Response to Biologic Drugs in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Antidrug Antibodies

Importance: There are conflicting data on the association of antidrug antibodies with response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Objective: To analyze the association of antidrug antibodies with response to treatment for RA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed data from the ABI-RA (Anti-Biopharmaceutical Immunization: Prediction and Analysis of Clinical Relevance to Minimize the Risk of Immunization in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients) multicentric, open, prospective study of patients with RA from 27 recruiting centers in 4 European countries (France, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK). Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had RA diagnosis, and were initiating a new bDMARD. Recruitment spanned from March 3, 2014, to June 21, 2016. The study was completed in June 2018, and data were analyzed in June 2022. Exposures: Patients were treated with a new bDMARD: adalimumab, infliximab (grouped as anti-tumor necrosis factor [TNF] monoclonal antibodies [mAbs]), etanercept, tocilizumab, and rituximab according to the choice of the treating physician. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the association of antidrug antibody positivity with EULAR (European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology; formerly, European League Against Rheumatism) response to treatment at month 12 assessed through univariate logistic regression. The secondary end points were the EULAR response at month 6 and at visits from month 6 to months 15 to 18 using generalized estimating equation models. Detection of antidrug antibody serum levels was performed at months 1, 3, 6, 12, and 15 to 18 using electrochemiluminescence (Meso Scale Discovery) and drug concentration for anti-TNF mAbs, and etanercept in the serum was measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results: Of the 254 patients recruited, 230 (mean [SD] age, 54.3 [13.7] years; 177 females [77.0%]) were analyzed. At month 12, antidrug antibody positivity was 38.2% in patients who were treated with anti-TNF mAbs, 6.1% with etanercept, 50.0% with rituximab, and 20.0% with tocilizumab. There was an inverse association between antidrug antibody positivity (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.38; P <.001) directed against all biologic drugs and EULAR response at month 12. Analyzing all the visits starting at month 6 using generalized estimating equation models confirmed the inverse association between antidrug antibody positivity and EULAR response (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18-0.65; P <.001). A similar association was found for tocilizumab alone (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.83; P =.03). In the multivariable analysis, antidrug antibodies, body mass index, and rheumatoid factor were independently inversely associated with response to treatment. There was a significantly higher drug concentration of anti-TNF mAbs in patients with antidrug antibody-negative vs antidrug antibody-positive status (mean difference, -9.6 [95% CI, -12.4 to -6.9] mg/L; P < 001). Drug concentrations of etanercept (mean difference, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.2-1.2] mg/L; P =.005) and adalimumab (mean difference, 1.8 [95% CI, 0.4-3.2] mg/L; P =.01) were lower in nonresponders vs responders. Methotrexate comedication at baseline was inversely associated with antidrug antibodies (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.25-1.00; P =.05). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this prospective cohort study suggest an association between antidrug antibodies and nonresponse to bDMARDs in patients with RA. Monitoring antidrug antibodies could be considered in the treatment of these patients, particularly nonresponders to biologic RA drugs

Bone mass in schizophrenia and normal populations across different decades of life

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chronic schizophrenic patients have been reported as having higher osteoporosis prevalence. Survey the bone mass among schizophrenic patients and compare with that of the local community population and reported data of the same country to figure out the distribution of bone mass among schizophrenic patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>965 schizophrenic patients aged 20 years and over in Yuli Veterans Hospital and 405 members aged 20 and over of the community living in the same town as the institute received bone mass examination by a heel qualitative ultrasound (QUS) device. Bone mass distribution was stratified to analyzed and compared with community population.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Schizophrenic patients have lower bone mass while they are young. But aging effect on bone mass cannot be seen. Accelerated bone mass loss during menopausal transition was not observed in the female schizophrenic patients as in the subjects of the community female population.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Schizophrenic patients have lower bone mass than community population since they are young. Further study to investigate the pathophysiological process is necessary to delay or avoid the lower bone mass in schizophrenia patients.</p

Response to biologic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and antidrug antibodies

