Sarilumab improves patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response/intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors

Evaluation of patient-based disease activity score (PDAS) in the Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patient registry (NinJa registry)

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be regarded as an important factor in the management of rheumatic diseases. The patient-based disease activity score (PDAS) was developed as a clinically reliable composite measure for evaluating PROs in RA patients. To replicate and further characterize PDAS, we analysed PDAS and its clinical relevancy in the National Database of Rheumatic Diseases in Japan (NinJa).

METHODS

Clinical data from the 2022 version of NinJa were analysed. PDAS1 was calculated for each patient, and statistical analyses, including correlation analyses and multiple regression analysis, were conducted to evaluate the relationship between PDAS1 and other clinical measures. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to compare patients treated with different types of DMARDs.

RESULTS

The number of included patients was 11 983. PDAS1 demonstrated strong correlations with DAS28(ESR) (R = 0.89, P < 2.2 × 1016) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), indicating its utility in assessing disease activity. The majority of patients (71.8%) achieved PDAS1-defined remission, aligning closely with DAS28 and CDAI remission. PDAS1 was significantly associated with serum RF titres (R = 0.25, P < 0.001), and RF-positive patients exhibited higher PDAS1 scores. Notably, PS-matched comparison revealed that PDAS1 was lower in patients treated with IL-6 inhibitors, compared with those treated with TNF inhibitors, reflecting differences in lower patient global assessment.

CONCLUSION

PDAS1 is a reliable and useful tool for evaluating both disease activity and the functional state of RA patients, particularly from the perspective of PROs. Additionally, PDAS1 can be used for conducting clinical studies in RA patients.

Evaluating Meaningful Changes in Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Fatigue Scores from Three Phase 3 Clinical Trials of Sarilumab for Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in fatigue measured by Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Fatigue scores in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received sarilumab and to assess the proportion of patients achieving clinically meaningful change.

METHODS

Data from three phase 3 randomized controlled trials of patients with RA who received sarilumab-MOBILITY, TARGET, and MONARCH-were evaluated. The 10 RA-relevant items from the 13-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue were scored in the PROMIS T score metric. Mean changes in 10-item PROMIS-Fatigue T score (PROMIS-Fatigue 10a) were compared, proportions of patients reporting meaningful within-person change thresholds were assessed, and results were visualized using empirical cumulative distribution function (eCDF) curves.

RESULTS

Patients with RA reported high baseline fatigue. Using PROMIS-Fatigue 10a, at week 24, patients receiving 150 or 200 mg sarilumab every other week in MOBILITY and TARGET had rapidly and significantly improved mean levels of fatigue compared to those who received placebo. When compared to patients who received adalimumab in MONARCH, patients who received sarilumab had a trend toward increased improvement. eCDF curves showed separation between active treatment versus placebo with both sarilumab doses and across the score range for improvement. Higher proportions of patients reported three-, five-, and seven-point improvements in PROMIS-Fatigue scores in groups who received active treatment.

CONCLUSION

Substantial proportions of patients with RA who received sarilumab reported meaningful change in fatigue measured by PROMIS-Fatigue 10a over time. This study demonstrates the ability to convert FACIT-Fatigue score onto the PROMIS T score metric, the rapid reduction in fatigue with biologic therapies, and the use of novel eCDF curves to show individual patient-level change.

Why does malaise/fatigue occur? Underlying mechanisms and potential relevance to treatments in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Fatigue and malaise are commonly associated with a wide range of medical conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Evidence suggests that fatigue and malaise can be overwhelming for patients, yet these symptoms remain inadequately-managed, largely due to an incomplete elucidation of the underlying causes.

AREAS COVERED

In this assessment of the published literature relating to the pathogenesis of fatigue or malaise in chronic conditions, four key mechanistic themes were identified. Each theme (inflammation, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, dysautonomia, and monoamines) is discussed, as well as the complex network of interconnections between themes which suggests a key role for inflammatory cytokines in the development and persistence of fatigue.

EXPERT OPINION

Fatigue is multifaceted, poorly defined, and imperfectly comprehended. Moreover, the cause and severity of fatigue may change over time, as a consequence of the natural disease course or pharmacologic treatment. This detailed synthesis of available evidence permits us to identify avenues for current treatment optimization and future research, to improve the management of fatigue and malaise in RA. Within the development pipeline, several new anti-inflammatory therapies are currently under investigation, and we anticipate that the next five years will herald much-needed progress to reduce the debilitating nature of fatigue in patients with RA.

Efficacy of pharmacological interventions: a systematic review informing the 2023 EULAR recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

OBJECTIVE

To identify the best evidence on the efficacy of pharmacological interventions in reducing fatigue in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (I-RMDs) and to summarise their safety in the identified studies to inform European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with I-RMDs.

METHODS

Systematic review of adults with I-RMDs conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook. Search strategy ran in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete, PEDro, OTseeker and PsycINFO. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials were eligible. Assessment of risk of bias, data extraction and synthesis performed by two reviewers independently and in duplicate. Data pooled in statistical meta-analyses.

