Therapeutic drug monitoring of tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors in inflammatory joint diseases

Antibody-based biopharmaceuticals have revolutionised treatment of inflammatory joint diseases in the last two decades. However, a considerable proportion of patients fail to achieve, or lose response. Individualised dosing based on serum concentration measurements, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), has been proposed as a strategy to optimise treatment with tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors. Knowledge on therapeutic target concentrations and immunogenicity is necessary for validation of TDM as a tool in research and clinical practice. In this thesis, Gehin and colleagues investigated therapeutic target concentrations, and incidence and clinical consequences of neutralising anti-drug antibodies (ADAb), for TNF inhibitors in patients with inflammatory joint diseases. Therapeutic target concentrations were identified for the TNF inhibitors certolizumab pegol and golimumab. ADAb formation was associated with lower serum concentrations and lack of clinical effect. This indicated a rationale for TDM in treatment with these drugs. In contrast to other TNF inhibitors, no therapeutic target concentration could be identified for etanercept and no ADAb were observed. Implementation of TDM in clinical practice requires reliable assays. As immunoassays use animal antibodies for detection, rheumatoid arthritis patients constitute a high-risk population with regard to interference from Fc-reactive rheumatoid factors. This thesis revealed a high occurrence of rheumatoid factors with anti-animal IgG reactivity that was associated with interference in commercial immunoassays. This thesis provides novel knowledge to improve treatment with TNF inhibitors in patients with inflammatory joint diseases. In addition, it highlights the importance of considering risk of rheumatoid factor interference when designing immunoassays and interpreting immunoassay results

Serum etanercept concentrations in relation to disease activity and treatment response assessed by ultrasound, biomarkers and clinical disease activity scores: results from a prospective observational study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Objectives: To identify the therapeutic range for etanercept and to assess the incidence of anti-etanercept antibody formation. Methods: Associations between etanercept serum concentration and disease activity as well as treatment response were examined in a longitudinal observational study of rheumatoid arthritis patients starting etanercept. Disease activity was assessed by ultrasound (grey scale and power Doppler), 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Index, plasma calprotectin and C reactive protein. Etanercept concentration and anti-etanercept antibodies were analysed using automated in-house fluorescence assays. Results: A total of 89 patients were included, whereof 66% were biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) naïve and 91% used concomitant synthetic DMARD. At 3 months, the median etanercept concentration was 1.8 (IQR 1.1-2.5) mg/L. Longitudinal associations were found between etanercept concentration and disease activity assessed by plasma calprotectin, C reactive protein and DAS28, but not between etanercept concentration and improvement in disease activity by any of the parameters at 3, 6 or 12 months of treatment. Etanercept concentrations were not significantly different among patients who achieved response or remission, compared with non-response or non-remission. Hence, no therapeutic range could be identified. None of the patients developed anti-etanercept antibodies. Conclusion: Despite the use of sensitive and objective markers of inflammation, a therapeutic range could not be identified for etanercept. Hence, this study suggests that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring is unlikely to benefit rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with etanercept, but a potential benefit in certain clinical situations cannot be excluded

Rheumatoid factor and falsely elevated results in commercial immunoassays: data from an early arthritis cohort

Abstract The aim of the study was to  assess RF cross-reactivity to animal antibodies used in immunoassays, and to test if selected commercial immunoassays are vulnerable to interference from RF, causing false test results. Our study included samples from patients with RF-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and controls (patients with RF-negative RA and psoriatic arthritis), included in an early arthritis-cohort. Reactivity to mouse IgG1, mouse IgG2a, rabbit IgG, bovine IgG, sheep/goat IgG and human IgG was analysed using in-house interference assays. RF-positive sera with strong reactivity to mouse IgG1 were analysed in three commercial immunoassays. To reveal interference, results before and after addition of blocking aggregated murine IgG1 were compared. Samples from 124 RF-positive RA patients and 66 controls were tested. We found considerably stronger reactivity toward animal antibodies, particularly mouse IgG1 (73% vs. 12%) and rabbit IgG (81% vs. 6%), in sera from RF-positive RA-patients compared to controls ( p  < 0.001). After selecting samples for testing in commercial assays, interference was revealed in 6/30 sera in the Architect β-hCG assay, 7/10 sera in the 27-plex cytokine assays, and in 2/33 samples in the Elecsys Soluble Transferrin Receptor assay. Our study revealed considerable RF reactivity to animal antibodies used in immunoassays and RF was associated with falsely elevated results in immunoassays used in clinical care and research. Clinicians, laboratorians, researchers and assay manufacturers must be alert to the risk of falsely elevated test results in RF-positive RA patients

