Disease activity-guided dose optimisation including discontinuation of TNF-inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis is effective for up to 10 years: an observational follow-up of the DRESS study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate safety and effectiveness of disease activity-guided dose optimisation of TNF-inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis over 10 years. METHODS: Observational long-term extension of a randomised study of participants who completed the 3-year extension of the DRESS-study. After the randomised phase (month 0-18), disease activity-guided dose optimisation was allowed for all. Main outcomes were mean time-weighted DAS28-CRP; biological and targeted synthetic anti-rheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) use per year as proportion of daily defined dose; proportion of patients reaching discontinuation; durability, effectiveness of subsequent dose reduction attempts; and radiographic progression between 3 and 10 years using the Sharp-van der Heijde score. RESULTS: 170 patients were included of whom 127 completed 10-year follow-up. The mean disease activity remained low (DAS28-CRP 2.13, 95% confidence interval 2.10-2.16), whilst the b/tsDMARD dose reduced from 97% at baseline (95%CI 96% to 99%, n = 170)% to56% at year 10 (49% to 63%, n = 127). 119 of 161 participants (74%) with an optimisation attempt reached discontinuation, with a median duration of 7 months (interquartile range 3-33 months), and 25 participants never had to restart their b/tsDMARD (21%, 14% to 29%). The mean dose reduction after dose optimisation was 48% (n = 159) for the first optimisation attempt and 33% for subsequent attempt (n = 86). 48% (41/86) of participants had radiographic progression exceeding the smallest detectable change (5.7 units), and progression was associated with disease activity, not b/tsDMARD use. CONCLUSION: Long-term disease activity-guided dose optimisation of TNF-inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis, including discontinuation and multiple tapering attempts, remains safe and effective.

Points to consider for cost-effective use of biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: results from an umbrella review and international Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based points to consider for cost-effective use of biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, specifically rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis. METHODS: Following EULAR procedures, an international task force was formed, consisting of 13 experts in rheumatology, epidemiology and pharmacology from seven European countries. Twelve strategies for cost-effective use of b/tsDMARDs were identified through individual and group discussion. For each strategy, PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for relevant English-language systematic reviews and, for six strategies, additionally for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Thirty systematic reviews and 21 RCTs were included. Based on the evidence, a set of overarching principles and points to consider was formulated by the task force using a Delphi procedure. Level of evidence (1a-5) and grade (A-D) were determined for each point to consider. Individual voting on the level of agreement (LoA; between 0 (completely disagree) and 10 (completely agree)) was performed anonymously. RESULTS: The task force agreed on five overarching principles. For 10 of 12 strategies, the evidence was sufficient to formulate one or more points to consider, leading to 20 in total, regarding response prediction, drug formulary use, biosimilars, loading doses, low-dose initial therapy, concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD use, route of administration, medication adherence, disease activity-guided dose optimisation and non-medical drug switching. Ten points to consider (50%) were supported by level 1 or 2 evidence. The mean LoA (SD) varied between 7.9 (1.2) and 9.8 (0.4). CONCLUSION: These points to consider can be used in rheumatology practices and complement inflammatory rheumatic disease treatment guidelines to incorporate cost-effectiveness in b/tsDMARD treatment.

Seroconversion after a third COVID-19 vaccine is affected by rituximab dose but persistence is not in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with RA treated with (ultra-)low-dose rituximab (RTX), we investigated the association of dosing and timing of RTX on seroconversion after a third coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and the persistence of humoral response after a two-dose vaccination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this monocentre observational study, patients from the COVAC cohort were included in the third vaccine analysis if humoral response was obtained 2-6 weeks after a third vaccination in previous non-responders and in the persistence analysis if a follow-up humoral response was obtained before a third vaccination in previous responders. Dichotomization between positive and negative response was based on the assay cut-off. The association between the latest RTX dose before first vaccination, timing between the latest RTX dose and vaccination and response was analysed with univariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 196 patients in the cohort, 98 were included in the third vaccine analysis and 23 in the persistence analysis. Third vaccination response was 19/98 (19%) and was higher for 200 mg RTX users [5/13 (38%)] than for 500 and 1000 mg users [7/37 (19%) and 7/48 (15%), respectively]. Non-significant trends were seen for higher response with lower dosing [200 vs 1000 mg: odds ratio (OR) 3.66 (95% CI 0.93, 14.0)] and later timing [per month since infusion: OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.97, 1.35)]. Humoral response persisted in 96% (22/23) and 89% (8/9) of patients who received RTX between the two measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated vaccination as late as possible after the lowest RTX dose possible seems the best vaccination strategy. A once positive humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination persists irrespective of intercurrent RTX infusion. Study registration. Netherlands Trial Registry (https://www.trialregister.nl/), NL9342.

