Long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib versus adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 5-year data from the phase 3, randomised SELECT-COMPARE study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib versus adalimumab from SELECT-COMPARE over 5 years. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate were randomised to receive upadacitinib 15 mg once daily, placebo or adalimumab 40 mg every other week, all with concomitant methotrexate. By week 26, patients with insufficient response to randomised treatment were rescued; patients remaining on placebo switched to upadacitinib. Patients completing the 48-week double-blind period could enter a long-term extension. Safety and efficacy were assessed through week 264, with radiographic progression analysed through week 192. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy was analysed by randomised group (non-responder imputation (NRI)) or treatment sequence (as observed). RESULTS: Rates of TEAEs were generally similar with upadacitinib versus adalimumab, although numerically higher rates of herpes zoster, lymphopenia, creatine phosphokinase elevation, hepatic disorder and non-melanoma skin cancer were reported with upadacitinib. Numerically greater proportions of patients randomised to upadacitinib versus adalimumab achieved clinical responses (NRI); Clinical Disease Activity Index remission (≤2.8) and Disease Activity Score based on C reactive protein <2.6 were achieved by 24.6% vs 18.7% (nominal p=0.042) and 31.8% vs 23.2% (nominal p=0.006), respectively. Radiographic progression was numerically lower with continuous upadacitinib versus adalimumab at week 192. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of upadacitinib through 5 years was consistent with the known safety profile of upadacitinib, with no new safety risks. Clinical responses were numerically higher with upadacitinib versus adalimumab at 5 years. Upadacitinib demonstrates a favourable benefit-risk profile for long-term rheumatoid arthritis treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02629159.

Comparative efficacy and safety of different drugs in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of different biological agents (infliximab, canakinumab, baricitinib, anakinra, adalimumab, tofacitinib, tocilizumab, and rilonacept) compared with placebo for systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients, through a network meta-analysis. METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to July 2023 for randomized controlled trials comparing different biological agents (infliximab, canakinumab, baricitinib, anakinra, adalimumab, tofacitinib, tocilizumab, and rilonacept) or placebo directly or indirectly in JIA. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. Data was extracted and analyzed by R with gemtc package. The treatment options were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value. RESULTS: We identified 10 randomized controlled trials and analyzed 898 participants. Canakinumab (odds ratio 55.0, 95% credible intervals 2.4-67.0) was more effective than the placebo, and the difference was statistically significant. However, there was no statistical significance between other drugs versus placebo in terms of the modified ACRpedi30 (P > .05). The SUCRA shows that canakinumab ranked first (SUCRA, 86.9%), anakinra ranked second (SUCRA, 77.7%), adalimumab ranked third (SUCRA, 61.9%), and placebo ranked the last (SUCRA, 6.3%). Nevertheless, there were no notable discrepancies in the occurrence of adverse events, hepatic-related adverse events, infectious adverse event, serious adverse events, and serious infection following treatment with canakinumab, anakinra, tocilizumab, rilonacept, or the placebo. Based on the clustergram of modified ACRpedi30 and adverse events, canakinumab is suggested for JIA according to the surface under SUCRAs considering the symptom and adverse events simultaneously. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with JIA, canakinumab exhibited the highest likelihood of being the optimal treatment for achieving the modified ACRpedi30 response rate, and neither of the tested biological agents carried a significant risk of serious adverse events.

Anti-TNF (adalimumab) injection for the treatment of pain-predominant early-stage frozen shoulder: the Anti-Freaze-Feasibility randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Anti-Freaze-F (AFF) trial assessed the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial to determine whether intra-articular injection of adalimumab can reduce pain and improve function in people with pain-predominant early-stage frozen shoulder. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised feasibility trial, with embedded qualitative study. SETTING: Four UK National Health Service (NHS) musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. PARTICIPANTS: Adults ≥18 years with new episode of shoulder pain attributable to early-stage frozen shoulder. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised (centralised computer generated 1:1 allocation) to either ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection of: (1) adalimumab (160 mg) or (2) placebo (saline (0.9% sodium chloride)). Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. Second injection of allocated treatment (adalimumab 80 mg) or equivalent placebo was administered 2-3 weeks later. PRIMARY FEASIBILITY OBJECTIVES: (1) Ability to screen and identify participants; (2) willingness of eligible participants to consent and be randomised; (3) practicalities of delivering the intervention; (4) SD of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score and attrition rate at 3 months. RESULTS: Between 31 May 2022 and 7 February 2023, 156 patients were screened of whom 39 (25%) were eligible. The main reasons for ineligibility were other shoulder disorder (38.5%; n=45/117) or no longer in pain-predominant frozen shoulder (33.3%; n=39/117). Of the 39 eligible patients, nine (23.1%) consented to be randomised (adalimumab n=4; placebo n=5). The main reason patients declined was because they preferred receiving steroid injection (n=13). All participants received treatment as allocated. The mean time from randomisation to first injection was 12.3 (adalimumab) and 7.2 days (placebo). Completion rates for patient-reported and clinician-assessed outcomes were 100%. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that current NHS musculoskeletal physiotherapy settings yielded only small numbers of participants, too few to make a trial viable. This was because many patients had passed the early stage of frozen shoulder or had already formulated a preference for treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 27075727, EudraCT 2021-03509-23, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05299242 (REC 21/NE/0214).

Comparative Effectiveness of Tofacitinib and Adalimumab in Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Real-World Clinical Context Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, is a putative choice in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA). The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of tofacitinib with adalimumab, in AxSpA, in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: In this multicentric medical records review study, adult patients with active AxSpA treated with either tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily or adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously fortnightly were recruited. Effectiveness was measured with Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI). Drug-cost analysis was calculated with Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER drug ). RESULTS: Among the 266 patients, 135 were treated with tofacitinib and 131 with adalimumab (follow-up: 6.5 ± 1.6 months). Mean improvement of BASDAI (3.39 ± 0.09 vs. 3.14 ± 1.16, respectively) and that of ASDAS (1.78 ± 0.68 vs. 2.07 ± 2.08, respectively) were comparable between the adalimumab and tofacitinib groups. A higher proportion of patients achieved BASDAI50 response in the second (49.5% vs. 31.6%) and fourth month (83.9% vs. 62.8%) and ASDAS low disease activity in the fourth month (71.6% vs. 47.9%) in the adalimumab group. All disease activity measurements were similar by the sixth month in both groups. A higher proportion of patients in the tofacitinib group than in the adalimumab group required change in therapy (14.8% vs. 7.6%, respectively). ICER drug for adalimumab compared with tofacitinib was US $188.8 per patient in the adalimumab group for each person-month with BASDAI <4. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib showed comparable effectiveness with adalimumab in patients with AxSpA at the sixth month, despite lesser response in the initial months, with favorable ICER drug .

Additional Data in Expanded Patient Populations and New Indications Support the Practice of Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching.

As of 31 December, 2023, 31 observational studies have been published, including a total of 6081 patients who underwent a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic. Most studies evaluated infliximab, while a smaller number evaluated adalimumab, rituximab or etanercept. Indications studied now include sarcoidosis, as well as the indications previously reported of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis and inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis). This updated data set includes eight additional studies and 2386 more patients compared with those included in an earlier systematic review of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching. In addition, since the earlier systematic review was published in 2022, the European Medicines Agency has stated that reference-to-biosimilar and biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching in the European Union is safe and efficacy remains unchanged after switching. Furthermore, following a review of the available evidence, the US Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that initial safety and immunogenicity concerns related to biosimilar switching are unfounded and that no differences are observed in efficacy, safety or immunogenicity following one or more switches. The availability of this new efficacy and safety data together with the supportive statements from the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration re-confirm the conclusion that as a scientific matter, biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is an effective clinical practice, with no new safety concerns. Any suggestions to the contrary are not supported by the evidence.

