Comparison of treatment retention and response to secukinumab versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis.

To access publisher's full text version of this article click on the hyperlink belowObjectives: To compare treatment retention and response to secukinumab vs adalimumab, including the other four TNF inhibitors (TNFi) as comparators, in PsA. Methods: All patients with PsA starting secukinumab or a TNFi in 2015-2018 were identified in the biologic registers of the Nordic countries. Data on comorbidities were linked from national registers. One-year treatment retention and hazard ratios (HRs) for treatment discontinuation were calculated. The proportion achieving a 6 month 28-joint Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA28) remission was determined together with odds ratios (ORs) for remission (logistic regression). Both HRs and ORs were calculated with adalimumab as the reference and adjusted for baseline characteristics and concurrent comorbidities. All analyses were stratified by the line of biologic treatment (first, second, third+). Results: We identified 6143 patients contributing 8307 treatment courses (secukinumab, 1227; adalimumab, 1367). Secukinumab was rarely used as the first biologic, otherwise baseline characteristics were similar. No clinically significant differences in treatment retention or response rates were observed for secukinumab vs adalimumab. The adjusted HRs for discontinuation per the first, second and third line of treatment were 0.98 (95% CI 0.68, 1.41), 0.94 (0.70, 1.26) and 1.07 (0.84, 1.36), respectively. The ORs for DAPSA28 remission in the first, second and third line of treatment were 0.62 (95% CI 0.30, 1.28), 0.85 (0.41, 1.78) and 0.74 (0.36, 1.51), respectively. In the subset of patients previously failing a TNFi due to ineffectiveness, the results were similar. Conclusion: No significant differences in treatment retention or response were observed between secukinumab and adalimumab, regardless of the line of treatment. This suggests that even in patients who have failed a TNFi, choosing either another TNFi or secukinumab may be equally effective. Keywords: adalimumab; psoriatic arthritis; response; retention; secukinumab; treatment.NordForsk Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM) Finska Lakaresallskapet Helsinki University Hospital Institutional gran

One-Year Treatment Outcomes of Secukinumab Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Spondyloarthritis : Results From Five Nordic Biologic Registries Including More Than 10,000 Treatment Courses

Objective: To describe baseline characteristics and to compare treatment effectiveness of secukinumab versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) using adalimumab as the main comparator. Methods: This was an observational, prospective cohort study. Patients with SpA (clinical ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial SpA, or undifferentiated SpA) starting secukinumab or a TNFi during 2015–2018 were identified from 5 Nordic clinical rheumatology registries. Data on comorbidities and extraarticular manifestations (psoriasis, uveitis, and inflammatory bowel disease) were captured from national registries (data available in 94% of patients) and included in multivariable analyses. We assessed 1-year treatment retention (crude survival curves, adjusted hazard ratios [HRadj] for treatment discontinuation) and 6-month response rates (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS] score <2.1, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] <40 mm, crude/LUNDEX-adjusted, adjusted logistic regression analyses with odds ratios [ORs]) stratified by line of biologic treatment (first, second, and third plus). Results: In total, 10,853 treatment courses (842 secukinumab and 10,011 TNFi, of which 1,977 were adalimumab) were included. The proportions of patients treated with secukinumab during the first, second, and third-plus lines of treatment were 1%, 6%, and 22%, respectively). Extraarticular manifestations varied across treatments, while other baseline characteristics were largely similar. Secukinumab had a 1-year retention comparable to adalimumab as a first or second line of treatment but poorer as a third-plus line of therapy (secukinumab 56% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 51–61%] versus adalimumab 70% [95% CI 64–75%]; HRadj 1.43 [95% CI 1.12–1.81]). Across treatment lines, secukinumab had poorer estimates for 6-month response rates than adalimumab, statistically significantly only for the third-plus line (adjusted analyses: ASDAS score <2.1 OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.35–0.90]; BASDAI <40 mm OR 0.62 [95% CI 0.41–0.95]). Treatment outcomes varied across the 5 TNFi. Conclusion: Secukinumab was mainly used in biologics-experienced patients with SpA. Secukinumab and adalimumab performed similarly in patients who had failed a first biologic, although with increasing prior biologic exposure, adalimumab was superior

A nationwide non-medical switch from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 in 802 patients with inflammatory arthritis:1-year clinical outcomes from the DANBIO registry

ObjectivesAccording to guidelines, a nationwide non-medical switch from originator (INX, Remicade) to biosimilar infliximab (Remsima, CT-P13) was conducted in Danish patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA). We investigated disease activity before/after switching and retention rates in the DANBIO registry.MethodsDisease activities 3 months before and after switch and changes over time were calculated. Flare was defined as change in 28 Joint Disease Activity Score (∆DAS28) ≥1.2 (RA/PsA) or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (∆ASDAS) ≥1.3 (AxSpA). Crude and adjusted retention rates were compared with a historic cohort of INX-treated patients.ResultsEight hundred and two patients switched (403 RA/120 PsA/279 AxSpA; 51% women, age (median (IQR): 55 (44-66)) years). Follow-up was 413 (339–442) days. Prior INX treatment duration was 6.8 (4.3–9.5) years. Disease activities were similar 3 months before/after switch. Crude 1-year CT-P13 retention rate (84.1 (95% CI 81.3 to 86.5)) was similar to the historic IFX cohort (86.2 (95% CI 84.0 to 88.0), p=0.22). The adjusted absolute retention rates were 83.4 (95% CI 80.8 to 86.2) and 86.8% (95% CI 84.8 to 88.8), respectively (p=0.03). In total 132 patients withdrew (lack of effect: 71/132=54%, adverse events: 37/132=28%). Patients with previous INX treatment duration &gt;5 years had longer CT-P13 retention.ConclusionIn 802 arthritis patients treated with INX for median &gt;6 years, a nationwide non-medical switch to CT-P13 had no negative impact on disease activity. Adjusted 1-year CT-P13 retention rate was slightly lower than for INX in a historic cohort.</jats:sec

Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: Phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial

Objective To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Design Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study. Setting Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018. Participants Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein. Interventions Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms. Results 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval −5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and −0.6% (−10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms. Conclusions All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis