Occurrence of Serious Infection in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Biologics and Denosumab Observed in a Clinical Setting.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies combining biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have shown an increased risk of infection. However, the risk of infection with concurrent use of denosumab, a biologic agent for the treatment of osteoporosis, and a bDMARD remains unclear. Here, we evaluated the incidence of serious and opportunistic infections in patients treated concurrently with denosumab and a bDMARD and patients treated with a bDMARD alone. METHODS: A chart review of patients with RA from 2 Canadian rheumatology practices between July 1, 2010, and July 31, 2014, identified 2 groups of patients: those taking denosumab and a bDMARD concurrently (concurrent group) and those taking only a bDMARD (biologic-alone group). Patients were followed from the time of initiation of denosumab, or a matched index date for the biologic-alone group, to the end of the study or loss to followup. Instances of serious or opportunistic infections were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients (n = 102 for the concurrent group and n = 206 for the biologic-alone group) were evaluated. Within the concurrent group, 3 serious infection events occurred. Within the biologic-alone group, 4 serious infection events and 1 opportunistic infection event occurred. In both groups, all patients with serious or opportunistic infection recovered, and there were no instances of death during the study period. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a low occurrence of serious and opportunistic infections in patients with RA taking bDMARD, including patients with concurrent denosumab use.

Biologic Treatment Registry Across Canada (BioTRAC): a multicentre, prospective, observational study of patients treated with infliximab for ankylosing spondylitis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the profile of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treated with infliximab in Canadian routine care and to assess the effectiveness and safety of infliximab in real world. SETTING: 46 primary care rheumatology practices across Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 303 biological-naïve patients with AS or patients previously treated with a biological for <6 months and who were eligible for infliximab treatment as per routine care within the Biologic Treatment Registry Across Canada (BioTRAC). INTERVENTION: Not applicable (non-interventional study). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Effectiveness was assessed with changes in disease parameters (AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disease Index (HAQ-DI), physician global assessment of disease activity (MDGA), patient global disease activity (PtGA), back pain, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), morning stiffness). Safety was assessed with the incidence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Of the 303 patients included, 44.6% were enrolled in 2005-2007 and 55.4% in 2008-2013. Patients enrolled in 2005-2007 had significantly higher MDGA and ESR at baseline while all other disease parameters examined were numerically higher with the exception of PtGA. Treatment with infliximab significantly (p<0.001) improved all disease parameters over time in both groups. At 6 months, 56% and 31% of patients achieved clinically important (change≥1.1) and major (change≥2.0) improvement in ASDAS, respectively; at 48 months, these proportions increased to 75% and 50%, respectively. Among patients unemployed due to disability at baseline, 12.1% returned to work (mean Kaplan-Meier (KM)-based time=38.8 months). The estimated retention rate at 12 and 24 months was 78.3% and 60.1%, respectively. The profile and incidence of AEs were comparable to data previously reported for tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of patients with AS at infliximab initiation changed over time towards lower disease activity and shorter disease duration. Infliximab treatment significantly reduced disease activity independent of treatment initiation year, although patients enrolled in recent years achieved lower disease activity over 48 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00741793.

Efficacy and prognostic factors of treatment retention with intravenous abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: 24-month results from an international, prospective, real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate retention of abatacept over 24 months in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in routine clinical practice across Europe and Canada. METHODS: ACTION (AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice) was a prospective, observational, multicentre study of adult patients with moderate-to-severe RA who, at their physician's discretion, initiated treatment with intravenous abatacept. Enrolment occurred from May 2008 to December 2010, with up to 30 months of follow-up. The primary endpoint was the abatacept retention rate over 24 months. Crude abatacept retention rate was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic factors of abatacept retention in patients with ≥1 prior biologic failure were derived from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, accounting for clustered data. RESULTS: A total of 1137 patients were enrolled (1573 patient-years on abatacept); most (89.2%) had experienced prior biologic failure. The overall crude abatacept retention rate at 24 months was 54.4% (95% confidence interval: 51.3, 57.4). Positivity for both rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated antibody, previous exposure to one or no anti-tumour necrosis factor agents, and cardiovascular comorbidity were prognostic of higher abatacept retention. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≥51 mm/hour and introduction of corticosteroid use at abatacept initiation were predictors of lower abatacept retention. Abatacept retention varied according to country. Abatacept was well tolerated without any unexpected safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, intravenous abatacept treatment retention was more than 50% at 24 months. The identification of prognostic factors of abatacept retention could support individualised biologic treatment strategies in patients with moderate-to-severe RA.

Decreased use of glucocorticoids in biological-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated intravenous abatacept: results from the 2-year ACTION study.

INTRODUCTION: Prolonged glucocorticoid use may increase the risk of adverse safety outcomes, including cardiovascular events. The European League Against Rheumatism and the Canadian Rheumatology Association advise tapering glucocorticoid dose as rapidly as clinically feasible. There is a paucity of published data on RA that adequately describe concomitant treatment patterns. METHODS: ACTION (AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice) is a non-interventional cohort study of patients from Europe and Canada that investigated the long-term retention of intravenous abatacept in clinical practice. We assessed concomitant glucocorticoids in patients with established RA who had participated in ACTION and received ≥1 biological agent prior to abatacept initiation. RESULTS: The analysis included 1009 patients. Glucocorticoids were prescribed at abatacept initiation in 734 (72.7%) patients at a median 7.5 mg/day dose (n=692). Of the patients who remained on abatacept at 24 months, 40.7% were able to decrease their dose of glucocorticoids, including 26.9% who decreased their dose from >5 mg/day to ≤5 mg/day. CONCLUSION: Reduction and/or cessation of glucocorticoid therapy is possible with intravenous abatacept in clinical practice.

The Effects of Noncompliance to Prolia (Denosumab) on the Changes in Bone Mineral Density: A Retrospective Review.

Although denosumab (Prolia) has been shown to be a safe and efficacious therapy for osteoporotic patients in numerous clinical trials, few studies have determined its effectiveness in real world clinical practice. A retrospective review of patients prescribed Prolia assessing the impact that noncompliance from the regular dosing regimen of six months for denosumab has on bone mineral density (BMD) was performed. 924 patient records were reviewed between August 2012 and September 2013 with 436 patients meeting the eligibility criteria. Patients were divided into three groups: subsequent injection of denosumab (1) less than five months, (2) between five and seven months, and (3) more than seven months after their initial subcutaneous injection. A multivariable regression analysis was conducted comparing the differences among the three prespecified groups in BMD change (g/cm(2)) after one year of denosumab therapy at both the lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN). The differences in LS and FN BMD have shown that the relationship between the timing of drug administration in these three groups and change in BMD over 1 year was not clinically or statistically significant (p > 0.05). A follow-up study with a larger sample size and longer follow-up duration is required to further characterize this relationship.

Use of corticosteroids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with infliximab: treatment implications based on a real-world Canadian population.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate of concomitant oral corticosteroid use at antitumour necrosis factor (TNF) initiation and at disease remission, and to assess its effect on incidence of infection and sustainability of remission among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with infliximab in Canadian routine care. METHODS: Biological naïve patients with RA followed in the Biologic Treatment Registry Across Canada (BioTRAC) were included. The time-dependent association between corticosteroid dose (no use, ≤5 mg/day, >5 mg/day) and the incidence of first infection, while considering possible confounders, remission sustainability and the incidence of subsequent infections were assessed with Cox regression. RESULTS: 838 patients were included; mean (SD) baseline age and disease duration were 55.6 (13.5) and 10.5 (9.8) years, respectively. After a mean (SD) of 51.3 (43.6) months, the total incidence of adverse events (AEs) and infections were 110.2 and 19.6 per 100 person-years (PY), respectively. In multivariate analysis, the HR (95% CI) for acquiring an infection was 2.48 (1.24 to 4.98) with >5 mg/day of corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids. Similarly, ≤5 mg/day of corticosteroids was associated with increased hazard for infection (2.12 (0.97 to 4.66)). Despite DAS28 (disease activity score 28) or Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission, corticosteroids were continued in 16.4% and 16.7% of cases, respectively. Continued corticosteroid treatment was not associated with sustainability of remission (HRDAS28 (95% CI) 1.40 (0.95 to 2.06); HRCDAI 1.19 (0.75 to 1.88)), however, it had a significant impact on development of infection (HRDAS28 (95% CI) 1.78 (1.00 to 3.19); HRCDAI 2.38 (1.14 to 4.99)). CONCLUSIONS: Oral corticosteroid treatment was associated with increased risk of development of infection without impacting sustainability of remission. These results support the notion that corticosteroids should be used concomitantly with anti-TNF for the shortest period possible to achieve remission, and then tapered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00741793.

Prognostic factors for abatacept retention in patients who received at least one prior biologic agent: an interim analysis from the observational, prospective ACTION study.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of new therapies for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the paucity of head-to-head studies, and the heterogeneous nature of responses to current biologics highlight the need for the identification of prognostic factors for treatment response and retention in clinical practice. Prognostic factors for patient retention have not been explored thoroughly despite data for abatacept and other biologics being available from national registries. Real-world data from the ACTION study may supplement the findings of randomized controlled trials and show how abatacept is used in clinical practice. The aim of this interim analysis was to identify prognostic factors for abatacept retention in patients with RA who received at least one prior biologic agent. METHODS: A large, international, non-interventional cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe RA who initiated intravenous abatacept in Canada and Europe (May 2008-January 2011) enrolled in the ACTION study. Potential prognostic factors for retention in this interim analysis (data cut-off February 2012; including patients from Canada, Germany, Greece, and Italy) were baseline demographics and disease characteristics, medical history, and previous and concomitant medication. Clinically relevant variables with p ≤ 0.20 in univariate analysis and no collinearity were entered into a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusted for clustered data. Variables with p ≤ 0.10 were retained in the final model (backward selection). RESULTS: The multivariate model included 834 patients. Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positivity (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.55 [0.40, 0.75], p < 0.001), failure of <2 prior anti-tumor necrosis factors (TNFs) (0.71 [0.56, 0.90], p = 0.005 versus ≥2 prior anti-TNFs), and cardiovascular comorbidity at abatacept initiation (0.48 [0.28, 0.83], p = 0.009) were associated with lower risk of abatacept discontinuation. Patients in Greece and Italy were less likely to discontinue abatacept than patients in Germany and Canada (Greece: 0.30 [0.16, 0.58]; Italy: 0.50 [0.33, 0.76]; Canada: 1.04 [0.78, 1.40], p < 0.001 versus Germany). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world prognostic factors for abatacept retention include anti-CCP positivity and fewer prior anti-TNF failures. Differences in retention rates between countries may reflect differences in healthcare systems. The finding that abatacept has potential advantages in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities needs to be confirmed in further research.

Assessing the Reliability of a Semiautomated Segmentation Algorithm for Quantifying Erosions in the Metacarpophalangeal Joints of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the reliability of early erosions in rheumatoid arthritis (EERA) software for quantifying erosive damage to the metacarpophalangeal joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: One hundred magnetic resonance image sets from 68 patients with early referral RA were evaluated. Reliability was assessed using 95% limits of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95% CI. RESULTS: Limits of agreement linearly depended on erosion volume: 0.44× between readers and 0.19× within readers. Interrater ICC was 0.976 (95% CI 0.965-0.984) and intrarater ICC was 0.996 (95% CI 0.994-0.997). CONCLUSION: EERA is highly reproducible for quantifying erosions in patients with early RA.