IMPORTANCE There are conflicting data on the association of antidrug antibodies with response tobiologic disease–modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).OBJECTIVE To analyze the association of antidrug antibodies with response to treatment for RA.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study analyzed data from the ABI-RA (Anti-Biopharmaceutical Immunization: Prediction and Analysis of Clinical Relevance to Minimize the Riskof Immunization in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients) multicentric, open, prospective study of patientswith RA from 27 recruiting centers in 4 European countries (France, Italy, the Netherlands, and theUK). Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had RA diagnosis, and were initiating a new bDMARD.Recruitment spanned from March 3, 2014, to June 21, 2016. The study was completed in June 2018,and data were analyzed in June 2022.EXPOSURES Patients were treated with a new bDMARD: adalimumab, infliximab (grouped as anti–tumor necrosis factor [TNF] monoclonal antibodies [mAbs]), etanercept, tocilizumab, and rituximabaccording to the choice of the treating physician.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the association of antidrug antibodypositivity with EULAR (European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology; formerly, EuropeanLeague Against Rheumatism) response to treatment at month 12 assessed through univariate logisticregression. The secondary end points were the EULAR response at month 6 and at visits from month6 to months 15 to 18 using generalized estimating equation models. Detection of antidrug antibodyserum levels was performed at months 1, 3, 6, 12, and 15 to 18 using electrochemiluminescence (MesoScale Discovery) and drug concentration for anti-TNF mAbs, and etanercept in the serum wasmeasured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.RESULTS Of the 254 patients recruited, 230 (mean [SD] age, 54.3 [13.7] years; 177 females [77.0%])were analyzed. At month 12, antidrug antibody positivity was 38.2% in patients who were treatedwith anti-TNF mAbs, 6.1% with etanercept, 50.0% with rituximab, and 20.0% with tocilizumab.There was an inverse association between antidrug antibody positivity (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI,0.09-0.38; P all the visits starting at month 6 using generalized estimating equation models confirmed the inverseassociation between antidrug antibody positivity and EULAR response (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18-0.65;P P = .03). In the multivariable analysis, antidrug antibodies, body mass index, and rheumatoid factorwere independently inversely associated with response to treatment. There was a significantly higher drug concentration of anti-TNF mAbs in patients with antidrug antibody–negative vs antidrugantibody–positive status (mean difference, −9.6 [95% CI, −12.4 to −6.9] mg/L; P concentrations of etanercept (mean difference, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.2-1.2] mg/L; P = .005) andadalimumab (mean difference, 1.8 [95% CI, 0.4-3.2] mg/L; P = .01) were lower in nonresponders vsresponders. Methotrexate comedication at baseline was inversely associated with antidrugantibodies (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.25-1.00; P = .05).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this prospective cohort study suggest an associationbetween antidrug antibodies and nonresponse to bDMARDs in patients with RA. Monitoring antidrugantibodies could be considered in the treatment of these patients, particularly nonresponders tobiologic RA drugs.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

Effect of Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection in Acute and Subacute Pain Due to Lumbar Disk Herniation: A Randomized Comparison of 2 Different Protocols

In order to assess the efficacy of epidural steroid injections (ESI) in acute and subacute pain due to lumbar spine disk herniation, we conducted a randomized trial, comparing 2 different protocols. Fourty patients with radicular pain due to L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc herniation were assigned to receive either 3 consecutive ESI every 24 hours through a spinal catheter (group A) or 3 consecutive ESI every 10 days with an epidural needle (group B). All patients had improved Oswestry Disabilty Index (ODI) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain scores at 1 month of follow-up compared to baseline, while no significant differences were observed between the 2 groups. The scores for group B were statistically significant lower at 2 months of follow-up compared to those of group A. The improvement in the scores of group B was continuous since the mean scores at 2 months of follow up were lower compared to the respective scores at 1 month. Protocol B (3 consecutive ESI every 10 days) was found more effective in the treatment of subacute pain compared to Protocol A (3 consecutive ESI every 24 hours) with statistically significant differences in the ODI and VAS scores at 2 months of follow-up

Standardizing terms, definitions and concepts for describing and interpreting unwanted immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals: Recommendations of the innovative medicines initiative ABIRISK consortium

Biopharmaceuticals (BPs) represent a rapidly growing class of approved and investigational drug therapies that is contributing significantly to advancing treatment in multiple disease areas, including inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, genetic deficiencies, and cancer. Unfortunately, unwanted immunogenic responses to BPs, in particular those affecting clinical safety or efficacy, remain among the most common negative effects associated with this important class of drugs. To manage and reduce risk of unwanted immunogenicity, diverse communities of clinicians, pharmaceutical industry, and academic scientists are involved in: interpretation and management of clinical and biological outcomes of BP immunogenicity, improvement of methods for describing, predicting and mitigating immunogenicity risk, and elucidation of underlying causes. Collaboration and alignment of efforts across these communities is made difficult due to lack of agreement on concepts, practices, and standardized terms and definitions related to immunogenicity. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI; www.imi-europe.org), ABIRISK consortium (Anti-Biopharmaceutical [BP] Immunization Prediction and Clinical Relevance to Reduce the Risk; www.abirisk.eu), was formed by leading clinicians, academic scientists, and EFPIA (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations) members to elucidate underlying causes, improve methods for immunogenicity prediction and mitigation, and establish common definitions around terms and concepts related to immunogenicity. These efforts are expected to facilitate broader collaborations and lead to new guidelines for managing immunogenicity. To support alignment, an overview of concepts behind the set of key terms and definitions adopted to date by ABIRISK is provided herein along with a link to access and download the ABIRISK terms and definitions and provide comments (http://www.abirisk.eu/index_t_and_d.asp). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Radiculopathy associated with disc herniation

Should we treat it with anti‐TNFα agents or is TNFα only one piece of the puzzle