The effect of immunomodulators on the immunogenicity of TNF-blocking therapeutic monoclonal antibodies: a review

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies have revolutionized the treatment of various inflammatory diseases. Immunogenicity against these antibodies has been shown to be clinically important: it is associated with shorter response duration because of diminishing concentrations in the blood and with infusion reactions. Concomitant immunomodulators in the form of methotrexate or azathioprine reduced the immunogenicity of therapeutic antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn disease, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. The occurrence of adverse events does not increase when immunomodulators are added to therapeutic antibodies. The mechanism whereby methotrexate and azathioprine influence immunogenicity remains unclear. Evidence-based consensus on prescribing concomitant immunomodulators is needed

Long-Term Treatment With TNF-Alpha Inhibitors Improves Bone Mineral Density But Not Vertebral Fracture Progression in Ankylosing Spondylitis

The aim of this cohort study was to evaluate the long-term effects of TNF inhibitors (TNFis) on BMD and the incidence of vertebral fractures (VFxs) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Consecutive patients with active AS with TNFi treatment duration up to 4 years with available DXA scans and spine X-rays were included. BMD (classified according to the WHO criteria for osteoporosis) of the hip and lumbar spine, the VFx (classified as a Genant score >1/>20% height loss), and radiological progression (modified stoke ankylosing spondylitis spinal score [mSASSS]) scores were obtained at baseline and at 4 years of TNFi treatment. Overall, 135 AS patients were included. At baseline, 40.1% of patients had low BMD of the hip and 40.2% of the lumbar spine. This decreased to 38.1% (p = 0.03) with low hip BMD and 25.3% (p < 0.001) of the lumbar spine BMD after 4 years of TNFi treatment. VFxs were present at baseline in 11.1% of the 131 patients, which increased to 19.6% after 4 years of TNFi treatment. A Genant score ≥2, was found at baseline in 3 out of 14 VFx (21.4%) patients, which increased to 7 out of 27 VFx (25.9%) patients after 4 years. All disease activity parameters—the ankylosing spondylitis disease activity scale, the C-reactive protein, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and the bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index—decreased significantly (p < 0.001). The mean radiological progression (n = 80) increased significantly from a median mSASSS of 4.0 (1.5 to 16.0) at baseline to 6.5 (2.1 to 22.9) after 4 years of TNFi treatment (p < 0.001). Despite the improvement in BMD and the decrease in disease activity, we still found new VFxs, an increase in severity in the number and grade of VFxs, and radiographic progression during 4 years of treatment with TNFis in AS patients with long disease duration. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

Fracture risk reduction and safety by osteoporosis treatment compared with placebo or active comparator in postmenopausal women: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE: To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women, and to characterise the effect of antiosteoporosis drug treatments on the risk of fractures according to baseline risk factors. DESIGN: Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials published between 1 January 1996 and 24 November 2021 that examined the effect of bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo or active comparator. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials that included non-Asian postmenopausal women with no restriction on age, when interventions looked at bone quality in a broad perspective. The primary outcome was clinical fractures. Secondary outcomes were vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures, all cause mortality, adverse events, and serious cardiovascular adverse events. RESULTS: The results were based on 69 trials (>80 000 patients). For clinical fractures, synthesis of the results showed a protective effect of bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo. Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, bisphosphonates were less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.00). Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab, denosumab was less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.85, 1.18 to 2.92 for denosumab v parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and 1.56, 1.02 to 2.39 for denosumab v romosozumab). An effect of all treatments on vertebral fractures compared with placebo was found. In the active treatment comparisons, denosumab, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab were more effective than oral bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures. The effect of all treatments was unaffected by baseline risk indicators, except for antiresorptive treatments that showed a greater reduction of clinical fractures compared with placebo with increasing mean age (number of studies=17; β=0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99). No harm outcomes were seen. The certainty in the effect estimates was moderate to low for all individual outcomes, mainly because of limitations in reporting, nominally indicating a serious risk of bias and imprecision. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicated a benefit of a range of treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women for clinical and vertebral fractures. Bone anabolic treatments were more effective than bisphosphonates in the prevention of clinical and vertebral fractures, irrespective of baseline risk indicators. Hence this analysis provided no clinical evidence for restricting the use of anabolic treatment to patients with a very high risk of fractures. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019128391