Abatacept or tocilizumab after rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis? An exploratory study suggests non-response to rituximab is associated with persistently high IL-6 and better clinical response to IL-6 blocking therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of two different targeted approaches-abatacept or tocilizumab-after rituximab therapy in rheumatoid arthritis, and to explain observed difference in efficacy using blood and synovial studies of interleukin 6 (IL-6) and B cells in patients receiving rituximab therapy. METHODS: Consecutive series of patients who had discontinued rituximab therapy owing to inefficacy or toxicity were treated with abatacept (n=16) or tocilizumab (n=35). Clinical response and reasons for discontinuation were evaluated. Serial blood and synovial samples were obtained from a group of 57 and 25 rituximab-treated patients, respectively, and were analysed for B cells and IL-6 using flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry and quantitative real-time PCR. RESULTS: In the abatacept group, mean (SEM) Disease Activity Score in 28 joints calculated using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) reduced from 5.69 (0.42) at baseline to 4.94 (0.44) at 6 months (p=0.12). In the tocilizumab group: mean (SEM) DAS28- ESR reduced from 5.75 (0.21) at baseline to 3.28 (0.26) at 6 months (p<0.001). This was paralleled by a significant swollen joint count reduction in the tocilizumab (5.47 (0.70) to 2.70 (0.61), p=0.033), but not abatacept (6.23 (1.3) to 4.15 (1.2), p=0.26), group. In the synovium, despite complete depletion of B cells in 19/22 patients, IL-6 mRNA expression was not significantly reduced after rituximab. Blood B cell numbers remained low 12 months after rituximab. Serum IL-6 was raised at baseline and significantly higher in rituximab clinical non-responders (p=0.035) than responders. A significant reduction in serum IL-6 was seen in rituximab clinical responders (p=0.005) but not in non-responders (p=0.237). CONCLUSION: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis for whom rituximab therapy failed despite adequate B cell depletion, IL-6-directed therapy might be a more logical and effective treatment choice than T cell costimulation blockade. Further controlled studies investigating other possible mechanisms are needed to validate these initial findings.

Therapy of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: outcome of infliximab failures switched to etanercept.

OBJECTIVE: The role of alternative tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist therapies in the context of failure of initial TNF antagonist therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has yet to be clearly defined. The goal of this study was to determine the efficacy of etanercept in patients who failed to respond to infliximab. METHODS: Ninety-five patients with RA who failed to respond to infliximab and methotrexate were treated with etanercept (with continuation of concomitant methotrexate). Thirty-four patients never achieved a response to infliximab (primary nonresponse), 38 had an initial response to infliximab but relapsed (secondary nonresponse), and 23 demonstrated toxicity. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response were determined after 12 weeks of etanercept. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of etanercept, 38% of patients achieved an ACR 20% response (ACR20) on etanercept. Of these, 24% and 15% achieved ACR50 and ACR70 responses, respectively. In the primary infliximab nonresponse group, 42%, 30%, and 15% achieved ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses, respectively; the percentages for the secondary nonresponse group were 34%, 21%, and 14%, respectively. Significant DAS28 reductions were observed in the entire cohort and nonresponse subtype groups. Sixty-one percent of the cohort achieved either a moderate or good EULAR score (67% of primary and 56% of secondary infliximab failures). No toxicity was observed in patients who stopped infliximab due to intolerance; 19 of 23 continued etanercept after week 12. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that etanercept is effective in patients who fail to respond to infliximab and suggests a higher response in patients who have never had a response to infliximab.

C-reactive protein as a predictor of infliximab treatment outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: defining subtypes of nonresponse and subsequent response to etanercept.

OBJECTIVE: Nonresponse to anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is poorly understood. The aims of this study were to define nonresponse patterns using infliximab and C-reactive protein (CRP) profiles, to assess the predictive power of a CRP response for outcome, and to correlate these findings with subsequent response to etanercept. METHODS: We studied 207 patients with resistant RA who were started on treatment with infliximab. After 12 weeks, the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) were used to classify patients as responders (ACR20 response or greater) or nonresponders (NRs). The NRs were further subdivided into 3 groups according to the CRP response at weeks 2, 6, and 12. Within the NR group, those with a suppressed CRP at week 12 continued taking infliximab for a further 12 weeks; those without a CRP response were switched to etanercept, and the ACR response at 12 weeks was calculated. RESULTS: At week 12, 54% of patients achieved an ACR20 response, and 46% failed to achieve a response. Of the NRs, 63% demonstrated a significant reduction in the CRP level at week 12, 59% of whom achieved an ACR20 response at week 24 on continuation of infliximab. Of the patients who did not demonstrate a significant reduction in the CRP level after the first infusion, 86% failed to show a biochemical or ACR20 response by week 12. Twenty-four percent of the NRs had a temporary reduction in the CRP level, and 13% of the NRs showed no CRP reduction. Seventy-five percent of these NRs switched to etanercept, and 68% of this group achieved an ACR20 response at week 12 (51% achieved an ACR50 response), with a CRP response in 63%. CONCLUSION: Infliximab NRs comprise subtypes with distinct CRP patterns. Failure to suppress the CRP at week 2 identified the majority of patients who were NRs at week 12. CRP suppression at week 12 in the NRs was associated with a late clinical improvement with infliximab treatment (24 weeks), whereas failure to suppress the CRP at week 12 was associated with a good response on switching to etanercept.