Dataset Information

Evaluating the efficacy of sequential biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor-? inhibitors.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The long-term treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) most often involves a sequence of different therapies. The response to therapy, disease progression and detailed knowledge of the role of different therapies along treatment pathways are key aspects to help physicians identify the best treatment strategy. Thus, understanding the effectiveness of different therapeutic sequences is of particular importance in the evaluation of long-term RA treatment strategies. The objective of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively evaluate the relationship between the clinical response to biologic treatments and the number of previous treatments with tumor necrosis factor ? (TNF-?) inhibitors.

Methods

A systematic search was undertaken to identify published, peer-reviewed articles that reported clinical outcomes of biologic treatment among RA patients with an inadequate response to TNF-? inhibitors. Data were systematically abstracted. Efficacy rates were estimated for groups of patients who differed in the number of prior TNF-? inhibitors used. End points included American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-, European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)- and Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28)-based response criteria.

Results

The literature search identified 41 publications, of which 28 reported biologic treatment outcomes for RA patients with prior exposure to TNF-? inhibitors. Seven publications reported outcomes obtained in randomized clinical trials, while the remaining consisted of observational studies. The likelihood of responding to a subsequent biologic treatment decreased as the number of previous treatments with TNF-? inhibitors increased for six of the seven response criteria examined.

Conclusions

For patients with prior exposure to TNF-? inhibitors, the likelihood of response to subsequent treatment with biologic agents declines with the increasing number of previous treatments with TNF-? inhibitors.

SUBMITTER: Rendas-Baum R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3241369 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating the efficacy of sequential biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors.

Rendas-Baum Regina R Wallenstein Gene V GV Koncz Tamas T Kosinski Mark M Yang Min M Bradley John J Zwillich Samuel H SH

Arthritis research & therapy 20110216 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>The long-term treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) most often involves a sequence of different therapies. The response to therapy, disease progression and detailed knowledge of the role of different therapies along treatment pathways are key aspects to help physicians identify the best treatment strategy. Thus, understanding the effectiveness of different therapeutic sequences is of particular importance in the evaluation of long-term RA treatment strategies. The objective ...[more]

PMID: 21324169

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systematic autoimmune disease, predominantly causing chronic polyarticular inflammation and joint injury of patients. For the treatment of RA, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have been used to reduce inflammation and to interfere with disease progression through targeting and mediating the immune system. Although the therapeutic effects of bDMARDs in RA patients have been widely reported, whether these drugs also play important roles in T-cell repertoire status is still unclear. We therefore designed the study to identify the role of T-cell repertoire profiles in RA patients with different types of bDMARD treatments. A high-throughput sequencing approach was applied to profile the T-cell receptor beta chain (TCRB) repertoire of circulating T lymphocytes in eight patients given adalimumab (anti-TNF-α) with/without the following use of either rituximab (anti-CD20) or tocilizumab (anti-IL6R). We subsequently analyzed discrepancies in the clonal diversity and CDR3 length distribution as well as usages of the V and J genes of TCRB repertoire and interrogated the association between repertoire diversity and disease activities followed by the treatment of bDMARDs in these RA patients. All groups of patients showed well-controlled DAS28 scores (<2.6) after different treatment regimens of drugs and displayed no significant statistical differences in repertoire diversity, distribution of CDR3 lengths, and usage of V and J genes of TCRB. Nonetheless, a trend between overall TCRB repertoire diversity and disease activity scores in all bDMARD-treated RA patients was observed. Additionally, age was found to be associated with repertoire diversity in RA patients treated with bDMARDs. Through the profiling of the TCR repertoire in RA patients receiving different biologic medications, our study indicated an inverse tendency between TCR repertoire diversity and disease activity after biologic treatment in RA patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe implementation of treat-to-target principles in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has not been fully investigated in patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor treatment.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prevalence of an inadequate response to initial TNF inhibitor treatment at 6 and 12 months among patients with RA in a real-world patient registry, as well as the delay in therapy adjustment and its impact on disease activity and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures.MethodsThis analysis is based on data of patients with moderate or severe disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score >10) who were included in the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (Corrona) RA registry, a prospective, observational database. The patients had never received treatment with a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and had initiated treatment with a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between October 2001 and December 2014. We evaluated treatment response (CDAI score ≤10), select PRO measures, and treatment changes at 6 months. Patients who had an inadequate response to TNF inhibitor therapy at 6 months and continued to use their initial TNF inhibitor were evaluated again at 12 months.ResultsThis retrospective analysis included 2282 patients. At 6 months, 1732 (75.9%) of the patients continued to use their initial TNF inhibitor; of these, 803 (46.4%) patients had an inadequate response to treatment. Of the 803 patients who had an inadequate response at 6 months, 488 (60.8%) continued their initial treatment at 12 months. Of these 488 patients, 315 (64.5%) had an inadequate response at 12 months, and 173 (35.5%) had a response. Numerically greater improvements in all PRO measures were observed for patients who responded to therapy compared with patients with an inadequate response.ConclusionsIn this real-world analysis of data from the Corrona RA registry, a considerable proportion of patients with RA had an inadequate response to the initial TNF inhibitor therapy at 6 and 12 months. Many patients continued to have moderate or high disease activity, without accelerating treatment (eg, addition or increase in the dose of concurrent conventional synthetic DMARDs or a TNF inhibitor), contrary to treat-to-target principles, thus remaining at risk for accumulating joint damage and disability.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of sarilumab plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with active moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response or intolerance to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy.MethodsPatients were randomly allocated to receive sarilumab 150 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks for 24 weeks with background conventional synthetic DMARDs. The co-primary end points were the proportion of patients achieving a response according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20) at week 24, and change from baseline in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ DI) at week 12. Each sarilumab dose was evaluated against placebo; differences between the 2 sarilumab doses were not assessed.ResultsThe baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were similar. The ACR20 response rate at week 24 was significantly higher with sarilumab 150 mg and sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks compared with placebo (55.8%, 60.9%, and 33.7%, respectively; P < 0.0001). The mean change from baseline in the HAQ DI score at week 12 was significantly greater for sarilumab (least squares mean change: for 150 mg, -0.46 [P = 0.0007]; for 200 mg, -0.47 [P = 0.0004]) versus placebo (-0.26). Infections were the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Serious infections occurred in 1.1%, 0.6%, and 1.1% of patients receiving placebo, sarilumab 150 mg, and sarilumab 200 mg, respectively. Laboratory abnormalities included decreased absolute neutrophil count and increased transaminase levels in both sarilumab groups compared with placebo. In this study, reductions in the absolute neutrophil count were not associated with an increased incidence of infections or serious infections.ConclusionSarilumab 150 mg and sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic DMARDs improved the signs and symptoms of RA and physical function in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to anti-TNF agents. Safety data were consistent with interleukin-6 receptor blockade and the known safety profile of sarilumab.

