p=0.001). During the first 28 weeks, 50% (8/16) in the AM arm and 80% (12/15) in the M arm had a flare (p=0.08). The number of patients in the AM and M arms with ≥1 ΔDAS28 >1.2 during the first 28 weeks was 1/16 (6%) and 8/15 (53%), respectively (p=0.005).

Conclusions

In this study, remission was rarely maintained in patients with long-standing disease who discontinued ADA. Discontinuation may be feasible in only a minority of patients with established RA in stable clinical remission.

Trial registration number

NCT00808509.

Biologic-free remission by orthopaedic surgery in non-responder to infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis

The aim of this study was to investigate remission and biologic-free remission after orthopaedic surgery and related clinical factors in non-responder to infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We analyzed 74 patients who were treated with 3 mg/kg infliximab and methotrexate and underwent orthopaedic surgery after non-responder to infliximab with disease activity score (DAS) 28 (CRP) of ≥3.2. The rates of remission and biologic-free remission at 52 weeks after orthopaedic surgery were investigated and the clinical factors related to remission and biologic-free remission were analyzed by logistic regression and receiver-operating characteristic analyses. The rates of total remission and biologic-free remission were 37/74 (50 %) and 9/74 (12.2 %), respectively. Regarding orthopaedic surgery, the rates of remission and biologic-free remission were 25/38 (65.8 %) and 7/38 (18.4 %) for synovectomy, 7/20 (35 %) and 0/20 (0 %) for arthroplasty, and 5/16 (31.3 %) and 2/16 12.5) for others including spine surgery and foot surgery. DAS28(CRP) at baseline was significantly related to both remission and biologic-free remission. Prednisolone was negatively associated with remission, and DAS28(CRP) was related to biologic-free remission by logistic regression analyses. DAS28(CRP) below 3.7 was cutoff point for acquiring biologic-free remission of non-responder to infliximab after orthopaedic surgery. Therefore orthopaedic surgery may be effective to obtain remission or biologic-free remission in RA patients treated with biologics.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy for early, rapidly progressing rheumatoid arthritis by simulating the reversible and irreversible effects of the disease

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab plus methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX monotherapy in early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when explicitly modelling short-term (reversible) and long-term (irreversible, ie, joint damage) disease activity and physical function.

METHODS

A microsimulation model was developed to unify, in a single cost-effectiveness model, measures of reversible and irreversible disease activity and physical function based on data from the PREMIER trial. Short term, reversible disease activity was modelled using DAS28 variables, including swollen joint counts, tender joint counts, C reactive protein concentration and pain. The DAS28 variables were then used in a logistic regression to predict short-term American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, which informed treatment continuation and switches. Long term, irreversible, radiographically documented joint damage was modelled using modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS). The model then linked both short-term disease activity and mTSS to the Health Assessment Questionnaire score, which was used to calculate direct and indirect costs, and quality adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

When both reversible and irreversible effects of therapy were included, combination therapy was estimated to produce 6-month 50% ACR responses in 75% of patients versus 54% in MTX monotherapy. Compared to MTX monotherapy, combination therapy resulted in 2.68 and 3.04 discounted life years and QALYs gained, respectively. Combination therapy also resulted in a net increase in direct costs of £106,207 for a resulting incremental cost/QALY gain of £32,425. When indirect costs were included in the analysis, the ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) decreased to £27,238. Disregarding irreversible effects increased the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to £78,809 (when only direct costs were included).

CONCLUSIONS

Starting with adalimumab plus MTX combination therapy in early, aggressive RA is cost-effective when irreversible damage is adequately considered.

2014 update of the Consensus Statement of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on the use of biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To establish recommendations for the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to serve as a reference for all health professionals involved in the care of these patients, and focusing on the role of available synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHODS

Consensual recommendations were agreed on by a panel of 14 experts selected by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER). The available scientific evidence was collected by updating three systematic reviews (SR) used for the EULAR 2013 recommendations. A new SR was added to answer an additional question. The literature review of the scientific evidence was made by the SER reviewer's group. The level of evidence and the degree of recommendation was classified according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine system. A Delphi panel was used to evaluate the level of agreement between panellists (strength of recommendation).

