Use of a bDMARD or tsDMARD for the management of inflammatory arthritis under checkpoint inhibitors: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited experience regarding the use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) and JAK inhibitor (JAKi) for the management of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-induced inflammatory arthritis. We aimed to assess their efficacy and safety in this setting. METHODS: Using the Club Rhumatismes and Inflammation French network, we conducted a multicentre, retrospective, observational study of patients with cancer diagnosed with inflammatory arthritis under ICI(s) and treated with bDMARD or JAKi. Clinical data were collected using a standardised case report form. RESULTS: Twenty patients (60% men, median age 69.5 years) were included, with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-like (n=16), polymyalgia rheumatica-like (n=2) or psoriatic arthritis-like (n=2) clinical presentation. Two patients had pre-existing RA. 90% were treated with glucocorticoids as first-line therapy and 60% received methotrexate prior to bDMARD or JAKi. Anti-interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6R) therapy was used in 13/20 patients (65%), leading to clinical improvement in 11/13 patients (85%), but one patient experienced intestinal perforation and cancer progression was noticed in 6/13 patients (46%). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors were used in 5/20 patients (25%), with improvement in 4/5 patients (80%) and cancer progression was observed in 3/5 patients (60%). Two infections (diverticulitis and pneumonitis) were reported. Anakinra, baricitinib and ustekinumab were each used in one patient. Median duration of the bDMARD or JAKi was 17 weeks. CONCLUSION: Anti-IL-6R therapy is currently the most common strategy in patients with ICI-induced inflammatory arthritis and insufficient response to glucocorticoids and methotrexate, leading to improvement in >80%. Overall, cancer progression occurred in about half of patients and whether the bDMARD/JAKi impacted the tumour response remains to be determined.

Secukinumab and ustekinumab treatment in psoriatic arthritis: results of a direct comparison.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the characteristics of patients (pts) with PsA treated by ustekinumab (UST) or secukinumab (SEK) and to compare real-world persistence of UST and SEK in PsA. METHODS: In this retrospective, national, multicentre cohort study, pts with PsA (CASPAR criteria or diagnosis confirmed by the rheumatologist) initiating UST or SEK with a follow-up ≥6 months were included from January 2011 to April 2019. The persistence between SEK and UST was assessed after considering the potential confounding factors by using pre-specified propensity-score methods. Causes of discontinuation and tolerance were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 406 pts were included: 245 with UST and 161 with SEK. The persistence rate was lower in the UST group compared with the SEK group [median persistence 9.4 vs 14.7 months; 26.4% vs 38.0% at 2 years; weighted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.92; P =0.015]. In subgroup analysis, the persistence rate of SEK associated with MTX was significantly higher than that of UST associated with MTX: HR = 2.20; 95% CI: 1.30, 3.51; P =0.001, in contrast to SEK vs UST monotherapy: HR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.74, 1.53; P =0.75. Discontinuation due to inefficacy was reported in 91.7% (SEK) and 82.4% (UST) of pts. Discontinuation due to an adverse event was reported in 12.2% (SEK) and 7.7% (UST) of pts. CONCLUSION: In this first study comparing UST and SEK, the persistence of SEK was higher than that of UST in PsA. In subgroup analysis, this difference was only found in association with MTX.

Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 in real-life: The weight of patient acceptance.

OBJECTIVE: To explore acceptance and retention rate of biosimilar CT-P13 after switching from originator infliximab (OI) in patients with various rheumatic diseases. METHODS: Patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) under OI were proposed to switch to CT-P13 at the same regimen. A prospective cohort of infliximab-naïve patients beginning CT-P13 and a retrospective cohort of patients treated with OI were used as controls. The primary outcome was to evaluate the retention rate of CT-P13. Secondary outcomes were the switch acceptance rate, reasons of failure and safety. RESULTS: Switch was proposed to 100 patients and accepted by 89 of them (63 AS, 12 PsA and 14 RA). After a median follow-up of 33 weeks, 72% of patients were still treated with CT-P13. This retention rate was significantly lower than the one found in our retrospective and prospective control cohorts: 88% and 90% respectively (P-value=0.0002). Within patients who asked to be reswitched to OI, 13/25 (52%) presented clinical disease activity, one developed serum sickness and 11 (44%) presented no objective activity. A subanalysis excluding these 11 patients abrogated difference in retention rates between the 3 cohorts (P-value=0.453). After reswitching to OI, patients without objective disease activity claimed to recover original efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Retention rate was lower after switching from OI to CT-P13 compared to our control cohorts. However, this difference faded after excluding patients without objective clinical activity, suggesting a reluctance of patients to the switch and a negative perception of the biosimilar.