Project description:IntroductionThe PrismRA® test identifies rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who are unlikely to respond to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies. This study evaluated the clinical and financial outcomes of incorporating PrismRA into routine clinical care of RA patients.MethodsA decision-analytic model was created to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes in the 12-month period following first biologic treatment. Two treatment strategies were compared: (1) observed clinical decision-making based on a 175-patient cohort receiving an anti-TNF therapy as their first biologic after failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and (2) modeled clinical decision-making of the same population using PrismRA results to inform first-line biologic treatment choice. Modeled costs include biologic drug pharmacy, non-biologic pharmacy, and total medical costs. The odds of inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies and various components of patient care were calculated based on PrismRA results.ResultsIdentifying predicted inadequate responders to anti-TNF therapies resulted in a modeled 38% increase in ACR50 response to first-line biologic therapies. The fraction of patients who achieved an ACR50 response to any therapy (TNFi and others) within the 12-month period was 33% higher in the PrismRA-stratified population than in the unstratified population (59 vs. 44%, respectively). When therapy prescriptions were modeled according to PrismRA results, cost savings were modeled for all financial variables: overall costs (4% decreased total, 19% decreased on ineffective treatments), total biologic drug pharmacy (4% total, 23% ineffective), non-biologic pharmacy (2% total, 19% ineffective), and medical costs (6% total, 19% ineffective). Female sex was the clinical metric that showed the greatest association with inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies (odds ratio 2.42, 95% confidence interval 1.20, 4.88).ConclusionsIf PrismRA is implemented into routine clinical care as modeled, predicting which RA patients will have an inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies could save > $7 million in overall ineffective healthcare costs per 1000 patients tested and increase targeted DMARD response rates in RA.

Project description:IntroductionFor patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), main options include cycling onto a different TNFi or switching to a biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug with a different mechanism of action (MOA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed comparative clinical efficacy of cycling versus switching.MethodsWe conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Outcomes included proportion of patients with 20%, 50%, or 70% response to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 response), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) score below 2.6 or between 2.6 and 3.2, mean change in DAS28 score, mean reduction in and proportion of patients achieving a clinically meaningful reduction (⩾0.22) in Health Assessment Questionnaire score, number of serious adverse events (AEs), and withdrawals for any reason/due to AEs/lack of treatment efficacy. To account for the wide range of study populations and designs, we developed three models to conduct the NMA: fixed-effect, random-effects, and hierarchical Bayesian. PROSPERO ID: CRD42019122993.ResultsWe identified nine randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies. The fixed-effect model suggested a 0.99 probability that switch was the better strategy for increasing odds of a clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 [odds ratio (OR): 1.35 (95% credible interval (CI): 0.96-1.81)]. The fixed-effect model also suggested that switch was associated with lower rates of withdrawal for any reasons [OR: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40-0.68)]. The random-effects and hierarchical Bayesian models suggested additional uncertainty as they considered more variability than the fixed-effect model.DiscussionResults suggest that switching to a drug with a different MOA is more effective and associated with lower rates of withdrawal than cycling to a different TNFi after failure of first-line TNFi. Further trials that directly compare cycling with switching are warranted to better assess comparative efficacy.Plain language summaryAssessment of the effectiveness of different drug treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of the published literature Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease in which inflammation affects joints along with the entire body; this may cause significant pain, joint damage, physical disability, a decreased quality of life, and an increased risk of death.Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) are a common choice as first-line drugs to treat RA. Although they are effective in many patients, therapy with a TNFi is not successful within the first year of treatment in approximately one-third of patients due to either a lack of efficacy or safety issues.When TNFi therapy is unsuccessful, the options are to "cycle" to another TNFi or to "switch" to another drug with a different mechanism of action (MOA). Further studies are needed to help doctors decide the best treatment strategy for their patients when treatment with an initial TNFi fails.This study analyzed 25 published studies in which patients were either "cycled" to another TNFi or "switched" to a drug with a different MOA after unsuccessful treatment with an initial TNFi.The results showed that "switching" to a drug with a different MOA was a better treatment strategy than "cycling" to another TNFi; "switching" increased the chance of clinically meaningful improvement in disease status and lowered the chance of having to stop treatment for any reason.