Serum golimumab concentration and anti-drug antibodies are associated with treatment response and drug survival in patients with inflammatory joint diseases: data from the NOR-DMARD study

Objectives: This study aimed to identify the therapeutic target concentration and frequency of anti-drug antibodies (ADAbs) in golimumab-treated patients with inflammatory joint disease (IJD). Method: Associations between golimumab concentration, ADAbs, and treatment response were examined in 91 patients with IJD [41 axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), 20 rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and 30 psoriatic arthritis (PsA)] included in the NOR-DMARD study. Treatment response was defined by Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) clinically important improvement in axSpA, European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good/moderate response in RA, and improvement of ≥ 50% in modified Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) (28 swollen/tender joint counts) in PsA. Serum drug concentrations and ADAbs were analysed using automated in-house assays. Results: At inclusion, 42% were biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve and 42% used concomitant synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug. The median golimumab concentration was 2.2 (interquartile range 1.0–3.5) mg/L. The proportions of responders after 3 months among patients with golimumab concentration < 1.0, 1.0–3.9, and ≥ 4.0 mg/L were 19%, 49%, and 74%, respectively. A higher rate of treatment discontinuation was seen in patients with serum golimumab concentration < 1.0 compared to ≥ 1.0 mg/L (hazard ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 1.8–6.0, p < 0.05). ADAbs were detected in 6%, and were associated with lower drug concentrations and both reduced treatment response and drug survival. Conclusions: Golimumab concentrations ≥ 1.0 mg/L were associated with improved treatment response and better drug survival, although some patients may benefit from higher concentrations. This study suggests a rationale for dosing guided by therapeutic drug monitoring in golimumab-treated patients with IJD. The results should be confirmed in larger studies including trough samples, and the efficacy of such a strategy must be examined in randomized controlled trials

Therapeutic drug monitoring of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease: A systematic literature review informing EULAR points to consider

The objectives of this review were to collect and summarise evidence on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and to inform the EULAR Task Force for the formulation of evidence-based points to consider. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed, covering technical aspects and (clinical) utility of TDM, to answer 13 research questions. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched until July 2020. American College of Rheumatology and EULAR abstracts were also considered for inclusion. Data were extracted in evidence tables and risk of bias assessment was performed. For the search on technical aspects, 678 records were identified, of which 22 papers were selected. For the clinical utility search, 3846 records were identified, of which 108 papers were included. Patient-related factors associated with biopharmaceutical blood concentrations included body weight, methotrexate comedication and disease activity. The identification of a target range was hampered by study variability, mainly disease activity measures and study type. Evidence was inconsistent for multiple clinical situations in which TDM is currently applied. However, for some particular scenarios, including prediction of future treatment response, non-response to treatment, tapering and hypersensitivity reactions, robust evidence was found. There is currently no evidence for routine use of proactive TDM, in part because published cost-effectiveness analyses do not incorporate the current landscape of biopharmaceutical costs and usage. This SLR yields evidence in favour of TDM of biopharmaceuticals in some clinical scenarios, but evidence is insufficient to support implementation of routine use of TDM

BAFF predicts immunogenicity in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with TNF inhibitors