RESULTS

From 4151 records, 455 were selected for full-text review, 99 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 19 RCTs were included in meta-analyses. Adalimumab was superior to placebo in reducing fatigue at 12 and 52 weeks in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (n=3 and 2 RCTs; mean difference (MD)= -3.03, p<0.001; MD=-2.25, p=0.03, respectively). Golimumab (n=2 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-5.27, p<0.001), baricitinib (n=2 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-4.06, p<0.001), sarilumab (n=2 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-3.15, p<0.001), tocilizumab (n=3 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-3.69, p<0.001) and tofacitinib (n=3 RCTs; 12 weeks: MD=-4.44, p<0.001) were also superior to placebo in reducing fatigue in RA. A dose/effect relationship was observed for sarilumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib. In spondyloarthritis (excluding psoriatic arthritis), secukinumab was superior to placebo in reducing fatigue at 16 weeks (n=2 RCTs; MD=-4.15, p<0.001), with a dose/effect relationship also observed. The narrative results of the RCTs not included in the meta-analysis indicated that several other pharmacological interventions were efficacious in reducing fatigue, with reassuring safety results.

CONCLUSIONS

Several pharmacological interventions are efficacious and generally safe for managing fatigue in people with I-RMDs.

Long-term safety and efficacy of sarilumab with or without background csDMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of sarilumab with/without conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs in RA.

METHODS

The analyses evaluated two open-label extensions (OLEs): EXTEND and MONARCH OLE, which included patients from six randomized trials. Patients received sarilumab 200 mg once every 2 weeks (q2w) for at least 264 weeks up to 516 weeks (EXTEND: Sarilumab Monotherapy and Sarilumab + csDMARD groups) or for 276 weeks (MONARCH OLE: Continuation and Switch groups). Primary endpoints included safety, immunogenicity and changes in laboratory parameters. Secondary endpoints included clinical signs and symptoms along with health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) questionnaires.

RESULTS

The Sarilumab Monotherapy (n = 111), Continuation (n = 165) and Switch (n = 155) groups received sarilumab monotherapy, while the Sarilumab + csDMARD group (n = 1910) received sarilumab in combination with csDMARDs. Incidence of one or more treatment-emergent adverse events was 126 (Sarilumab Monotherapy group), 169 (Sarilumab + csDMARD group), 159 (Continuation group) and 159 (Switch group) events/100 patient-years. Neutropenia was the most common adverse event. Neutropenia was not associated with an increased incidence of infections. Most neutropenia cases normalized on-treatment. Adverse events of special interests, such as malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism and gastrointestinal perforations, were rare. Immunogenicity was low and not associated with hypersensitivity reactions or discontinuations due to lack or loss of efficacy. Improvements in clinical signs and symptoms and HRQOL, observed during the initial blinded trials, were maintained throughout the OLE assessment period.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term sarilumab treatment with/without csDMARDs in patients with RA revealed no new safety findings. Efficacy and HRQOL were maintained or further increased over the open-label assessment period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EXTEND, ClinicalTrials.gov, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01146652, NCT01146652; MONARCH OLE, ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02332590, NCT02332590.

Real-World Sarilumab Use and Rule Testing to Predict Treatment Response in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Findings from the RISE Registry

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trial findings may not be generalizable to routine practice. This study evaluated sarilumab effectiveness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and tested the real-world applicability of a response prediction rule, derived from trial data using machine learning (based on C-reactive protein [CRP] > 12.3 mg/l and seropositivity [anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, ACPA +]).

METHODS

Sarilumab initiators from the ACR-RISE Registry, with ≥ 1 prescription on/after its FDA approval (2017-2020), were divided into three cohorts based on progressively restrictive criteria: Cohort A (had active disease), Cohort B (met eligibility criteria of a phase 3 trial in RA patients with inadequate response/intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFi]), and Cohort C (characteristics matched to the phase 3 trial baseline). Mean changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) were evaluated at 6 and 12 months. In a separate cohort, predictive rule was tested based on CRP levels and seropositive status (ACPA and/or rheumatoid factor); patients were categorized into rule-positive (seropositive with CRP > 12.3 mg/l) and rule-negative groups to compare the odds of achieving CDAI low disease activity (LDA)/remission and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) over 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Among sarilumab initiators (N = 2949), treatment effectiveness was noted across cohorts, with greater improvement noted for Cohort C at 6 and 12 months. Among the predictive rule cohort (N = 205), rule-positive (vs. rule-negative) patients were more likely to reach LDA (odds ratio: 1.5 [0.7, 3.2]) and MCID (1.1 [0.5, 2.4]). Sensitivity analyses (CRP > 5 mg/l) showed better response to sarilumab in rule-positive patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world setting, sarilumab demonstrated treatment effectiveness, with greater improvements in the most selective population, mirroring phase 3 TNFi-refractory and rule-positive RA patients. Seropositivity appeared a stronger driver for treatment response than CRP, although optimization of the rule in routine practice requires further data.