High refill-adherence to adalimumab is associated with low disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

PURPOSE: Adalimumab has evolved to one of the more affordable first-line biologics for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), since its patent expired. However, poor adherence to adalimumab is a concern and may limit its effectiveness. It is plausible that good adherence improves treatment outcomes in IBD patients, but evidence is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess whether high refill-adherence (medication possession ratio (MPR) ≥ 80%) to adalimumab is associated with less active disease in IBD patients. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the MPR was used to assess refill-adherence of IBD patients using adalimumab. Disease activity was defined as a composite endpoint determined by endoscopy findings, laboratory results, validated questionnaires and clinical assessment by a gastroenterologist. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between high refill-adherence (MPR ≥ 80%) and disease activity. RESULTS: IBD was in remission in 72 of the 113 included patients and 41 had active disease at the time of the most recent prescription. Out of the patients who were in remission, 86.1% were adherent vs. 75.6% in patients with active disease. High refill-adherence was significantly associated with lower odds of active disease after adjustment for confounders: adjusted odds ratio 0.297, 95% confidence interval 0.099-0.892. CONCLUSION: High refill-adherence to adalimumab therapy was associated with less active disease in IBD patients. Our results confirm the relevance of good adherence to adalimumab for achieving optimal treatment results, which may limit the need for switching to more expensive biologics.

Improved clinical effectiveness of adalimumab when initiated with clindamycin and rifampicin in hidradenitis suppurativa.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab monotherapy for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is often insufficient with a maximum clinical efficacy of 60% in Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) and limited effect on draining tunnels. Data suggest that adalimumab therapy could be improved by concomitant antibiotics. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of adalimumab with clindamycin and rifampicin versus adalimumab monotherapy after 12 weeks. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who started adalimumab with additional clindamycin and rifampicin and patients treated with adalimumab monotherapy, matched on sex and refined Hurley score. The primary outcome measure was the difference in change in the International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (IHS4) at 12 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 62 patients were included in the combination therapy group (n = 31) and adalimumab monotherapy group (n = 31), showing comparable IHS4 scores; 32.5 versus 29, p = 0.87 at baseline respectively. The combination therapy demonstrated greater clinical effectiveness expressed in median IHS4 improvement (-20 vs. -9, p < 0.001), IHS4-55 (74% vs. 36%, p = 0.002), median draining tunnel reduction (-4 vs. -2, p < 0.001) and pain response (47% vs. 27%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Adalimumab initiated with clindamycin and rifampicin shows greater clinical effectiveness than adalimumab monotherapy. An important difference in effect was observed in the decrease of draining tunnels, addressing a serious limitation of adalimumab monotherapy.

Treatment and biologic maintenance-dosing patterns among pediatric patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVES: To assess treatment patterns and initial and maintenance dosing of biologics over 3 years in pediatric patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD), utilizing data from the ImproveCareNow registry. METHODS: Pediatric patients diagnosed with UC or CD and aged 2-17 years were included in the study. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize baseline demographics. The proportion of patients on medication for UC or CD were analyzed at the baseline visit, 1-year, and 3-year time points (Cohort 1). Biologic maintenance dosage was calculated only for patients who had data for dose and weight at all-time points (Cohort 2). RESULTS: In Cohort 1 (UC = 1784; CD = 4720), baseline treatment in UC included corticosteroid, 5-ASA, and 6-MP/AZA; at 1-year and 3-year time points, treatment with 5-ASA and corticosteroid decreased, whereas 6-MP/AZA and anti-TNFs increased. In CD, baseline treatment included corticosteroid, anti-TNF, 6-MP/AZA, and methotrexate; use of corticosteroids decreased, whereas the use of methotrexate and anti-TNFs increased over 3 years. In Cohort 2 (UC = 350; CD = 1537), at first maintenance dose, UC patients on infliximab received a mean dose of 10.5 mg/kg/8 wk, adalimumab (weight < 40 kg and ≥40 kg) 1.3 mg/kg/2 wk and 0.8 mg/kg/2 wk, and vedolizumab 6.9 mg/kg/8 wks. At the first maintenance dose, CD patients on infliximab received a mean dose of 8.1 mg/kg/8 wk, adalimumab (weight < 40 kg) 1.1 mg/kg/2 wk, adalimumab (weight ≥ 40 kg) 0.8 mg/kg/2 wk, and vedolizumab 10.5 mg/kg/8 wks. CONCLUSION: The use of corticosteroids was common at the initial visit in patients. Anti-TNFs remain the most used class of biologics, however, reported doses in our study were substantially higher than the standard dosing guidelines.