RESULTS

Thirteen recommendations for the management of adult RA were emitted. The therapeutic objective should be to treat patients in the early phases of the disease with the aim of achieving clinical remission, with methotrexate playing a central role in the therapeutic strategy of RA as the reference synthetic DMARD. Indications for biologic DMARDs were updated and the concept of the optimization of biologicals was introduced.

CONCLUSIONS

We present the fifth update of the SER recommendations for the management of RA with synthetic and biologic DMARDs.

TNF antagonists opened the way to personalized medicine in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease resulting from a largely unknown interaction between genetically determined and environmental factors. Progress in the understanding of this chronic inflammation in the synovial lining of joints has led to the insight that one cytokine, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), has an important role. This insight started the development of a series of targeted and highly effective therapeutics for RA and a range of other autoinflammatory diseases. RA has changed from a severely debilitating disease into a disease where progression can be stopped in most of the patients.

The comparative safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis update of 44 trials

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to evaluate and update the safety data from randomized controlled trials of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients treated for rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted from 1990 to May 2013. All studies included were randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis that evaluated adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab treatment. The serious adverse events and discontinuation rates were abstracted, and risk estimates were calculated by Peto odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

Forty-four randomized controlled trials involving 11,700 subjects receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and 5901 subjects receiving placebo or traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were included. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment as a group was associated with a higher risk of serious infection (OR, 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.78) and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.43) compared with placebo and traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatments. Specifically, patients taking adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and infliximab had an increased risk of serious infection (OR, 1.69, 1.98, and 1.63, respectively) and showed an increased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 1.38, 1.67, and 2.04, respectively). In contrast, patients taking etanercept had a decreased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). Although ORs for malignancy varied across the different tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, none reached statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

These meta-analysis updates of the comparative safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors suggest a higher risk of serious infection associated with adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and infliximab, which seems to contribute to higher rates of discontinuation. In contrast, etanercept use showed a lower rate of discontinuation. These data may help guide clinical comparative decision making in the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

Combination therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis: a treatment holiday perspective

To date, the significance of early intervention with methotrexate and biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has not been realized. Longitudinal safety and cost have arisen as new concerns. The concept of a treatment holiday, drug discontinuation after achieving remission, may solve these problems. The authors performed a systematic literature review and identified 13 reports from 10 studies (TNF20, BeSt, OPITMA, HIT-HARD, IMPROVED, PRIZE, IDEA, EMPIRE, tREACH and AVERT) for early RA (≤2 years). Eight out of 13 reports (61.5%) were published in 2013 or 2014, indicating emerging interest in recent years. Also, the authors performed a sub-analysis of the HONOR study (n = 51) to compare early (≤2 years) and established RA. The proportions of remission (REM) and low disease activity were higher in early RA (REM: 63.0 vs 33.3%, p = 0.0346; low disease activity: 77.8 vs 45.8%, p = 0.0185). In conclusion, early intervention is beneficial for successful treatment holiday, which may lead to risk and cost reduction. However, further investigation is required.

Sustained remission with etanercept tapering in early rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effects of reduction and withdrawal of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had a remission while receiving etanercept-plus-methotrexate therapy.

METHODS

Patients with early active disease who had not previously received methotrexate or biologic therapy received 50 mg of etanercept plus methotrexate weekly for 52 weeks (open-label phase). We then randomly assigned patients who had qualifying responses at weeks 39 and 52 to receive 25 mg of etanercept plus methotrexate (combination-therapy group), methotrexate alone, or placebo for 39 weeks (double-blind phase). Patients who had qualifying responses at week 39 of the double-blind phase had all treatment withdrawn at that time and were followed to week 65 (treatment-withdrawal phase). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with sustained remission in the double-blind phase.