Pharmacokinetic boosting to enable a once-daily reduced dose of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis (the PRACTICAL study).

Background: Tofacitinib is a Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitor used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), dosed as 5 mg twice daily (BID). It is primarily metabolized by the cytochrome P-3A (CYP3A) enzyme, and therefore, the manufacturer recommends to halve the dose when using CYP3A-inhibiting co-medication. Combining half-dose tofacitinib with a registered CYP3A inhibitor (cobicistat) could reduce costs and improve patient experience. Objectives: Primary: bioequivalence of tofacitinib 5 mg combined with cobicistat once daily (QD; intervention) to tofacitinib 5 mg BID (control). Secondary: safety, patient preference (7-point Likert scale at study end) and predicted differences in disease activity (DAS28-CRP and probability of ACR20 response) using a validated exposure-response model. Design: Open-label, cross-over pharmacokinetic study. Methods: We included patients with RA or PsA, treated with tofacitinib 5 mg BID for ⩾14 days without co-medication affected by CYP3A inhibition. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed at baseline and after 2-6 weeks of intervention treatment. Bioequivalence was defined as 90% CI of the average tofacitinib concentration (Cavg,ss; intervention to control) falling between 80% and 125%, assessed by non-linear mixed-effects modelling. Results: Between 16 September 2019 and 15 January 2021, 30 patients were included, of whom 25 completed both PK measurements. The tofacitinib Cavg,ss was 85% (90% CI: 75-96%). No serious adverse events occurred. Patient preference was 56% for intervention versus 18% for control. No relevant differences in median predicted disease activity were found (DAS28-CRP: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.16 to 0.22; ACR20: -0.01, -0.07 to 0.05). Conclusion: Due to slightly lower tofacitinib concentrations during intervention treatment, pharmacokinetic bioequivalence could not formally be established. However, pharmacokinetic boosting may be an attractive strategy for cost reduction of tofacitinib because of its safety, similar predicted pharmacodynamics and patient preference. Registration: This study was registered on 29 May 2019 in the Netherlands Trial Register (register number: NL7766).

Humoral response to coronavirus disease-19 vaccines is dependent on dosage and timing of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Humoral response to vaccines in RA patients treated with rituximab (RTX) in standard dosages (≥1000 mg) is decreased. Ultra-low dosages (500 or 200 mg) may have better response. Also, timing after latest RTX infusion may be an important variable. We aimed to investigate the influence of RTX dosage and timing on response to COVID-19 vaccination in RA patients. METHODS: A single-centre observational study (n = 196) investigated the humoral response, measured by total Ig anti-COVID-19 assay (positive response ≥1.1), 2-6 weeks after complete COVID-19 vaccination. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to study the effect of RTX dosage and time between latest rituximab and vaccination on response, adjusting for age and methotrexate use. RESULTS: After two-dose vaccination, the response rate was significantly better for patients receiving 200 mg (n = 31, 45%) rituximab compared with 1000 mg (n = 98, 26%; odds ratio 3.07, 95% CI 1.14-8.27) and for each additional month between latest rituximab and vaccination (OR 1.67, 1.39-2.01). CONCLUSION: Both increased time between latest rituximab infusion and complete vaccination, and 200 mg as latest dose were associated with a better response to COVID-19 vaccination and should be considered when trying to increase vaccine response after rituximab in RA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, https://www.trialregister.nl/, NL9342.