Coriorretinopatia de Birdshot: relato de caso e perspectivas sobre o tratamento / Birdshot chorioretinopathy: a case report and perspectives on its treatment

RESUMO A coriorretinopatia de Birdshot é uma uveíte posterior bilateral crônica rara que acomete, preferencialmente, mulheres de meia-idade. O quadro clínico é composto de pouco ou nenhum processo inflamatório de segmento anterior, associado a vitreíte e lesões coriorretinianas ovoides branco-amareladas de característica hiperfluorescente na angiofluoresceinografia e hipofluorescente na angiografia com indocianina verde. O tratamento se dá por meio de corticoides e outras drogas imunossupressoras. Todavia, em alguns casos, a doença é refratária a tal terapêutica, sendo necessário lançar mão de outras drogas, como os agentes biológicos. O presente artigo busca relatar um caso de coriorretinopatia de Birdshot em ajuste de terapia imunossupressora que evoluiu com má resposta às drogas iniciais e bom controle após uso de imunobiológico e discutir as opções terapêuticas disponíveis atualmente.

ABSTRACT Birdshot chorioretinopathy is a rare chronic bilateral posterior uveitis that preferentially affects middle-aged women. The clinical picture is composed of little or no anterior segment inflammatory process, associated with vitritis and yellowish-white ovoid chorioretinal lesions with hyperfluorescent characteristics on fluorescein angiography and hypofluorescent characteristics on green indocyanine green angiography. Treatment is with corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive drugs. However, in some cases, the disease is refractory to such therapy, making it necessary to resort to other drugs such as biological agents. The present article seeks to report a case of Birdshot chorioretinopathy in an adjustment of immunosuppressive therapy that evolved with poor response to the initial drugs and good control after the use of immunobiologicals and discuss the currently available therapeutic options.

Olokizumab versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The cytokine interleukin-6 is involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. Olokizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 cytokine directly, is being tested for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In a 24-week, phase 3, multicenter, placebo- and active-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:2:2:1 ratio) patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate to receive subcutaneous olokizumab at a dose of 64 mg every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks), or placebo; all patients continued methotrexate therapy. The primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (≥20% fewer tender and swollen joints and ≥20% improvement in three of five other domains) at week 12, with each olokizumab dose tested for superiority to placebo. We also tested the noninferiority of each olokizumab dose to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response (noninferiority margin, -12 percentage points in the lower boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between groups). RESULTS: A total of 464 patients were assigned to receive olokizumab every 2 weeks, 479 to receive olokizumab every 4 weeks, 462 to receive adalimumab, and 243 to receive placebo. An ACR20 response at week 12 occurred in 44.4% of the patients receiving placebo, in 70.3% receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 25.9 percentage points; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 17.1 to 34.1), in 71.4% receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 27.0 percentage points; 97.5% CI, 18.3 to 35.2), and in 66.9% receiving adalimumab (difference vs. placebo, 22.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 14.8 to 29.8) (P<0.001 for the superiority of each olokizumab dose to placebo). Both olokizumab doses were noninferior to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response at week 12 (difference, 3.4 percentage points [97.5% CI, -3.5 to 10.2] with olokizumab every 2 weeks and 4.5 percentage points [97.5% CI, -2.2 to 11.2] with olokizumab every 4 weeks). Adverse events, most commonly infections, occurred in approximately 70% of the patients who received olokizumab. Antibodies against olokizumab were detected in 3.8% of the patients receiving the drug every 2 weeks and in 5.1% of those receiving it every 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving maintenance methotrexate, olokizumab was superior to placebo and noninferior to adalimumab in producing an ACR20 response at 12 weeks. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Supported by R-Pharm; CREDO2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02760407.).