Disproportionate articular pain is a frequent phenomenon in rheumatoid arthritis and responds to treatment with sarilumab

OBJECTIVES

In some patients with RA, joint pain is more severe than expected based on the amount of joint swelling [referred to as disproportionate articular pain (DP)]. We assessed DP prevalence and the effects of sarilumab, an IL-6 inhibitor, on DP.

METHODS

Data from RA patients treated with placebo or 200 mg sarilumab in the phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) MOBILITY and TARGET, adalimumab 40 mg or sarilumab 200 mg in the phase 3 RCT MONARCH and sarilumab 200 mg in open-label extensions (OLEs) were used. DP was defined as an excess tender 28-joint count (TJC28) over swollen 28-joint count (SJC28) of ≥7 (TJC28 - SJC28 ≥ 7). Treatment response and disease activity were determined for patients with and without DP.

RESULTS

Of 1531 sarilumab 200 mg patients from RCTs, 353 (23%) had baseline DP. On average, patients with DP had higher 28-joint DAS using CRP (DAS28-CRP) and pain scores than patients without DP, whereas CRP levels were similar. After 12 and 24 weeks, patients with baseline DP treated with sarilumab were more likely to be DP-free than those treated with placebo or adalimumab. In RCTs, more sarilumab-treated patients achieved low disease activity vs comparators, regardless of baseline DP status. In OLEs, patients were more likely to lose rather than gain DP status.

CONCLUSION

About one-quarter of patients with RA experienced DP, which responded well to sarilumab. These data support the concept that other mechanisms (potentially mediated via IL-6) in addition to inflammation may contribute to DP in RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

NCT01061736, NCT02332590, NCT01709578, NCT01146652.

Measuring, Analyzing, and Presenting Work Productivity Loss in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to conduct a scoping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and investigate which work productivity loss outcomes were measured in these RCTs, how each outcome was measured and analyzed, and how the results for each outcome were presented.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted from January 2010 to April 2020 from 2 databases: PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data on country, study population, disease focus, sample size, work productivity loss outcomes measured (absenteeism, presenteeism, employment status changes), and methods used to measure, report, and analyze each work productivity loss outcome were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

We found 435 studies measuring absenteeism or presenteeism, of which 155 studies (35.6%) measured both absenteeism and presenteeism and were included in our final review. Only 9 studies also measured employment status changes. The most used questionnaire was the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. The analysis of absenteeism and presenteeism data was mostly done using regression models (n = 98, n = 98, respectively) for which a normal distribution was assumed (n = 77, n = 89, respectively). Absenteeism results were most often presented in time whereas presenteeism was commonly presented using a percent scale or score.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of consensus on how to measure, analyze, and present work productivity loss outcomes in RCTs published in the past 10 years. The diversity of measurement, analysis, and presentation methods used in RCTs may make comparability challenging. There is a need for guidelines providing recommendations to standardize the comprehensiveness and the appropriateness of methods used to measure, analyze, and report work productivity loss in RCTs.

Consensus statement on blocking interleukin-6 receptor and interleukin-6 in inflammatory conditions: an update

BACKGROUND

Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway.

METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document.

RESULTS

The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers.

Systemic effects of IL-6 blockade in rheumatoid arthritis beyond the joints

Interleukin (IL)-6 is produced locally in response to an inflammatory stimulus, and is able to induce systemic manifestations at distance from the site of inflammation. Its unique signaling mechanism, including classical and trans-signaling pathways, leads to a major expansion in the number of cell types responding to IL-6. This pleiotropic cytokine is a key factor in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is involved in many extra-articular manifestations that accompany the disease. Thus, IL-6 blockade is associated with various biological effects beyond the joints. In this review, the systemic effects of IL-6 in RA comorbidities and the consequences of its blockade will be discussed, including anemia of chronic disease, cardiovascular risks, bone and muscle functions, and neuro-psychological manifestations.

Pain: A Review of Interleukin-6 and Its Roles in the Pain of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Pain is a major and common symptom reported as a top priority in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Intuitively, RA-related pain is often considered to be a natural consequence of peripheral inflammation, so treatment of RA is expected to manage pain concurrently as part of inflammation control. However, pain in patients with RA can be poorly correlated with objective measures of inflammation, for example, in patients who are otherwise in remission. Joint damage appears to account for only a fraction of this residual pain. Emerging evidence suggests that alteration of peripheral and central pain processing contributes to RA-related pain; this is parallel to, but somewhat independent of, joint inflammation. Interleukin (IL)-6 is a proinflammatory cytokine that contributes to the pathogenesis of RA. It exerts systemic effects via signaling through soluble forms of the IL-6 receptor (“trans-signaling”). Evidence from preclinical studies demonstrates that intra-articular IL-6 can produce long-lasting peripheral sensitization to mechanical stimulation and suggests an important role for IL-6 in central pain sensitization. This may be partly explained by its ability to activate neurons through trans-signaling, affecting nociceptive plasticity and nerve fiber regrowth. Local activity at neuron endings may culminate in altered pain processing in the central nervous system because of persistent signaling from sensitized peripheral neurons. Peripheral and central sensitization can promote the development of chronic pain, which can have a significant impact on patients’ health and quality of life. A proportion of pain in RA may be more appropriately managed as an entity separate from inflammation. Both the peripheral and central nervous systems should be recognized as important potential systems targeted by RA. The substantial burden of RA-related chronic pain suggests that pain should be a key focus in RA management and should be assessed and addressed early and separately from the inflammatory component.

