Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with anti-tumor necrosis factor or tocilizumab therapy as first biologic in a global comparative observational study

Objective To compare clinical effectiveness between tocilizumab and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs initiating biologic therapy. Methods Patients prescribed tocilizumab (intravenous) or TNFi were prospectively observed in routine clinical practice for 52 weeks across 158 sites in 26 countries. The primary observation was the change from baseline in Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) at week 24 using analysis of covariance for between-groups comparison. Secondary end points included Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and patient-reported outcomes at weeks 24 and 52. Results Of 1,216 patients, 35% initiated tocilizumab and 65% initiated TNFi. RA duration was shorter, and disease activity and corticosteroid use were higher in tocilizumab patients. Tocilizumab-treated patients had greater improvement in DAS28-ESR at weeks 24 and 52 (week 24 difference [95% confidence interval] in adjusted means: −0.831 [−1.086, −0.576]; P < 0.001). Change from baseline in CDAI was also greater with tocilizumab (adjusted means difference: week 24, −3.48; week 52, −4.60; both P < 0.001). Tocilizumab-treated patients had more improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index than TNFi-treated patients (P < 0.05). The cumulative probability of drug discontinuation at week 52 was lower with tocilizumab (15%) than TNFi (27%; P < 0.001, unadjusted analysis). Unadjusted frequencies (events per 100 patient-years) for tocilizumab and TNFi were 6.44 and 11.99 for serious adverse events, 1.98 and 5.03 for serious infections, and 0.74 and 0.77 for deaths, respectively. Conclusion Patients initiating tocilizumab experienced greater effectiveness and drug survival than those initiating TNFi in an observational setting

Defining criteria for rheumatoid arthritis patient-derived disease activity score that correspond to Disease Activity Score 28 and Clinical Disease Activity Index based disease states and response criteria

Objective. Two versions of a patient-based DAS (PDAS) 1 and 2 (with and without ESR) have been developed and validated in RA. The objective of this study was to define PDAS1- and PDAS2-based criteria for remission, low, moderate and high disease activity and responses to treatment. Method. Using receiver operating characteristic curves, the optimal thresholds for PDAS1 and PDAS2 that correspond to validated assessor-based DAS (DAS28) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) disease statuses were determined. Data from RA patients initiated on disease-modifying drugs were used to determine optimal thresholds for PDAS1 and PDAS2 that corresponded to EULAR good and moderate responses. Agreement with DAS28, CDAI and EULAR response criteria was assessed by Cohen’s κ statistic. Results. Threshold for PDAS1 and PDAS2 demonstrated fair to moderate agreement with DAS28 [κ = 0.44 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.50) and 0.31 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.38)] and CDAI [κ = 0.27 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.33) and 0.42 (95% CI: 0.35, 0.49)] disease statuses, respectively, which was similar to agreement between DAS28 and CDAI [κ = 0.54 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.61)] within this group. Agreement of EULAR good and moderate response with PDAS1 and PDAS2 was κ = 0.46 (95% CI: 0.27, 0.64) and 0.38 (95% CI: 0.20, 0.56), respectively. Conclusion. Thresholds for disease activity statuses and response to treatment for PDAS1 and PDAS2 have been established. They have comparable agreement to assessor-based criteria

Defining the optimal biological monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

Objectives To summarize and compare the benefits and harms of biological agents used as monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in order to inform decisions for patients who are intolerant to conventional DMARD therapy. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and other sources for randomised trials that compared biological monotherapy with methotrexate, placebo, or other biological monotherapies. Primary outcomes were ACR50 and the number of patients who discontinued due to adverse events. Our network meta-analysis was based on mixed-effects logistic regression, including both direct and indirect comparisons of the treatment effects, while preserving the randomised comparisons within each trial. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42012002800. Results The analysis comprises 28 trials (8602 patients), including all nine biological agents approved for RA. Eight trials included “DMARD-naïve”, and 20 “DMARD-Inadequate responder” (DMARD-IR) patients. All agents except anakinra and infliximab were superior (p 0.52). However, because rituximab was evaluated in just 40 patients, our confidence in the estimates is limited. When including only DMARD-IR trials, the same statistical pattern emerged; in addition etanercept and tocilizumab were superior to abatacept. At recommended doses, both etanercept and tocilizumab were superior to adalimumab and certolizumab. No statistically significant differences among biological agents were found with respect to discontinuation due to adverse events (p > 0.068). Conclusions Evidence from randomised trials suggests that most biological agents are effective as monotherapy. Although our confidence in the estimates is limited, etanercept or tocilizumab may be the optimal choice for most patients who need treatment with biological monotherapy. However, given our limited confidence in the estimates including possibility of bias, it is appropriate to strongly weight patients׳ preferences and values in the final treatment choice

Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 501 compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase III equivalence study

Objectives ABP 501 is a Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilar to adalimumab; structural, functional and pharmacokinetic evaluations have shown that the two are highly similar. We report results from a phase III study comparing efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between ABP 501 and adalimumab. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, 26-week equivalence study, patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate were randomised (1:1) to ABP 501 or adalimumab (40 mg) every 2 weeks. Primary endpoint was risk ratio (RR) of ACR20 between groups at week 24. Primary hypothesis that the treatments were equivalent would be confirmed if the 90% CI for RR of ACR20 at week 24 fell between 0.738 and 1.355, demonstrating that ABP 501 is similar to adalimumab. Secondary endpoints included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count-C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). Safety was assessed via adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations. Antidrug antibodies were assessed to determine immunogenicity. Results A total of 526 patients were randomised (n=264, ABP 501; n=262 adalimumab) and 494 completed the study. ACR20 response at week 24 was 74.6% (ABP 501) and 72.4% (adalimumab). At week 24, the RR of ACR20 (90% CI) between groups was 1.039 (0.954, 1.133), confirming the primary hypothesis. Changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP, ACR50 and ACR70 were similar. There were no clinically meaningful differences in AEs and laboratory abnormalities. A total of 38.3% (ABP 501) and 38.2% (adalimumab) of patients tested positive for binding antidrug antibodies. Conclusions Results from this study demonstrate that ABP 501 is similar to adalimumab in clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with moderate to severe RA

Second-line agents in myositis: 1-year factorial trial of additional immunosuppression in patients who have partially responded to steroids

Objective. Ciclosporin and MTX are used in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (DM and PM) when patients incompletely respond to glucocorticoids. Their effectiveness is unproved in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We evaluated their benefits in a placebo-controlled factorial RCT. Methods. A 56-week multicentre factorial-design double-blind placebo-controlled RCT compared steroids alone, MTX (15–25 mg weekly) plus steroids, ciclosporin (1–5 mg/kg/day) plus steroids and all three treatments. It enrolled adults with myositis (by Bohan and Peter criteria) with active disease receiving corticosteroids. Results. A total of 359 patients were screened and 58 randomized. Of the latter, 37 patients completed 12 months of treatment, 7 were lost to follow-up and 14 discontinued treatment. Patients completing 12 months of treatment showed significant improvement (P < 0.001 on paired t-tests) in manual muscle testing (14% change), walking time (22% change) and function (9% change). Intention to treat and completer analyses indicated that ciclosporin monotherapy, MTX monotherapy and ciclosporin/MTX combination therapy showed no significant treatment effects in comparison with placebo. Conclusion. Neither MTX nor ciclosporin (by themselves or in combination) improved clinical features in myositis patients who had incompletely responded to glucocorticoids

