Agreement in assessment of infliximab and adalimumab levels in rheumatoid arthritis: interlaboratory and interassay comparison.

OBJECTIVES: Infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL) drug levels and anti-drug antibodies (ADA) are assessed using a variety of techniques, therefore, results cannot accurately be compared for clinical purposes. The aim of this study was to test two infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL) ELISA versions, for drug levels and ADA, to see whether they yield similar results. METHODS: ELISA versions [Promonitor® IFX R1 and R2 (V.1), Promonitor® IFX and Anti-IFX (V.2); Promonitor® ADL R1 and R2 (V.1), Promonitor® ADL and Anti-ADL (V.2) kits (Progenika Biopharma, Spain)] were used to measure drug levels and ADA in IFX (n=24) and ADL (n=24) rheumatoid arthritis-treated patients in three independent laboratories. Quantitative and qualitative agreements were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Cohen's Kappa (κ) respectively. The Bland-Altman plots assessed differences between V.1 and V.2. RESULTS: Interlaboratory agreement (ICC/κ) with V.1 was poor for IFX (0.66/0.62) and ADL (0.69/0.52) drug levels; meanwhile, high agreement was found with V.2 for IFX (0.98/0.95) and ADL (0.094/1.00). Comparison between V.1 and V.2 in each laboratory resulted in systematically higher values in V.2 than in V.1 and poor agreement (ICC/κ ranges) for IFX (0.12-0.7/ 0.19-0.42) and ADL (0.69-0.89 /0.50-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative measurements result in better agreement, as evidenced in our study. Greater agreement in V.2 compared with V.1 for IFX and ADL levels could be due to a better tune up. Further studies are required to standardise methods to establish therapeutic reference ranges.

Comparison between full and tapered dosages of biologic therapies in psoriatic arthritis patients: clinical and ultrasound assessment.

The primary objective of this study was to describe and compare clinical and musculoskeletal (MS) ultrasound (US) features between psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients treated with full and tapered dosage of biologic (b) disease-modified antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The secondary objective was to compare clinical and MSUS features between PsA patients treated with bDMARDs with and without concomitant synthetic (s) DMARDs. We evaluated 102 patients with PsA treated with bDMARDs. The bDMARD dosage tapering had been made in patients with a maintained remission or minimal disease activity (MDA) according to their attending rheumatologist and with the patient acceptance. The bDMARD tapering consisted of the following: increase the interval between doses for subcutaneous bDMARDs or reduction of the dose for intravenous bDMARDs. The clinical evaluation consisted of a dermatologic and rheumatologic assessment of disease activity. The presence of B-mode and Doppler synovitis, tenosynovitis, enthesopathy, and paratenonitis was investigated by a rheumatologist blinded to drug dosage, clinical assessments, and laboratory results. Seventy-four (72.5 %) patients received full dosage of bDMARDs and 28 (27.5 %) received tapered dosage. The duration with biologic therapy and with current biologic therapy was significantly higher in patients with tapered dosages (p = 0.008 and p = 0.001, respectively). We found no significant differences between clinical, laboratory, and US variables, both for BM and CD between patients with full and tapered dosage and between patients with and without concomitant sDMARD. Clinical assessment, MSUS variables, and MDA status are similar in patients receiving full and tapered dosage of bDMARDs.

Anti-TNF treatments in rheumatoid arthritis: economic impact of dosage modification.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic disease that leads to increases in health system economic burden through direct and indirect costs, including chronic treatment, reduced productivity and premature mortality. Anti-TNF agents have represented a major advance in the treatment of RA. The most commonly used (adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab) have demonstrated their cost-effectiveness at label doses. However, physicians may need to adapt the treatment by increasing the dose when a drug is not effective enough or by reducing it when there is a sustained effectiveness. In a cross-sectional study conducted in our hospital in which information from RA patients treated with anti-TNF drugs under conventional and modified doses were collected, the authors analyzed the costs of the medication in order to estimate the mean patient-year cost, the annual costs related to clinical efficacy and the cost per responder patient to anti-TNF treatment when dosage modification is undertaken in daily clinical practice.