Repositioned Drugs for COVID-19-the Impact on Multiple Organs

This review summarizes published findings of the beneficial and harmful effects on the heart, lungs, immune system, kidney, liver, and central nervous system of 47 drugs that have been proposed to treat COVID-19. Many of the repurposed drugs were chosen for their benefits to the pulmonary system, as well as immunosuppressive and anti-inflammatory effects. However, these drugs have mixed effects on the heart, liver, kidney, and central nervous system. Drug treatments are critical in the fight against COVID-19, along with vaccines and public health protocols. Drug treatments are particularly needed as variants of the SARS-Cov-2 virus emerge with some mutations that could diminish the efficacy of the vaccines. Patients with comorbidities are more likely to require hospitalization and greater interventions. The combination of treating severe COVID-19 symptoms in the presence of comorbidities underscores the importance of understanding the effects of potential COVID-19 treatments on other organs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42399-021-00874-8.

Potential role of interferons in treating COVID-19 patients

The recently public health crises in the world is emerged by spreading the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) also named COVID-19. The virus is originated in bats and transported to humans via undefined intermediate animals. This virus can produce from weak to severe respiratory diseases including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), pneumonia and even death in patients. The COVID-19 disease is distributed by inhalation via contaminated droplets or contact with infected environment. The incubation time is from 2 to 14 day and the symptoms are typically fever, sore throat, cough, malaise, fatigue, breathlessness among others. It needs to be considered that many infected people are asymptomatic. Developing various immunological and virological methods to diagnose this disease is supported by several laboratories. Treatment is principally supportive; however, there are several agents that are using in treating of COVID-19 patients. Interferons (IFNs) have shown to be crucial in fighting with COVID-19 disease and can be a suitable candidate in treatment of these patients. Combination therapy can be more effective than monotherapy to cure this disease. Prevention necessitates to be performed by isolation of suspected people and home quarantine as well as taking care to infected people with mild or strict disease at hospitals. As the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 has accelerated, developing effective therapy is an urgent requirement to battle the virus and prevent further pandemic. In this manuscript we reviewed available information about SARS-CoV-2 and probable therapies for COVID-19 patients.

High levels of interleukin-6 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis are associated with greater improvements in health-related quality of life for sarilumab compared with adalimumab

Background

Increased levels of cytokines, including interleukin-6 (IL-6), reflect inflammation and have been shown to be predictive of therapeutic responses, fatigue, pain, and depression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but limited data exist on associations between IL-6 levels and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This post hoc analysis of MONARCH phase III randomized controlled trial data evaluated the potential of baseline IL-6 levels to differentially predict HRQoL improvements with sarilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against both soluble and membrane-bound IL-6 receptor α (anti-IL-6Rα) versus adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor, both approved for treatment of active RA.

Methods

Baseline serum IL-6 levels in 300/369 randomized patients were categorized into low (1.6–7.1 pg/mL), medium (7.2–39.5 pg/mL), and high (39.6–692.3 pg/mL) tertiles. HRQoL was measured at baseline and week (W)24 and W52 by Short Form 36 (SF-36) physical/mental component summary (PCS/MCS) and domain scores, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy -fatigue, and duration of morning stiffness visual analog scale (AM-stiffness VAS). Linear regression of changes from baseline in HRQoL (IL-6 tertile, treatment, region as a stratification factor, and IL-6 tertile-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects) assessed predictivity of baseline IL-6 levels, with low tertile as reference. Pairwise comparisons of improvements between treatment groups were performed by tertile; least squares mean differences and 95% CIs were calculated. Similar analyses evaluated W24 patient-level response on minimum clinically important differences (MCID).

Results

At baseline, patients with high versus medium or low IL-6 levels (n = 100, respectively) reported worse (nominal p < 0.05) SF-36 MCS and role-physical, bodily pain, social functioning, role-emotional domain, and AM-stiffness VAS scores. There was a greater treatment effect with sarilumab versus adalimumab in high tertile versus low tertile groups in SF-36 PCS, physical functioning domain, and AM-stiffness VAS (nominal interaction p < 0.05). PCS improvements ≥MCID were higher in high (odds ratio [OR] 6.31 [2.37, 16.81]) versus low (OR 0.97 [0.43, 2.16]) tertiles with sarilumab versus adalimumab (nominal interaction p < 0.05). Adverse events between IL-6 tertiles were similar.