Low immunogenicity of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objective Subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous formulations of tocilizumab (TCZ) are available for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), based on the efficacy and safety observed in clinical trials. Anti-TCZ antibody development and its impact on safety and efficacy were evaluated in adult patients with RA treated with intravenous TCZ (TCZ-IV) or TCZ-SC as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). Methods Data from 5 TCZ-SC and 8 TCZ-IV phase III clinical trials and 1 TCZ-IV clinical pharmacology safety study (>50 000 samples) were pooled to assess the immunogenicity profile of TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV (8974 total patients). The analysis included antidrug antibody (ADA) measurement following TCZ-SC or TCZ-IV treatment as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs, after dosing interruptions or in TCZ-washout samples, and the correlation of ADAs with clinical response, adverse events or pharmacokinetics (PK). Results The proportion of patients who developed ADAs following TCZ-SC or TCZ-IV treatment was 1.5% and 1.2%, respectively. ADA development was also comparable between patients who received TCZ monotherapy and those who received concomitant csDMARDs (0.7–2.0%). ADA development did not correlate with PK or safety events, including anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity or injection-site reactions, and no patients who developed ADAs had loss of efficacy. Conclusions The immunogenicity risk of TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV treatment was low, either as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs. Anti-TCZ antibodies developed among the small proportion of patients had no evident impact on PK, efficacy or safety

The role of sleep in pain and fibromyalgia

Fibromyalgia is a common cause of chronic widespread pain, characterized by reduced pressure pain thresholds with hyperalgesia and allodynia. In addition to pain, common symptoms include nonrestorative sleep, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, stiffness and mood disturbances. The latest research indicates that the dominant pathophysiology in fibromyalgia is abnormal pain processing and central sensitization. Neuroimaging studies have shown that patients with fibromyalgia have similar neural activation to healthy age-matched and gender-matched individuals; however, they have a lower pressure-pain threshold. Polysomnography data has demonstrated that these patients have reduced short-wave sleep and abnormal α-rhythms, suggestive of wakefulness during non-REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. Sleep deprivation in healthy individuals can cause symptoms of fibromyalgia, including myalgia, tenderness and fatigue, suggesting that sleep dysfunction might be not only a consequence of pain, but also pathogenic. Epidemiological studies indicate that poor sleep quality is a risk factor for the development of chronic widespread pain among an otherwise healthy population. Mechanistically, sleep deprivation impairs descending pain-inhibition pathways that are important in controlling and coping with pain. Clinical trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies have shown that improving sleep quality can reduce pain and fatigue, further supporting the hypothesis that sleep dysfunction is a pathogenic stimulus of fibromyalgi

Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis

Traditional treatment with conventional Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) aim to suppress inflammation, relieve symptoms and retard joint destruction. Because of the limited efficacy and high risk of toxicity of current treatments, better treatments are needed. For assessing therapeutic efficacy and safety of any new treatment, clinical trials remain the gold standard. In clinical trials, outcome measures are the key tools that allow the impact of any intervention be assessed and compared. Before 1990, RA clinical trials often included 10 or more measures of disease activity. Over the past 20 years, OMERACT has played a critical role in driving global consensus on the development and validation of outcome measures in RA. The RA core data set includes 7 + 1 domains (pain, patient global assessment, physical disability, swollen joints, tender joints, acute phase reactants, physician/assessor global assessment, radiographs of joints), which should be assessed in all RA clinical trials. ACR Response Criteria, DAS28 and EULAR Response Criteria are the composite measures used in RA clinical trials globally. Fatigue was added to core data set after OMERACT 8 meeting with a major input from RA patients. OMERACT RA flare group is currently working on developing definition of RA flare. The RA core data set and response criteria had a fundamental impact on clinical trials, and are accepted by regulatory authorities in the licensing of new medications. They have become the global standard and used consistently in all clinical trials enabling pooling and comparing different clinical trials to facilitate evidence based practice. © 2013, Indian Rheumatology Association. All rights reserved

The problem of choice: current biologic agents and future prospects in RA [review]

The introduction of biologic agents to clinical practice has had a major bearing on the treatment of patients with chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. These drugs have the potential to improve the outcome of disease and the quality of life for patients. However, clinical criteria alone are inadequate for determining which therapy is most appropriate for an individual patient. Furthermore, why a particular drug is effective in a particular patient, or indeed in any patient, but is ineffective for other individuals, is often unknown. In this Review, we provide an overview of biologic therapies currently available for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and discuss why certain immunological regulators represent potential targets for intervention. Current agents can be clustered into three major types: cytokine blockers, lymphocyte-targeting agents, and small-molecule inhibitors of signal transduction pathways. We differentiate among the modes of action of each of these types of therapy and consider the challenges associated with their use in clinical practice