Higher vs Standard Adalimumab Induction Dosing Regimens and Two Maintenance Strategies: Randomized SERENE CD Trial Results.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dose-optimization strategies for biologic therapies in Crohn's disease (CD) are not well established. The SERENE CD (Study of a Novel Approach to Induction and Maintenance Dosing With Adalimumab in Patients With Moderate to Severe Crohn's Disease) trial evaluated higher vs standard adalimumab induction dosing and clinically adjusted (CA) vs therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) maintenance strategies in patients with moderately to severely active CD. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, eligible adults (Crohn's Disease Activity Index score of 220-450, endoscopic evidence of mucosal inflammation, and previous failure of standard therapies) were randomized to higher induction regimen (adalimumab 160 mg at weeks 0, 1, 2, and 3; n = 308) or standard induction regimen (adalimumab 160 mg at week 0 and 80 mg at week 2; n = 206) followed by 40 mg every other week from week 4 onward. Co-primary end points included clinical remission at week 4 and endoscopic response at week 12. At week 12, patients were re-randomized to maintenance therapy optimized by Crohn's Disease Activity Index and C-reactive protein (CA; n = 92) or serum adalimumab concentrations and/or clinical criteria (TDM; n = 92); exploratory end points were evaluated at week 56. RESULTS: Similar proportions of patients receiving higher induction regimen and standard induction regimen achieved clinical remission at week 4 (44% in both; P = .939) and endoscopic response at week 12 (43% vs 39%, respectively, P = .462). Week 56 efficacy was similar between CA and TDM. Safety profiles were comparable between dosing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Higher induction regimen was not superior to standard induction regimen, and CA and TDM maintenance strategies were similarly efficacious. Adalimumab therapy was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were identified. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02065570).

De-escalation from Dose-Intensified Anti-TNF Therapy Is Successful in the Majority of IBD Patients at 12 Months.

BACKGROUND: Data on outcomes following de-escalation of intensified anti-TNF therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are limited and concerns about relapse limit willingness to de-escalate. AIMS: To evaluate rates of successful de-escalation at 12 months and to determine factors that may predict success. METHODS: Single-centre experience of IBD patients that were de-escalated following deep remission on dose-intensified infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADA) for secondary loss of response. Patients were classified as 'successes' if remaining on reduced anti-TNF or 'failures' if requiring re-escalation, steroids, surgery or enrolment into a clinical trial at 12 months. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, biomarkers (faecal calprotectin, C-reactive protein, albumin) and anti-TNF drug levels were collected 6-monthly. RESULTS: Of 25 patients (20 CD, 5 UC), 16 (64%) were successes 12 months post-de-escalation. Median time to failure was 6 months. Six of the nine failures required anti-TNF re-escalation and three entered a clinical trial. Re-escalation recaptured response in all six patients. There was no significant difference in baseline biomarker activity between the two groups. There was no difference in infliximab levels between successes and failures at the time of de-escalation (5.5 vs. 5.3, p = 0.63) as well as 6 months (3.1 vs. 4.6, p = 0.95) and 12 months (3.2 vs. 4.5, p = 0.58) post-de-escalation. CONCLUSION: Nearly two-thirds of patients remained on reduced anti-TNF dosing 12 months after de-escalation. All patients who failed de-escalation were recaptured after dose re-escalation. De-escalation with close monitoring may be considered in patients on intensified anti-TNF therapy in sustained remission.

