Early start and stop of biologics: has the time come?

Despite considerable advances in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, results are still not satisfactory for all patients. The treatment goal in rheumatoid arthritis is remission, and there currently are numerous conventional and biological medications available to reach this aim. There are also different treatment strategies but with only limited comparative evidence about their efficacies. More patients now achieve remission while on treatment, but it remains elusive in the majority of patients. Treatment-free remission, the ultimate goal of therapy, is only achieved in very few patients; even when this happens, it is most likely due to the natural course of the disease rather than to any specific therapies. Modern treatment is based on the initiation of aggressive therapy as soon as the diagnosis is established, and on modifying or intensifying therapy guided by frequent assessment of disease activity. In this commentary we will discuss the current treatment paradigm as well as the possibility of an induction-maintenance regimen with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in early rheumatoid arthriti

What is the future of targeted therapy in rheumatology: biologics or small molecules?

Background: Until late in the 20th century, the therapy of rheumatic diseases relied on the use of drugs that had been developed through empirical approaches without detailed understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved. That approach changed with the introduction of biologic therapeutics at the end of the 20th century and by the recent development of small-molecule inhibitors of intracellular signal transduction pathways. Here we compare and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of those two groups of targeted anti-inflammatory therapeutics.Discussion: TNF-blocking biologic agents were introduced into the therapy of rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune and inflammatory diseases in the late 1990s. Further biologic agents targeting cytokine networks or specific lymphocyte subsets have since been added to the armamentarium of anti-rheumatic therapy. During the last few years, another wave of novel discoveries led to the development of a new class of small molecule anti-inflammatory compounds targeting intracellular signal transduction molecules, such as tyrosine kinases. In all those cases, the specific targets of the drugs are well defined and significant knowledge about their role in the disease pathomechanism is available, qualifying them for being targeted therapeutics for inflammatory rheumatic diseases. While both groups of targeted therapeutics offer significant clinical benefit, they clearly differ in several aspects, such as the localization of their targets, their route of administration and target specificity, as well as technical details such as manufacturing procedures and cost basis. In this debate paper, we compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two different approaches, aiming to shed light on the possible future of targeted therapies.Summary: Biologic therapeutics and small-molecule inhibitors both have significant advantages and disadvantages in the therapy of rheumatic diseases. The future of targeted therapies is one of the most exciting questions of current rheumatology research and therapy. © 2014 Mócsai et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Achieving comprehensive disease control in patients with early and established rheumatoid arthritis treated with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone

Objective: To evaluate the achievement of comprehensive disease control (CDC) following 1 year of treatment with adalimumab+methotrexate versus methotrexate alone and whether early achievement of remission (at week 24 or 26) is associated with CDC at week 52 in patients with either early or established rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Post hoc analyses were conducted in three clinical studies assessing treatment with adalimumab+methotrexate: DE019 (NCT00195702) enrolled patients with established RA who were methotrexate inadequate responders; OPTIMA (NCT00420927) and PREMIER (NCT00195663) enrolled methotrexate-naive patients with early RA. In OPTIMA, patients not achieving stable low disease activity at weeks 22 and 26 in the placebo+methotrexate group could receive open-label adalimumab+methotrexate for 52 weeks (Rescue ADA arm). CDC was defined as the simultaneous achievement of clinical remission (DAS28(CRP)<2.6), normal function (HAQ-DI<0.5) and absence of radiographic progression (ΔmTSS≤0.5). Results: Regardless of disease duration, significantly more patients receiving adalimumab+methotrexate achieved CDC compared with methotrexate alone. In the adalimumab+methotrexate group, a numerically greater proportion of patients with early RA (~25%) versus established RA (14%) achieved CDC at 1 year; achievement of CDC was notably greater among patients who met criteria for remission at week 24 or 26 (~50% of patients with early RA and 39% with established RA). Conclusion: Treatment with adalimumab+methotrexate increases the likelihood of achieving CDC in patients with either early or established RA. Clinical remission at week 24 or 26 is associated with achievement of CDC at week 52

Sex differences in rheumatoid arthritis: more than meets the eye...