RESULTS

Of 306 patients enrolled, 193 underwent randomization in the double-blind phase; 131 qualified for the treatment-withdrawal phase. More patients in the combination-therapy group than in the methotrexate-alone group or the placebo group met the criterion for the primary end point (40 of 63 [63%] vs. 26 of 65 [40%] and 15 of 65 [23%], respectively; P=0.009 for combination therapy vs. methotrexate alone; P<0.001 for combination therapy vs. placebo). At 65 weeks, 28 patients (44%) who had received combination therapy, 19 (29%) who had received methotrexate alone, and 15 (23%) who had received placebo were in remission (P=0.10 for combination therapy vs. methotrexate alone; P=0.02 for combination therapy vs. placebo; P=0.55 for methotrexate alone vs. placebo). No significant between-group differences were observed in radiographic progression of disease. Serious adverse events were reported in 3 patients (5%) in the combination-therapy group, 2 (3%) in the methotrexate-alone group, and 2 (3%) in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with early rheumatoid arthritis who had a remission while receiving full-dose etanercept-plus-methotrexate therapy, continuing combination therapy at a reduced dose resulted in better disease control than switching to methotrexate alone or placebo, but no significant difference was observed in radiographic progression. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00913458.).

Biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: where are we going?

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have significantly improved outcomes for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but cost limits their use. This article assesses data on patients who have achieved remission or low disease activity with these drugs and the possibility of dose reduction or discontinuation in these patients.

Efficacy of golimumab plus methotrexate in methotrexate-naïve patients with severe active rheumatoid arthritis

The purpose of this study was to assess the treatment benefit of golimumab + methotrexate (MTX) vs. MTX monotherapy in MTX-naïve patients with severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This was a post hoc analysis of MTX-naïve RA patients in the GO-BEFORE trial who were randomized to receive placebo + MTX (n = 160), golimumab 50 mg + MTX (n = 159), or golimumab 100 mg + MTX (n = 159). Subsets of patients with severe disease were identified using these baseline criteria: C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥1.5 mg/dL, CRP ≥3.0 mg/dL, swollen joint count (SJC) ≥10 and tender joint count (TJC) ≥12, SJC ≥ 20/TJC ≥ 12, 28-joint count Disease Activity Score using CRP (DAS28-CRP) >5.1, and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody-positive status. The treatment effect of golimumab + MTX vs. MTX alone was evaluated for these outcomes: the proportions of patients achieving ≥20, 50, and 70 % improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria; DAS28-CRP European League Against Rheumatism response; DAS28-CRP <2.6, clinically meaningful improvement in physical function; and change in van der Heijde-Sharp score ≤0 at week 52. Clinical response was greater in the golimumab + MTX groups vs. placebo + MTX for all of the outcomes evaluated. Furthermore, the treatment effect of golimumab + MTX was consistently greater among patients in the severe disease subsets when compared with the overall GO-BEFORE trial population. The treatment benefit of golimumab + MTX vs. MTX monotherapy was most pronounced within the subsets of patients with CRP ≥3.0 mg/dL and SJC ≥ 20/TJC ≥ 12. Following treatment with golimumab + MTX, improvements in RA signs/symptoms and in progression of structural damage were evident for the overall GO-BEFORE population, with the treatment effect more pronounced among patients with severe active disease.

A randomised controlled trial of etanercept and methotrexate to induce remission in early inflammatory arthritis: the EMPIRE trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of etanercept (ETN) and methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX monotherapy for remission induction in patients with early inflammatory arthritis.

METHODS

In a 78-week multicentre randomised placebo-controlled superiority trial, 110 DMARD-naïve patients with early clinical synovitis (≥1 tender and swollen joint, and within 3 months of diagnosis) and either rheumatoid factor, anticitrullinated protein antibodies or shared epitope positive were randomised 1:1 to receive MTX+ETN or MTX+placebo (PBO) for 52 weeks. Injections (ETN or PBO) were stopped in all patients at week 52. In those with no tender or swollen joints (NTSJ) for >26 weeks, injections were stopped early. If patients had NTSJ >12 weeks after stopping the injections, MTX was weaned. The primary endpoint was NTSJ at week 52.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was seen for the primary endpoint (NTSJ at week 52 (32.5% vs 28.1% [adjusted OR 1.32 (0.56 to 3.09), p=0.522]) in the MTX+ETN and MTX+PBO groups, respectively). The secondary endpoints did not differ between groups at week 52 or 78. Exploratory analyses showed a higher proportions of patients with DAS28-CRP<2.6 in the MTX+ETN group at week 2 (38.5% vs 9.2%, adjusted OR 8.87 (2.53 to 31.17), p=0.001) and week 12 (65.1% vs 43.8%, adjusted OR 2.49 (1.12 to 5.54), p=0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

In this group of patients with early inflammatory arthritis, almost a third had no tender, swollen joints after 1 year. MTX+ETN was not superior to MTX monotherapy in achieving this outcome. Clinical responses, however, including DAS28-CRP<2.6, were achieved earlier with MTX+ETN combination therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The EMPIRE trial is registered on the following trial registries: Eudract-2005-005467-29; ISRCTN 55428162 (http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN55428162/EMPIRE). The full trial protocol can be obtained from the corresponding author.

Efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2013 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence for the efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform the European League Against Rheumatism(EULAR) Task Force treatment recommendations.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published between January 2009 and February 2013 on infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, golimumab, anakinra, abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab and biosimilar DMARDs (bsDMARDs) in phase 3 development. Abstracts from 2011 to 2012 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and 2011-2013 EULAR conferences were obtained.

RESULTS

Fifty-one full papers, and 57 abstracts were identified. The randomised controlled trials (RCT) confirmed the efficacy of bDMARD+conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) versus csDMARDs alone (level 1B evidence). There was some additional evidence for the use of bDMARD monotherapy, however bDMARD and MTX combination therapy for all bDMARD classes was more efficacious (1B). Clinical and radiographic responses were high with treat-to-target strategies. Earlier improvement in signs and symptoms were seen with more intensive initial treatment strategies, but outcomes were similar upon addition of bDMARDs in patients with insufficient response to MTX. In general, radiographic progression was lower with bDMARD use, mainly due to initial treatment effects. Although patients may achieve bDMARD- and drug-free remission, maintenance of clinical responses was higher with bDMARD continuation (1B), but bDMARD dose reduction could be applied (1B). There was still no RCT data for bDMARD switching.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic literature review confirms efficacy of biological DMARDs in RA. It addresses different treatment strategies with the potential for reduction in therapy, particularly with early disease control, and highlights emerging therapies.

Is it possible to withdraw biologics from therapy in rheumatoid arthritis?

BACKGROUND

Biologic agents targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF) have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Clinical remission is perceived as a realistic primary goal, and its maintenance leads to structural and functional remission.

OBJECTIVE

This study reviews whether discontinuation of biologic agents is possible after sustained remission and discusses its significance from the risk/benefit point of view (including safety and health economic considerations).

METHODS

Using a strategic PubMed search, 45 original research articles regarding discontinuation of biologic agents were identified; 7 were selected that had an obvious focus on discontinuation of biologic agents. These articles included the TNF20, BeSt (Behandel Strategieen), and RRR (Remission Induction by Remicade in RA) studies. However, because of the limitations of the original search, we also review here some articles that did not focus mainly on discontinuation of biologic agents but that presented data regarding biologic-free control. These studies included OPTIMA (Optimal Protocol for Treatment Initiation With MTX and Adalimumab), PRESERVE, and CERTAIN, as well as some recent findings in the HONOR (Humira Discontinuation Without Functional and Radiographic Damage Progression Following Sustained Remission) study from our department.

RESULTS

In BeSt and OPTIMA, clinical remission was sustained without functional progression by discontinuing TNF inhibitors, after reducing disease activity by using TNF inhibitors and methotrexate (MTX), in patients with early RA and who were MTX naive. In some studies (including RRR and HONOR), the discontinuation of TNF inhibitors after sustained remission was possible in some patients with long-standing RA who had an inadequate response to MTX. When disease activity flared up after treatment discontinuation, re-treatment with infliximab or adalimumab was highly effective and safe in the majority of patients. It is also clear that tight control with TNF inhibitors and MTX seems to be a prerequisite for having a better chance of biologic-free remission.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive treatment with TNF inhibitors may change the disease process of RA and potentially offers the possibility of a "treatment holiday" from biologic agents.

Is there a place for initial treatment with biological DMARDs in the early phase of RA?