Subconjunctival adalimumab for treatment of dry eye disease in Sjögren's syndrome / Tratamento de olho seco com adalimumabe subconjuntival em pacientes portadores da síndrome de Sjögren

ABSTRACT Objective To describe the use of subconjuctival administration of the anti-tumor necrosis factor agent adalimumab for treatment of dry eye in patients with Sjögren's syndrome, and to investigate conjunctival healing. Methods Prospective, nonrandomized, noncomparative interventional case series including consecutive patients with Sjögren's syndrome and dry eye disease treated with subconjunctival adalimumab, who were refractory to conventional treatment. Patients with infectious ocular surface involvement or structural changes in the tear pathway or eyelids were excluded. Data recorded included age, sex, lissamine green staining pattern, Schirmer test results, intraocular pressure, conjunctival mobility, tear break up time and findings of biomicroscopic evaluation, following fluorescein dye instillation. The Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire validated for the Portuguese language was used for subjective assessment of patients. Results Eleven eyes of eight patients were studied. Mean patient age was 53±13.4 years. Patients were treated with subconjunctival injection of 0.03 mL of adalimumab and followed for 90 days thereafter. There were no statistically significant objective improvement (objective tests results; p>0.05) and no statistically significant changes in intraocular pressure (p=0.11). Questionnaire responses revealed a significant improvement in ocular symptoms (p=0.002). Conclusion Based on the Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire, subconjunctival administration of adalimumab improved dry eye symptoms. However, objective assessments failed to reveal statistically significant improvements.

RESUMO Objetivo Descrever o uso subconjuntival do antifator de necrose tumoral adalimumabe para o tratamento do olho seco em pacientes com síndrome de Sjögren e avaliar a cicatrização conjuntival. Métodos Série de casos intervencionista com desenho prospectivo, não randomizado, não comparativo. O medicamento adalimumabe foi aplicado em região subconjuntival em pacientes com síndrome de Sjögren e olho seco que eram resistentes a outras terapias convencionais. Pacientes com patologias oculares de origem infecciosa ou com alterações estruturais nas vias lacrimais e pálpebras foram excluídos do estudo. Os dados coletados incluíram idade, sexo, teste com lisamina verde, teste de Schirmer, pressão intraocular, mobilidade conjuntival, teste de ruptura do filme lacrimal, e avaliação biomicroscópica com colírio de fluoresceína. Além disso, o questionário Ocular Surface Disease Index validado para a língua portuguesa foi aplicado com objetivo de avaliar subjetivamente a resposta dos pacientes ao tratamento. Resultados Onze olhos de oito pacientes foram estudados. A idade média dos pacientes foi de 53±13,4 anos. A dose aplicada de adalimumabe subconjuntival foi de 0,03mL, e a duração do seguimento foi de 90 dias após a injeção. Não houve melhora estatisticamente significativa nos testes objetivos (todos apresentaram p>0,05). A pressão intraocular também não sofreu variações estatisticamente significativas (p=0,11). Entretanto, por meio do questionário, foi registrada melhora significativa dos sintomas oculares (p=0,002). Conclusão O uso do adalimumabe subconjuntival melhorou os sintomas de olho seco, avaliados por meio do questionário Ocular Surface Disease Index, mas não houve melhora estatisticamente significativa na avaliação objetiva.