Conclusions

Patients with high baseline IL-6 levels reported better improvements in PCS, physical functioning domain, and AM-stiffness scores with sarilumab versus adalimumab and safety consistent with IL-6R blockade.

Trial registration

NCT02332590. Registered on 5 January 2015

Outlook of IL-6 signaling blockade for COVID-19 pneumonia

In this review article, it is highlighted the implications of pleiotropic functions of interleukin-6 (IL-6) for one of the therapeutic options targeting for COVID-19. Moreover, it is discussed how real-world data and trials with IL-6 signaling blockade will be crucial in informing the development of new treatment for COVID-19 pneumonia. Given physiological roles of IL-6 in inflammatory conditions and the data from real world, IL-6 signal inhibitors, along with standard of care (SOC) treatment, might provide efficacy, offering the potential to treat COVID-19 in hospitalized populations more effectively than current SOC alone. Therefore, on-going and planned randomized placebo-controlled studies in combination with SOC and other therapeutics to assess safety and efficacy of IL-6 signal inhibitors in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia will be warranted to address the high unmet need and burden of disease in this severely ill population.

Understanding the Role of Interleukin-6 (IL-6) in the Joint and Beyond: A Comprehensive Review of IL-6 Inhibition for the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating autoimmune disorder involving inflammation and progressive destruction of the joints, affecting up to 1% of the population. The majority of patients with RA have one or more comorbid conditions, the most common being cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and depression, the presence of which are associated with poorer clinical outcomes and lower health-related quality of life. RA pathogenesis is driven by a complex network of proinflammatory cells and cytokines, and of these, interleukin-6 (IL-6) plays a key role in the chronic inflammation associated with RA. Through cell signaling that can be initiated by both membrane-bound and soluble forms of its receptor, IL-6 acts both locally to promote joint inflammation and destruction, and in the circulation to mediate extra-articular manifestations of RA, including pain, fatigue, morning stiffness, anemia, and weight loss. This narrative review describes the role of IL-6 in the pathogenesis of RA, its comorbidities, and extra-articular systemic manifestations, and examines the effects of the IL-6 receptor inhibitors sarilumab and tocilizumab on clinical endpoints of RA, patient-reported outcomes, and common comorbidities and extra-articular manifestations.

Effect of biologics and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis

Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom in patients with RA. Since 2007, fatigue has been included as one of the core outcome measures in RA. Clinical trials of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) have included fatigue as a secondary endpoint. A Cochrane review in 2016 concluded that the bDMARDs have a moderate effect on improving fatigue in RA. More recent clinical trials of the new biologic agent sarilumab and the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and baricitinib showed similar benefits. It remains unclear whether the effect of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs on fatigue is mediated by direct effects or through a reduction in inflammation. As fatigue was a secondary endpoint, many analyses did not adjust for potential confounding factors, including pain, mood and anaemia, which is a significant limitation.

A Budget Impact and Cost Per Additional Responder Analysis for Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the USA

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Baricitinib is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and has been shown to improve multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes. However, it is unclear what the budgetary impact would be for US commercial payers to add baricitinib to their formulary and how the efficacy of baricitinib compares to other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with a similar indication.

METHODS

A budget impact model (BIM) was developed for a hypothetical population of 1 million plan members that compared a world without and with baricitinib. A retrospective observational study was carried out to estimate market utilization of advanced therapies. Number needed to treat (NNT) and cost per additional responder were calculated for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria (ACR20/50/70) response outcomes combining cost estimates from the BIM and efficacy values from a network meta-analysis (NMA). The model included costs related to drug acquisition and monitoring costs.

RESULTS

Adding baricitinib would save a commercial payer $US169,742 for second-line therapy and $US135,471 for third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon (all costs correspond to 2019 US dollars). Cost savings were driven by baricitinib drawing market share away from more expensive comparators. The NMA, based on nine studies, found no statistically significant differences in the median treatment difference between baricitinib and comparators except for versus a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), and thus NNT versus a csDMARD was similar. The cost per additional responder for baricitinib in patients with inadequate response to a TNFi was substantially lower than all other treatments for all three ACR response criteria at 12 weeks (ACR20: $US129,672; ACR50: $US237,732; ACR70: $US475,464), and among the lowest at 24 weeks (ACR20: $US167,811; ACR50: $US259,344; ACR70: $US570,557).

CONCLUSIONS

Baricitinib, compared to other DMARDs, was a less expensive option (- $US0.01 incremental cost per member per month in second- and third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon) with comparable efficacy in patients with inadequate response to TNFi. Adding baricitinib to formulary would likely be cost saving for US payers and expands treatment options for these patients.

Effects of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes: results from SELECT-BEYOND, a phase 3 randomized trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important when evaluating treatment benefits in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared upadacitinib, an oral, selective JAK-1 inhibitor, with placebo to assess clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in patients with RA who have had inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR).