Sex differences in the prevalence of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are well described, but the literature is not as clear about sex differences in RA disease course and prognosis. A recent study from a very large cross-sectional international cohort demonstrated slightly worse levels of disease activity and function in female patients with RA, compared with men. These findings are discussed in the context of our evolving knowledge of sex differences in the expression of this prototypic autoimmune disease, both in terms of the actual disease activity level, the effects that the disease has on physical function, and our ability accurately to measure these aspects

Access to the next wave of biologic therapies (Abatacept and Tocilizumab) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in England and Wales: Addressing treatment outside the current NICE guidance

Patients in England and Wales with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receive treatment from the National Health Service (NHS) with therapies approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), under guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). This document overviews the current NICE guidelines for the treatment of RA and identifies scenarios when such guidance may not represent the optimum management strategy for individual patients. Specifically, we consider the use of tocilizumab or abatacept as the most appropriate treatments for some patients. In such scenarios, it may be possible for the clinician to secure access to the required therapy through an application procedure known as an ‘individual funding request’, the process of which is described in detail here. At present, it is unclear the extent to which the proposed reform of the NHS will affect the role of NICE in providing guidance and setting standards of care. Until the full impact of the proposed changes are realized, individual funding requests will remain a valuable way of securing the optimal treatment for all patients suffering from RA

An open-label pilot study of the effectiveness of adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and previous infliximab treatment: relationship to reasons for failure and anti-infliximab antibody status

This prospective open-label pilot study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of adalimumab and the relationship to antibodies against infliximab (IFX) in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had been treated previously with IFX and experienced treatment failure owing to lack or loss of response or intolerance. Patients self-administered adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week for 16 weeks, followed by maintenance therapy for up to Week 56. Measures of effectiveness included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, 28-joint Disease Activity Score, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index. Serum IFX concentrations, human antichimeric antibody against IFX (HACA), adalimumab serum concentrations, antiadalimumab antibody, and safety also were assessed. Of the 41 enrolled patients, 37 completed 16 weeks and 30 completed 56 weeks of treatment. Patients experienced clinically meaningful improvements in all measures of RA activity, with greater response rates observed for patients who had experienced loss of initial response to or intolerance of IFX. At Week 16, 46% of patients achieved an ACR20 and 28% achieved an ACR50; 61% achieved an at least moderate and 17% achieved a good EULAR response. Clinical benefit was maintained through Week 56 in all effectiveness parameters. Baseline HACA status did not significantly impact effectiveness. No new safety signals were observed; neither former IFX intolerance status nor baseline HACA status had a clinically relevant impact on adverse event frequency or severity. Adalimumab was effective and well-tolerated in patients with RA who previously failed IFX therapy, irrespective of reason for discontinuation and of HACA status

IgG4-related diseases: state of the art on clinical practice guidelines

Immunoglobulin G4-related diseases (IgG4-RD) are a group of chronic relapsing-remitting inflammatory conditions, characterised by tissue infiltration with lymphocytes and IgG4-secreting plasma cells, fibrosis and a usually favourable response to steroids. In this narrative review, we summarise the results of a systematic literature research, which was performed as part of the European Reference Network ReCONNET, aimed at evaluating existing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations in IgG4-RD. From 167 publications initially obtained from a systematic literature search, only one was identified as a systematic multispecialist, evidence-based, consensus guidance statement on diagnosis and treatment of IgG4-RD, which may be recommended for use as CPG in IgG4-RD. With the recognition of a limited evidence based in this increasingly recognised disease, the group discussion has identified the following unmet needs: lack of shared classification criteria, absence of formal guidelines on diagnosis, no evidence-based therapeutic recommendations and lack of activity and damage indices. Areas of unmet needs include the difficulties in diagnosis, management and monitoring and the scarcity of expert centre

Biologics registers in RA: methodological aspects, current role and future applications

The beginning of the 21st century saw a biopharmaceutical revolution in the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, particularly rheumatoid arthritis. The fast-evolving use of biologic therapies highlighted the need to develop registers at national and international levels with the aim of collecting long-term data on patient outcomes. Over the past 15 years, many biologics registers have contributed a wealth of data and provided robust and reliable evidence on the use, effectiveness and safety of these therapies. The unavoidable challenges posed by the continuous introduction of new therapies, particularly with regard to understanding their long-term safety, highlights the importance of learning from experience with established biologic therapies. In this Perspectives article, the role of biologics registers in bridging the evidence gap between efficacy in clinical trials and real-world effectiveness is discussed, with a focus on methodological aspects of registers, their unique features and challenges and their role going forward