Immunogenicity related to treatment with TNF inhibitors (TNFi) is one of the causes for the decreased attainment of clinical response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The B-cell activating factor (BAFF) may be playing a role in the development of immunogenicity. The objective of this study was to analyse the association of baseline concentration of serum B-cell activating factor (BAFF) with immunogenicity after 6 months of TNFi treatment. A total of 127 patients with RA starting a TNFi (infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol or golimumab) were followed-up for 6 months. Serum samples were obtained at baseline and at 6 months and anti-drug antibody (ADA) and BAFF concentrations were measured. Logistic regression models were employed in order to analyse the association between BAFF concentrations and immunogenicity. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to determine the BAFF concentrations with a greater likelihood of showing immunogenicity association. At 6 months, 31 patients (24%) developed ADA. A significant interaction between the age and baseline BAFF concentration was found for the development of ADA (Wald chi-square value = 5.30; p = 0.02); therefore, subsequent results were stratified according to mean age (≤ / > 55 years). Baseline serum BAFF concentration was independently associated with ADA development only in patients over 55 years (OR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.03–2.21). Baseline serum BAFF ≥ 1034 pg/mL predicted the presence of ADA at 6 months (AUC = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69–0.93; p = 0.001; positive likelihood ratio = 3.7). In conclusion, our results suggest that the association of BAFF concentration and immunogenicity depends on the patient’s age. Baseline serum BAFF concentration predicts the presence of ADA within 6 months of TNFi therapy in older patients with RA

EULAR points to consider for therapeutic drug monitoring of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

OBJECTIVE: To develop EULAR points-to-consider for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: The points-to-consider were developed in accordance with EULAR standardised operation procedures by a multidisciplinary task force from eight European countries, based on a systematic literature review and expert consensus. Level of evidence and strength of the points-to-consider were determined, and mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated using a 10-point rating scale. RESULTS: Six overarching principles and 13 points-to-consider were formulated. The level of agreement among the task force for the overarching principles and points-to-consider ranged from 8.4 to 9.9.The overarching principles define TDM and its subtypes, and reinforce the underlying pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic principles, which are relevant to all biopharmaceutical classes. The points-to-consider highlight the clinical utility of the measurement and interpretation of biopharmaceutical blood concentrations and antidrug antibodies in specific clinical scenarios, including factors that influence these parameters. In general, proactive use of TDM is not recommended but reactive TDM could be considered in certain clinical situations. An important factor limiting wider adoption of TDM is the lack of both high quality trials addressing effectiveness and safety of TDM and robust economic evaluation in patients with RMDs. Future research should focus on providing this evidence, as well as on further understanding of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of biopharmaceuticals. CONCLUSION: These points-to-consider are evidence-based and consensus-based statements for the use of TDM of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory RMDs, addressing the clinical utility of TDM

EULAR points to consider for therapeutic drug monitoring of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

Objective To develop EULAR points-to-consider for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Methods The points-to-consider were developed in accordance with EULAR standardised operation procedures by a multidisciplinary task force from eight European countries, based on a systematic literature review and expert consensus. Level of evidence and strength of the points-to-consider were determined, and mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated using a 10-point rating scale. Results Six overarching principles and 13 points-to-consider were formulated. The level of agreement among the task force for the overarching principles and points-to-consider ranged from 8.4 to 9.9.The overarching principles define TDM and its subtypes, and reinforce the underlying pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic principles, which are relevant to all biopharmaceutical classes. The points-to-consider highlight the clinical utility of the measurement and interpretation of biopharmaceutical blood concentrations and antidrug antibodies in specific clinical scenarios, including factors that influence these parameters. In general, proactive use of TDM is not recommended but reactive TDM could be considered in certain clinical situations. An important factor limiting wider adoption of TDM is the lack of both high quality trials addressing effectiveness and safety of TDM and robust economic evaluation in patients with RMDs. Future research should focus on providing this evidence, as well as on further understanding of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of biopharmaceuticals. Conclusion These points-to-consider are evidence-based and consensus-based statements for the use of TDM of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory RMDs, addressing the clinical utility of TDM