Effectiveness and safety of infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis: analysis from a Canadian multicenter prospective observational registry.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the profile of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with infliximab in Canadian routine care and to assess the real-world effectiveness and safety of infliximab. METHODS: Biologics-naive RA patients from the Biologic Treatment Registry Across Canada were stratified based on their enrollment year. Effectiveness was assessed with the changes in clinical/laboratory parameters and patient-reported outcomes and the achievement of minimal disease activity and remission. Safety was assessed with the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Among 628 patients, 45.9%, 34.6%, and 19.6% were enrolled between 2002-2005, 2005-2008, and 2008-2011, respectively. Patients recruited in more recent years had significantly lower Disease Activity Score with a 28-joint count using the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), swollen joint count in 28 joints, tender joint count in 28 joints, physician's global assessment of disease activity, patient's global assessment of disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index, pain, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and CRP level (P < 0.01 for all). Patient management also changed with a trend to initiate infliximab after failure of fewer disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Six-month treatment with infliximab resulted in statistically significant and clinically important improvements in all disease parameters examined, which were sustained over 36 months. The cumulative probability of achieving remission by 36 months, as defined by the DAS28, SDAI, and CDAI, was 56.2 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 47.8-64.8), 31.0 (95% CI 23.8-39.8), and 36.2 (95% CI 28.5-45.3), respectively, which was significantly greater in patients with lower baseline disease activity. The profile and incidence of AEs were comparable to data previously reported for tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors. CONCLUSION: RA patient characteristics at infliximab initiation changed over time toward lower disease activity. Furthermore, a trend to treat patients with fewer DMARDs before initiation of infliximab was observed. However, treatment with infliximab was effective in significantly reducing disease activity independent of the treatment initiation year.

Real-world effectiveness of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis treatment in European and Canadian populations: a 6-month interim analysis of the 2-year, observational, prospective ACTION study.

BACKGROUND: Discontinuation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment for lack or loss of initial response, tolerability issues, or development of antibodies against the therapeutic agent remains a challenge in clinical practice. Here we present a 6-month interim analysis of a 2-year prospective observational trial in Europe and Canada aiming to assess the real-world effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of intravenous abatacept for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA. METHODS: ACTION (AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice) is a prospective, observational study assessing effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of abatacept in patients with RA enrolled in Europe and Canada between May 2008 and January 2011. The patient population was divided into two groups: biologic naïve ('first-line') patients and patients who had previously failed treatment with at least one biologic agent ('second-line'). Retention rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curve estimates. Effectiveness was measured using European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, the 28-item Disease Activity Score, the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and physical function, as assessed by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported for all enrolled patients. RESULTS: Of 1138 consecutively enrolled patients, 1114 and 1079 patients were evaluable for retention and effectiveness, respectively. Overall, retention rates were 88.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.4, 90.4); 67.4% of patients achieved good/moderate EULAR response; 32.8% had a CDAI Low Disease Activity State (LDAS); and 44.7% a HAQ-DI response. Retention rates among first- and second-line patients were 93.0% (95% CI: 85.9, 96.6) and 88.1% (95% CI: 85.7, 90.0), respectively. The percentage of patients achieving CDAI LDAS was 40.0% (95% CI: 26.4, 53.6) for first- and 32.2% (95% CI: 28.4, 36.0) for second-line patients and the proportion achieving a HAQ-DI response was 60.3% (95% CI: 47.8, 72.9) versus 43.1% (95% CI: 39.0, 47.2), respectively. The incidence of SAEs was 4.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this 6-month interim analysis suggests that abatacept offers an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with RA, including those who have previously failed anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment. In addition, higher retention rates and effectiveness outcomes were observed when abatacept treatment was initiated earlier in the course of the disease.

Canadian recommendations for clinical trials of pharmacologic interventions in rheumatoid arthritis: inclusion criteria and study design.