The use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) has changed the face of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Achieving remission, normal function and prevention of joint damage are now possible for many patients with RA. In clinical practice, however, particularly with cost considerations, bDMARDs are usually prescribed after failure of one or more conventional synthetic DMARDs. With evidence that early treatment has a greater impact than later on, the question regarding initial bDMARD therapy and their potential role within a window of opportunity to influence disease outcomes remain. The increasing emphasis on early diagnosis and research into the preclinical phase of the disease also heralds the question, 'Can bDMARDs prevent the development of RA?' The aim of this review is to review randomised controlled trials with bDMARDs as initial therapy in early RA and to discuss their role in early disease.

A two-step treatment strategy trial in patients with early arthritis aimed at achieving remission: the IMPROVED study

OBJECTIVES

To assess which treatment strategy is most effective in inducing remission in early (rheumatoid) arthritis.

METHODS

610 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA 2010 criteria) or undifferentiated arthritis (UA) started treatment with methotrexate (MTX) and a tapered high dose of prednisone. Patients in early remission (Disease Activity Score <1.6 after 4 months) tapered prednisone to zero and those with persistent remission after 8 months, tapered and stopped MTX. Patients not in early remission were randomised to receive either MTX plus hydroxychloroquine plus sulfasalazine plus low-dose prednisone (arm 1) or to MTX plus adalimumab (ADA) (arm 2). If remission was present after 8 months both arms tapered to MTX monotherapy; if not, arm 1 changed to MTX plus ADA and arm 2 increased the dose of ADA. Remission rates and functional and radiological outcomes were compared between arms and between patients with RA and those with UA.

RESULTS

375/610 (61%) patients achieved early remission. After 1 year 68% of those were in remission and 32% in drug-free remission. Of the randomised patients, 25% in arm 1 and 41% in arm 2 achieved remission at year 1 (p<0.01). Outcomes were comparable between patients with RA and those with UA.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial MTX and prednisone resulted in early remission in 61% of patients with early (rheumatoid) arthritis. Of those, 68% were in remission and 32% were in drug-free remission after 1 year. In patients not in early remission, earlier introduction of ADA resulted in more remission at year 1 than first treating with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug combination therapy plus prednisone.

Development and validation of a new radiographic scoring system to evaluate bone and cartilage destruction and healing of large joints with rheumatoid arthritis: ARASHI (Assessment of rheumatoid arthritis by scoring of large joint destruction and healing in radiographic imaging) study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reliability and sensitivity of a novel scoring method to evaluate the radiographic appearance of and longitudinal changes including joint remodeling in large joints with early and established rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

The ARASHI study group devised new radiographic scoring systems (Status score; range 0-16 points, and Change score; range -11 to 12 points) for evaluation of large joints with RA. Radiographs showing anterior/posterior views of large joints (shoulder, elbow, hip, knee, and ankle joints) taken at two time points (mean interval 2.3 years) were collected from 25 patients with established RA (5 patients for each of the 5 joints, 50 films in total), and an additional 5 films of each joint with severe joint destruction were collected from 5 different sets of RA patients. After consensus on the definition of each component and reader training, images were evaluated using the Larsen's grading system and the ARASHI Status and Change score by 9 independent senior orthopedic surgeons. The reliability was estimated by intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and measurement error by 95% confidence intervals of minimum detectable change (MDC95).

RESULTS

ARASHI Status score and Change score significantly correlated with Larsen's grade (r = 0.89, P < 0.0001) and follow-up-baseline differences in Larsen's grade (r = 0.83, P < 0.0001), respectively. Inter-reader ICCs were very high for both Status score (0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.92, P < 0.001) and Change score (0.92, 95% CI, 0.87-0.96, P < 0.001). Intra-reader ICCs were also very high for both Status score (0.92, 95% CI, 0.71-0.98, P < 0.001) and Change score (0.97, 95% CI, 0.91-0.99, P < 0.001). The MDC95 for inter-reader agreement were 4.18 (25% of maximum obtainable score, MOS) and 4.99 (21% of MOS) for Status score and Change score, respectively. The MDC95 for intra-reader agreement was acceptable with 2.82 (17% of MOS) and 3.02 (13% of MOS) for Status score and Change score, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The ARASHI scoring method showed good inter-/intra-reader reliability with high ICCs and acceptable MDC95 with respect to each large joint and the components of both Status and Change scores. The results suggest that the ARASHI scoring method might be useful for the assessment of status, as well as longitudinal monitoring of destruction and remodeling of large joints with RA.