Cost-effectiveness of intravenous vedolizumab vs subcutaneous adalimumab for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of intravenous (IV) vedolizumab vs subcutaneous (SC) adalimumab for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) was assessed in the VARSITY clinical trial, which demonstrated for the first time in a head-to-head clinical trial setting the superiority of IV vedolizumab with respect to clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. Both therapies offer better clinical outcomes compared with immunomodulators and corticosteroids but are often more expensive than other pharmacologic treatment options. Thus, payers and decision makers face the task of leveraging finite resources for optimal health benefits, which can be aided by the use of cost-effectiveness models. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of IV vedolizumab vs SC adalimumab from a US payer perspective using head-to-head data from the VARSITY trial. METHODS: A cohort decision tree was developed to estimate the costs and clinical outcomes associated with IV vedolizumab vs SC adalimumab to treat adults with moderately to severely active UC. Simulated cohorts began the model at treatment induction and continued to maintenance treatment with vedolizumab or adalimumab unless experiencing nonresponse or serious adverse drug reaction (ADR), in which case those patients transitioned to second-line treatment with tofacitinib, infliximab, or golimumab, where they could achieve response and/or remission or not. Those who still did not achieve response or remission or who had a serious ADR transitioned to a state of nonresponse for the remainder of the model or received surgery. The process was modeled for patients who were treatment naive and treatment experienced at baseline separately. Efficacy and safety inputs for vedolizumab and adalimumab were taken from the VARSITY trial, and corresponding inputs for other biologics were derived from a network meta-analysis. All clinical inputs were extrapolated over 2 years. Direct medical costs (expressed in 2019 US dollars) included those related to drug acquisition and administration, ADRs, routine monitoring, and additional treatment procedures. Outcomes were not discounted given the short time horizon. Univariate sensitivity and scenario analysis were applied to evaluate the robustness of the model to underlying parameter and structural uncertainty. RESULTS: Initial treatment with vedolizumab was associated with a higher remission rate at 2 years (73.5% vs 71.5%) and higher persistence (22.0% vs 14.4%) compared with adalimumab. Total direct medical costs were lower for the vedolizumab cohort ($100,022 vs $151,133), primarily driven by the lower annual drug acquisition cost of vedolizumab ($85,953 vs $137,492). When endoscopic improvement was used as the outcome measure, IV vedolizumab was also associated with higher endoscopic remission and lower overall costs. CONCLUSIONS: With better clinical outcomes and lower direct medical costs over a 2-year model horizon, vedolizumab IV was the dominant treatment strategy vs adalimumab SC in adults with moderately to severely active UC. Outcomes were driven primarily by the probability of major ADRs and induction response. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (Lexington, MA). Schultz and Turpin are employees of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Turpin has stock or stock options in Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Diakite, Carter, and Snedecor are employees of OPEN Health (Bethesda, MD), which received payment from Takeda for the design and execution of this study. This study was presented at the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2020 Congress and Digestive Disease Week (DDW), 2020 Virtual Congress.

Comparative efficacy and safety of biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data are needed to inform the positioning of biologic therapy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease, both first line and after previous biologic exposure. We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of biologics in patients with Crohn's disease. METHODS: We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase 2 and phase 3 randomised controlled trials done in adults (≥18 years) with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] 220-450) treated with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, anti-integrin, anti-interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23p40, or anti-IL23p19 agents, either alone or in combination with immunosuppressants, as their first-line biologic or after previous biologic exposure, compared with placebo or an active comparator. The minimum duration of therapy was 14 days for trials reporting induction of remission in active disease and 22 weeks in trials reporting maintenance of remission. We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings, trial registries, and unpublished data from inception to June 3, 2021, without any language restrictions. Summary estimates of the primary and secondary outcomes were extracted from the published reports; individual patient-level data were not sought. The primary endpoint was induction of clinical remission in patients with active disease (CDAI <150) and maintenance of remission in patients with response to induction therapy, with data extracted from published reports. A network meta-analysis with multivariate consistency model random-effects meta-regression was done, with rankings based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. FINDINGS: The search strategy yielded 18 382 citations, of which 31 trials were eligible for inclusion. On the basis of 15 randomised controlled trials including 2931 biologic-naive patients, infliximab monotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 4·53 [95% CI 1·49-13·79]), infliximab combined with azathioprine (7·49 [2·04-27·49]), adalimumab (3·01 [1·25-7·27]), and ustekinumab (2·63 [1·10-6·28]) were associated with significantly higher odds of inducing remission compared to certolizumab pegol (all moderate confidence); infliximab and azathioprine combination therapy was also associated with significantly higher odds of inducing remission than vedolizumab (3·76 [1·01-14·03]; low confidence). On the basis of ten randomised controlled trials including 2479 patients with previous biologic exposure, adalimumab after loss of response to infliximab (OR 2·82 [95% CI 1·20-6·62]; low confidence), and risankizumab (2·10 [1·12-3·92]; moderate confidence), were associated with higher odds of inducing remission than vedolizumab. No differences between active interventions were observed in maintenance trials. Most trials were at low or uncertain risk of bias. INTERPRETATION: Although biologic treatment choices in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease must be individualised for each patient, this analysis suggests that either infliximab with azathioprine or adalimumab might be preferred as a first-line therapy, and adalimumab (after infliximab loss of response) or risankizumab might be preferred as a second-line therapy, for induction of clinical remission. FUNDING: None.

