Search

Objectives: To investigate whether rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and shared epitope (SE) allele-related genetic markers associate with treatment response to abatacept, certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment (ACT)., Methods: Patients with treatment-naïve early rheumatoid arthritis were randomised in the NORD-STAR trial to ACT, certolizumab pegol, abatacept or tocilizumab, all with methotrexate. Centralised laboratory analyses for ACPA, RF and SE were performed. Clinical Disease Activity Index remission was analysed longitudinally with logistic generalised estimating equations. Differences in treatment effect across RF, ACPA and SE subgroups were assessed with interaction terms at 24 and 48 weeks, adjusted for sex, country, age, body mass index, Disease Activity Score of 28 joints based on C-reactive protein and smoking., Results: In total, 778 patients were included. At 24 weeks, abatacept treatment showed a better response than ACT in the RF and/or ACPA-positive subgroups, but this effect was not significantly different from the negative subgroups. By 48 weeks, abatacept treatment showed better response regardless of RF/ACPA status. No differences were found across RF, ACPA, SE allele, valine at amino acid position 11 or valine-arginine-alanine haplotype subgroups for any biological treatment at 48 weeks., Conclusions: Based on this randomised controlled trial, abatacept treatment was associated with a better response than ACT in the RF and/or ACPA-positive subgroup at 24 weeks, but this was no longer seen at 48 weeks; adding SE allele-related genetic markers did not strengthen the association. Moreover, ACPA, RF and SE allele-related genotypes were not, alone or in combination, associated with clinical responses of importance sufficiently strongly to warrant implementation in clinical practice., Trial Registration Number: EudraCT 2011-004720-35; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01491815., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LP reports institutional support for the present manuscript from Amsterdam University Medical Centers. MLH reports institutional grants from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Sandoz, Novartis, Nordforsk and UCB; speaker honoraria from Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB; institutional data safety monitoring board or advisory board fees from AbbVie. MLH has chaired the steering committee of the Danish Rheumatology Quality Registry (DANBIO, DRQ), which receives public funding from the hospital owners and funding from pharmaceutical companies. MLH co-chairs EuroSpA, which generates real-world evidence of treatment of psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis based on secondary data and is partly funded by Novartis and UCB. DCN reports research grant from MSD; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; speaker honoraria from Pfizer and UCB; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board fees from UCB. MØ reports institutional grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Celgene, Eli Lilly Novartis and UCB; personal speaker honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Hospira, Janssen, MEDAC, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board personal fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Hospira, Janssen, MEDAC, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB. EAH reports institutional grant from research council of Norway; personal speaker honoraria from Pfizer, UCB and Novartis; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board fees from AbbVie, Pfizer and Eli Lilly. TU reports personal speaker honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, UCB and Galapagos. TR reports a patent application (TR is the inventor) based on the use of bioengineered IgG targets for the characterisation of rheumatoid factor reactivity patterns. RFvV reports institutional support for the present manuscript from Bristol Myers Squibb; institutional grants for research or education from Alfasigma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB; consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, RemeGen and UCB; speaker honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer and UCB; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, RemeGen and UCB. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ on behalf of EULAR.)

Background: The optimal first-line treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is debated. We compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of active conventional therapy with each of three biological treatments with different modes of action., Methods: Investigator-initiated, randomised, blinded-assessor study. Patients with treatment-naïve early RA with moderate-severe disease activity were randomised 1:1:1:1 to methotrexate combined with (1) active conventional therapy: oral prednisolone (tapered quickly, discontinued at week 36) or sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints; (2) certolizumab pegol; (3) abatacept or (4) tocilizumab. Coprimary endpoints were week 48 Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission (CDAI ≤2.8) and change in radiographic van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score, estimated using logistic regression and analysis of covariance, adjusted for sex, anticitrullinated protein antibody status and country. Bonferroni's and Dunnet's procedures adjusted for multiple testing (significance level: 0.025)., Results: Eight hundred and twelve patients were randomised. Adjusted CDAI remission rates at week 48 were: 59.3% (abatacept), 52.3% (certolizumab), 51.9% (tocilizumab) and 39.2% (active conventional therapy). Compared with active conventional therapy, CDAI remission rates were significantly higher for abatacept (adjusted difference +20.1%, p<0.001) and certolizumab (+13.1%, p=0.021), but not for tocilizumab (+12.7%, p=0.030). Key secondary clinical outcomes were consistently better in biological groups. Radiographic progression was low, without group differences.The proportions of patients with serious adverse events were abatacept, 8.3%; certolizumab, 12.4%; tocilizumab, 9.2%; and active conventional therapy, 10.7%., Conclusions: Compared with active conventional therapy, clinical remission rates were superior for abatacept and certolizumab pegol, but not for tocilizumab. Radiographic progression was low and similar between treatments., Trial Registration Number: NCT01491815., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MØ received the study drug from BMS and UCB; research grants from Abbvie, BMS, Merck, Novartis and UCB; speaker fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MEDAC, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB; and consultancy fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MEDAC, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB. RFvV received the study drug from BMS and UCB; research grants from BMS, GSK, UCB and AstraZeneca; consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Miltenyi, Pfizer and UCB; expert fees from AbbVie, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, R-Pharma and UCB; and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Miltenyi, Pfizer and UCB. MLH received research grants from AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celtrion, Eli Lily, Janssen Biologics B.V., Lundbeck Foundation, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Biopies, Sandoz and Novartis; and institution pay from Pfizer, Medac, AbbVie and Sandoz; chaired the steering committee of the Danish Rheumatology Quality Registry (DANBIO), which receives public funding from the hospital owners and funding from pharmaceutical companies; cochairs EuroSpA, which generates real-world evidence of treatment of psoriatic arthritis and axial spondylorthritis based on secondary data and is partly funded by Novartis. DCN received consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB' meeting support from Pfizer; advisory board participation fee from Novartis; and other service fee by BMS. MTN received research grants from AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Galapagos, Amgen and Eli Lily. BG received consulting fee from Novartis and honorary lecture payment from Novartis and Nordic-Pharma. IG received royalty fee for book authorship and support for attending meetings by EULAR. DG received advisory board fee from Eli Lily and AbbVie and speakers fee from Eli Lily. A-BA received speakers fee from AbbVie, Eli Lily, Novartis and Pfizer. CG received the study drug from BMS and UCB. MKL received advisory board fee from AbbVie. AS received advisory board fee from GSK (institution pay). LU received speakers fee from Janssen and support for meeting/travel from AbbVie and Eli Lily. DJS received honorarium fee from UCB (not a part of this, unrelated medication). GB received consultancy fee from UCB. ICO received research grants from EU Horizon 2020 and EU Horizon Europe, advisory board participation from IMPRESS-Norway, ALPHA2PREVENT, FLECAPRO and EVOLVD, and meeting/travel support from European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network. The remaining authors declared no disclosures., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)