METHODS

PRO responses between upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg and placebo were evaluated at week 12 from the SELECT-BEYOND trial. Improvement was determined by measuring Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), duration and severity of morning (AM) stiffness, and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Least squares mean changes and percentage of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores greater than or equal to normative values were determined. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve clinically meaningful improvements was calculated.

RESULTS

In 498 patients, both upadacitinib doses resulted in statistically significant changes from baseline versus placebo in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS), 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 6 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), and AM stiffness duration and severity. Compared with placebo, more upadacitinib-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS, 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 5 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), AM stiffness duration and severity, and ISI (30 mg) and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 domains. Across most PROs, NNTs to achieve MCID with upadacitinib ranged from 4 to 7 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In bDMARD-IR RA patients, upadacitinib (15 mg or 30 mg) improved multiple aspects of quality of life, and more patients reached clinically meaningful improvements approaching normative values compared with placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02706847), registered 6 March 2016.

Safety and efficacy of switching from adalimumab to sarilumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the ongoing MONARCH open-label extension

Objective

Evaluate open-label sarilumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis switching from adalimumab monotherapy in MONARCH (NCT02332590); assess long-term safety and efficacy in patients continuing sarilumab during open-label extension (OLE).

Methods

During the 48-week OLE, patients received sarilumab 200 mg subcutaneously once every 2 weeks. Safety (March 2017 cut-off) and efficacy, including patient-reported outcomes, were evaluated.

Results

In the double-blind phase, patients receiving sarilumab or adalimumab monotherapy showed meaningful improvements in disease activity; sarilumab was superior to adalimumab for improving signs, symptoms and physical function. Overall, 320/369 patients completing the 24-week double-blind phase entered OLE (155 switched from adalimumab; 165 continued sarilumab). Sarilumab safety profile was consistent with previous reports. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups; no unexpected safety signals emerged in the first 10 weeks postswitch. Among switch patients, improvement in disease activity was evident at OLE week 12: 47.1%/34.8% had changes ≥1.2 in Disease Activity Score (28 joints) (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate/DAS28-C-reactive protein. In switch patients achieving low disease activity (LDA: Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤10; Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤11) by OLE week 24, 70.7%/69.5% sustained CDAI/SDAI LDA at both OLE weeks 36 and 48. Proportions of switch patients achieving CDAI ≤2.8 and SDAI ≤3.3 by OLE week 24 increased through OLE week 48. Improvements postswitch approached continuation-group values, including scores ≥normative values.

Conclusions

During this OLE, there were no unexpected safety issues in patients switching from adalimumab to sarilumab monotherapy, and disease activity improved in many patients. Patients continuing sarilumab reported safety consistent with prolonged use and had sustained benefit.

Il-6 Involvement in pain, fatigue and mood disorders in rheumatoid arthritis and the effects of Il-6 inhibitor sarilumab

Interleukin 6 (IL-6) is a pleiotropic cytokine that plays a role in the neuroendocrine system, insulin resistance, lipid metabolism, vascular disease, mitochondrial activities, neuropsychological behaviour, and also mediates communications between the immune and central nervous system (CNS). Treatment with anti-IL-6 or anti-IL-6R agents seems to alleviate allodynia and hyperalgesia, so it may be a valid option when treating the many conditions involving pathological pain as rheumatoid arthritis.

Interleukin 6 as a pathogenic factor mediating clinical manifestations and a therapeutic target for rheumatic diseases and depressive disorders

The review summarizes current idea on the key role of interleukin 6 (IL-6) in the pathogenesis of rheumatic diseases (RDs) and depressive disorders. It considers in detail the mechanisms by which IL6 induces the clinical and laboratory manifestations of RDs and depression; the influence of precipitating and predisposing stress factors, including childhood mental traumas, which increase the risk of RDs and depression, on IL-6 production. Particular attention is paid to the consideration of prospects for using IL-6 inhibitors in the therapy of depression.

Neuroendocrine and neurophysiological effects of interleukin 6 in rheumatoid arthritis

RA is a chronic, systemic, autoimmune disease characterized by inflammation and degradation of the joints, causing significant negative impact on quality of life. In addition to joint disease, symptoms and co-morbidities associated with RA-namely pain, fatigue and mood disorders-are often as debilitating as the disease itself. The pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6 plays a critical role in RA-associated pathology. However, a greater understanding of the translational effects of IL-6 outside of the immune system is needed. This review discusses our current understanding of emerging aspects of IL-6 in RA-associated pain, fatigue and mood disorders such as depression and anxiety. This review also describes the clinical effects of IL-6 inhibition on these symptoms and co-morbidities in patients with RA.