Association of polymorphisms in promoter region of TNF-α -238 and -308 with clinical outcomes in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on anti-TNF therapy.

The hypothesis of the study was that polymorphisms in promoter regions -238 and -308 of TNF-α could be associated with different clinical outcomes in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD). The aim was to examine the possible association of both polymorphisms with concentration of C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin (fCAL), onset of the remission and development of the ADA in patients on therapy with anti-TNF inhibitors. The prospective study was done in patients with IBD and IMRD on infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADM). Patients were genotyped for TNF-α -238 and -308 polymorphisms. The concentration of CRP, fCAL, IFX or ADM and antibodies to drugs were measured according to manufacturer's instructions and followed-up for 6 or 12 months. Out of all patients (N = 112), number of patients in remission did not differ according to genotypes (for IBD patients P = 0.509 vs 0.223; for IMRD patients P = 0.541 vs 0.132 for TNF-α -238 and -308, respectively). Initial CRP concentration was higher in IBD patients with TNF-α -308 GG than GA/AA genotypes in patients who failed to achieve remission [11.8 (4.4-39.6) vs 3.1 (1.5-6.5), P = 0.033]. In IBD patients with remission, fCAL concentration after at least 6 months of therapy was higher in TNF-α-308 GG than in GA genotype [52 (25-552) vs 20 (20-20) µg/g, P = 0.041]. Our results showed the association of TNF-α -308 GG genotype with a higher concentration of CRP and fecal calprotectin in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases on IFX or ADM therapy. Clinical remission and development of antibodies to anti-TNF drugs were not associated with TNF-α -238 and -308 polymorphisms.

Demyelinating disease (multiple sclerosis) in a patient with psoriatic arthritis treated with adalimumab: a case-based review.

Over the past two decades, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitors became one of the most important drugs in the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Unfortunately, some of the patients exhibit unwanted side effects of the treatment. We describe a patient with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and uveitis who was treated with adalimumab and after 4 months of the treatment developed clinical and neuroradiological signs of demyelinating disease of the central nervous system. She experienced no signs and symptoms of neurological disease prior to adalimumab administration. After a detailed neurological work-up she was diagnosed with relapsing-remitting type of multiple sclerosis and treated with oral and pulse glucocorticoids and later with dimethyl fumarate. Adalimumab was discontinued. The question remains was the demyelination induced by the TNF-α blockade or was it unmasked by the introduction of the cytokine blocking agent. In patients suffering from inflammatory arthritis, treating disease to target as well as a close follow-up and knowledge of potential side effects of treatment remains crucial in good clinical practice.

Golimumab in juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis unresponsive to Adalimumab.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of golimumab (GLM) as a treatment option for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)-associated uveitis refractory to adalimumab (ADA). METHODS: Retrospective single-centre study including patients with JIA receiving GLM for active uveitis after failing ADA. JIA- and uveitis-related data, including intraocular inflammation, best-corrected visual acuity, corticosteroid-sparing potential, and ocular complications were evaluated at start of GLM treatment, at 1 month and 3 months, and every 3 months thereafter during GLM administration. We further investigated the association of response to GLM with primary and secondary failure of ADA treatment. RESULTS: Ten patients were studied, all female (17 affected eyes, mean age 14.3 + 6.7 yrs., mean follow-up 25.2 + 21.7 mos). Two patients were switched to GLM because of primary non-response to ADA. Eight were switched because of loss of response (LOR). In 5 of the latter LOR was associated with neutralizing anti-ADA-antibodies. Response to GLM was observed in all 8 patients with LOR, while the 2 patients with primary non-response to ADA also did not respond to GLM. Three of the 8 responders experienced LOR. At the end of follow-up 4 of the 5 remaining responders had achieved complete response. One had achieved partial response. CONCLUSION: GLM is an efficacious therapeutic option in patients who experience LOR to ADA. Our data indicate that patients without primary response to ADA should be rather switched to a biologic agent with a different mode of action instead of further blocking the TNF-alpha pathway.