OBJECTIVE: Current clinical trial designs for pharmacologic interventions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not reflect the innovations in RA diagnosis, treatment, and care in countries where new drugs are most often used. The objective of this project was to recommend revised entry criteria and other study design features for RA clinical trials. METHODS: Recommendations were developed using a modified nominal group consensus method. Canadian Rheumatology Research Consortium (CRRC) members were polled to rank the greatest challenges to clinical trial recruitment in their practices. Initial recommendations were developed by an expert panel of rheumatology trialists and other experts. A scoping study methodology was then used to examine the evidence available to support or refute each initial recommendation. The potential influence of CRRC recommendations on primary outcomes in future trials was examined. Recommendations were finalized using a consensus process. RESULTS: Recommendations for clinical trial inclusion criteria addressed measures of disease activity [Disease Activity Score 28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) > 3.2 PLUS ≥ 3 tender joints using 28-joint count (TJC28) PLUS ≥ 3 swollen joint (SJC28) OR C-reactive protein (CRP) or ESR > upper limit of normal PLUS ≥ 3 TJC28 PLUS ≥ 3 SJC28], functional classification, disease classification and duration, and concomitant RA treatments. Additional recommendations regarding study design addressed rescue strategies and longterm extension. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need to modify clinical trial inclusion criteria and other study design features to better reflect the current characteristics of people living with RA in the countries where the new drugs will be used.

Clinical trial of a leucotriene B4 receptor antagonist, BIIL 284, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Several clinical and experimental lines of evidence suggest that leucotriene B4 (LTB4), an arachidonic acid derivative with potent proinflammatory properties, plays a key role in the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of BIIL 284, an oral long-acting LTB4 receptor antagonist, as monotherapy for the treatment of patients with active RA. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with active RA of 3 months' duration. A total of 342 patients were randomised to receive 5 mg, 25 mg or 75 mg of BIIL 284 or placebo. The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20. RESULTS: Although a higher percentage of ACR 20 responders was observed in the groups treated with 25 mg and 75 mg of BIIL 284 compared with those treated with placebo, no statistically significant differences were found between any of the three active treatment groups compared with the placebo group with regard to the primary or secondary end points. All trial treatments were safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical trial demonstrates that treatment of patients with active RA with a potent oral long-acting LTB4 receptor antagonist produced only modest improvements in disease activity. The results of this trial support the conclusion that LTB4 is not a major contributor to the inflammatory process in RA.

Upper gastrointestinal tract safety of daily oral risedronate in patients taking NSAIDs: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract adverse events associated with risedronate during two (2-year) randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Male and female patients aged 40 to 80 years with mild to moderate medial-compartment knee osteoarthritis were enrolled. Data were pooled and analyzed for risedronate at 5 mg and at 15 mg once daily and compared with placebo. The results of the once-weekly dosages (35 or 50 mg) were assessed separately. RESULTS: A total of 2483 patients were randomized: 622 to placebo, 628 to risedronate at 5 mg/d, 609 to risedronate at 15 mg/d, 310 to risedronate at 35 mg once weekly, and 314 to risedronate at 50 mg once weekly. During the study, 77% of patients were regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and/or analgesic users (defined as those who took medication 23 days per week), and 68% were regular NSAID users. The number of upper GI tract adverse events was similar between treatment groups, with no dose-related response: 161 for placebo, 176 for rlsedronate at 5 mg/d, and 150 for risedronate at 15 mg/d. The time to the first upper GI tract adverse event was similar between treatment groups. There was no difference in the frequency of upper GI tract adverse events In risedronate-treated patients compared with patients who were regular users of NSAIDs or NSAIDs and/or analgesics. Findings were similar for those in the once-weekly risedronate groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that risedronate regimens at 5 mg/d or 15 mg/d as well as once weekly at 35 mg or 50 mg are not associated with an increased frequency of upper GI tract adverse events, even in patients who have an increased risk for such events.