Sarilumab: A Review in Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis

Sarilumab (Kevzara^®), a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor, is approved in various countries, including the USA, those of the EU, and Japan, as a subcutaneous treatment administered every 2 weeks for moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults who have responded inadequately to, or are intolerant of, one or more DMARDs. In placebo-controlled trials, sarilumab improved the signs and symptoms of RA, as well as physical function and health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL), when administered in combination with conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) therapy in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate or an inadequate response to, or intolerance of, at least one tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor; benefits were sustained over ≤ 3 years' therapy in an open-label extension. Sarilumab plus methotrexate inhibited the progression of structural damage in patients who had inadequately responded to methotrexate. As monotherapy in patients who were inappropriate for continued treatment with methotrexate, sarilumab was more effective than adalimumab in reducing the signs and symptoms of RA and improving physical function. The safety profile of sarilumab was consistent with the anticipated effects of IL-6 inhibition. In the minority of patients who tested positive for anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), ADAs did not impact efficacy or increase adverse reactions. Thus, sarilumab extends the available treatment options for adults with moderately to severely active RA who have responded inadequately to, or are intolerant of, at least one DMARD.

Effects of Sarilumab on Rheumatoid Arthritis as Reported by Patients Using the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease Scale

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effect of sarilumab on patient-perceived impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the 7-domain RA Impact of Disease (RAID) scale.

METHODS

Two phase III, randomized, controlled trials of sarilumab in patients with active, longstanding RA were analyzed: (1) sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (+csDMARD) versus placebo + csDMARD [TARGET (NCT01709578)]; and (2) sarilumab 200 mg versus adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg monotherapy [MONARCH (NCT02332590)]. Least-squares mean (LSM) differences in RAID total score (range 0-10) and 7 key RA symptoms, including pain and fatigue (baseline to Weeks 12 and 24), were compared. "Responders" by RAID total score were defined by improvements from baseline ≥ minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and ≥ patient-acceptable symptom-state (PASS) at endpoint.

RESULTS

Sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg + csDMARD were nominally superior (p < 0.05) versus placebo + csDMARD and 200 mg sarilumab versus ADA 40 mg in LSM differences for RAID total score at weeks 12 (-0.93 and -1.13; -0.49, respectively) and 24 (-0.75 and -1.01; -0.78), and all effects of RA (except functional impairment in MONARCH Week 12). Effects were greater in physical domains (e.g., pain) than mental domains (e.g., emotional well-being). More patients receiving sarilumab versus placebo or ADA reported improvements ≥ MCID and PASS in total RAID scores at both assessments.

CONCLUSION

Based on the RAID, sarilumab + csDMARD or as monotherapy reduced the effect of RA on patients' lives to a greater extent than placebo + csDMARD or ADA monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01709578 and NCT02332590).

Expert Recommendations on the Interleukin 6 Blockade in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To draft recommendations on interleukin 6 (IL-6) blockade in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), based on best evidence and experience.

METHODS

A group of 10 experts on IL-6 blockade in RA was selected. The 2 coordinators formulated 23 questions about IL-6 blockade (indications, efficacy, safety, etc.). A systematic review was conducted to answer the questions. Using this information, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, as were the search strategies (Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched). Two different reviewers selected the articles. Evidence tables were created. At the same time, European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology abstracts were evaluated. Based on this evidence, the coordinators proposed preliminary recommendations that the experts discussed and voted on in a nominal group meeting. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation were established using the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine and the level of agreement with the Delphi technique (2 rounds). Agreement was established if at least 80% of the experts voted yes (yes/no).

RESULTS

The 8 preliminary recommendations were accepted after the Delphi process. They covered aspects such as the use of these therapies in monotherapy, in combination, in patients with refractory disease or intolerant patients, response evaluation, optimization and risk management.

CONCLUSIONS

The manuscript aims to solve frequently asked questions and aid in decision making strategies when treating RA patients with IL-6 blockade.

Morning Stiffness in Elderly Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: What is Known About the Effect of Biological and Targeted Agents?

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects all age groups, but the prevalence appears to increase with age. Elderly-onset RA (after the age of 60 years) has distinct clinical patterns. Treatment of RA in older individuals is confounded by the presence of medical comorbidities, concurrent medications, drug interactions, and the altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics related to aging and organ dysfunction. Patients with RA commonly experience morning stiffness, which is associated with reduced quality of life and work disability. However, despite its importance, morning stiffness is seldom assessed in clinical practice and usually only its duration is measured in the research setting. Whether the intensity, timing, location and impact of this symptom should be assessed in future clinical trials requires further evaluation. The biologic and newer targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have been shown to be effective in reducing the duration of morning stiffness in patients with RA. Glucocorticoids are a double-edged sword in RA. Although they can effectively reduce inflammation and retard radiological damage (disease modifying), the long-term use of glucocorticoids is associated with numerous adverse effects. Thus, glucocorticoids should be used for short-term treatment of RA only. Night-time administration of glucocorticoids has been shown to alleviate morning stiffness and should be considered in patients with serious morning joint stiffness symptoms.

The Portuguese Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) score and its measurement equivalence in three countries: validation study using Rasch Models

Purpose

The Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) score assesses seven impact domains of interest for people with RA. This study aimed to test patients’ understanding of the Portuguese RAID and evaluate its cross-cultural validity for use in Portugal.

Methods

This was a mixed methods study comprising two phases: (i) cognitive debriefing to determine patient’s comprehension of the Portuguese RAID and (ii) cross-cultural validation using Rasch analysis. Construct validity was determined by fit to the model, invariance culture (compared with France and UK datasets) and evidence of convergent and divergent validity.

Results

Patients’ input (n = 38) led to minor changes in the phrasing of two items to ensure conceptual equivalence between the Portuguese and the original RAID. In Rasch analysis (n = 288), two items ‘Sleep’ and ‘Physical well-being’ in the Portuguese dataset did not adequately fit the model specifications, suggesting multidimensionality (sleep—not necessarily associated with RA) and redundancy (physical well-being overlapping with functional disability). Despite the imperfections, the scale had high internal consistency, evidence of convergent and divergent validity and invariance to culture (compared to France n = 195 and UK n = 205 datasets). The scale was well targeted for patients with different levels of disease impact.

Conclusions

The RAID has been successfully adapted into Portuguese and it can be used with confidence in clinical practice. Further research will be required to ensure it captures the full range of sleep problems in RA. Meanwhile, data across the three countries (Portugal, France and the UK) are comparable except for the two items (sleep and physical well-being).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-018-1959-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized phase III trial of sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background

The phase III MONARCH randomized controlled trial (NCT02332590) demonstrated that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), sarilumab (anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody) monotherapy is superior to adalimumab monotherapy in reducing disease activity and signs and symptoms of RA, as well as in improving physical function, with similar rates of adverse and serious adverse events. We report the effects of sarilumab versus adalimumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Methods

Patients with active RA intolerant of, or inadequate responders to, methotrexate were randomized to sarilumab 200 mg plus placebo every 2 weeks (q2w; n = 184) or adalimumab 40 mg plus placebo q2w (n = 185). Dose escalation to weekly administration of adalimumab or matching placebo was permitted at week 16. PROs assessed at baseline and weeks 12 and 24 included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain and morning stiffness visual analogue scales (VASs), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F), Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID), and rheumatoid arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (WPS-RA). Between-group differences in least-squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline were analyzed. p < 0.05 was considered significant for PROs in a predefined hierarchy. For PROs not in the hierarchy, nominal p values are provided. Proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and achieving normative values were assessed.

Results

At week 24, sarilumab treatment resulted in significantly greater LSM changes from baseline than adalimumab monotherapy in HAQ-DI (p < 0.005), PtGA (p < 0.001), pain VAS (p < 0.001), and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (p < 0.001). Greater LSM changes were reported for sarilumab than for adalimumab in RAID (nominal p < 0.001), morning stiffness VAS (nominal p < 0.05), and WPS-RA (nominal p < 0.005). Between-group differences in FACIT-F and SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) were not significant. More patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the MCID in HAQ-DI (nominal p < 0.01), RAID (nominal p < 0.01), SF-36 PCS (nominal p < 0.005), and morning stiffness (nominal p < 0.05), as well as greater than or equal to the normative values in HAQ-DI (p < 0.05), with sarilumab versus adalimumab.

Conclusions

In parallel with the clinical efficacy profile previously reported, sarilumab monotherapy resulted in greater improvements across multiple PROs than adalimumab monotherapy.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02332590. Registered on 5 January 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-018-1614-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sarilumab: Review of a Second IL-6 Receptor Antagonist Indicated for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Major Objectives: To review the efficacy, safety, and economics of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Data Sources: PubMed (1966 to January 2018), Clinicaltrials.gov (January 2018), and Scopus (1970 to January 2018) were searched using sarilumab, Kevzara, REGN88, and SAR153191. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Human studies published in peer-reviewed publications in English were the primary sources for efficacy and safety. Data Synthesis: Data from randomized, double-blind, controlled, published clinical studies weeks demonstrated statistically significantly higher American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50, and Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) remission response rates and improvements in DAS28 and Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index scores for sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy (P < 0.05) and for sarilumab versus placebo in patients receiving methotrexate or other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs); P < 0.05. The ACR20 and ACR50 response rates were, respectively, 56-72% and 35-46% for sarilumab, 58% and 30% for adalimumab, and 33-34% and 15-18% for placebo. DAS28 remission rates were 20-34% for sarilumab, 7% for adalimumab, and 7-10% for placebo. Sarilumab has a higher risk for neutropenia than tocilizumab, the other IL-6 inhibitor, but a lower risk for dyslipidemia, injection site reactions, and gastrointestinal perforation. The acquisition costs of sarilumab are expected to be similar to those of most other biologic DMARDs. Conclusion: Sarilumab is an alternative to biologic DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs in patients with moderate to severely active RA who have not responded adequately to prior conventional synthetic DMARDs or tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors.