Is the risk of infection higher during treatment with secukinumab than with TNF inhibitors? An observational study from the Nordic countries.

OBJECTIVES: The positioning of secukinumab in the treatment of axial SpA (axSpA) and PsA is debated, partly due to a limited understanding of the comparative safety of the available treatments. We aimed to assess the risk of the key safety outcome infections during treatment with secukinumab and TNF inhibitors (TNFi). METHODS: Patients with SpA and PsA starting secukinumab or TNFi year 2015 through 2018 were identified in four Nordic rheumatology registers. The first hospitalized infection during the first year of treatment was identified through linkage to national registers. Incidence rates (IRs) with 95% CIs per 100 patient-years were calculated. Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated through Cox regression, with secukinumab as the reference. Several sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate confounding by indication. RESULTS: Among 7708 patients with SpA and 5760 patients with PsA, we identified 16 229 treatment courses of TNFi (53% bionaïve) and 1948 with secukinumab (11% bionaïve). For secukinumab, the first-year risk of hospitalized infection was 3.5% (IR 5.0; 3.9-6.3), compared with 1.7% (IR 2.3; 1.7-3.0) during 3201 courses with adalimumab, with the IRs for other TNFi lying in between these values. The adjusted HR for adalimumab, compared with secukinumab, was 0.58 (0.39-0.85). In sensitivity analyses, the difference from secukinumab was somewhat attenuated and in some analyses no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSION: When used according to clinical practice in the Nordic countries, the observed first-year absolute risk of hospitalized infection was doubled for secukinumab compared with adalimumab. This excess risk seemed largely explained by confounding by indication.

Impact of TNF inhibitor medication on working ability in axial spondyloarthritis: an observational national registry-based cohort study.

Objective: The aim was to investigate the effect of TNF inhibitor (TNFi) initiation on working ability and health-care resource utilization among axial SpA patients in a real-life setting. Methods: Patients with a clinical diagnosis of non-radiographic (nr-axSpA) or radiographic axial SpA initiating their first TNFi were identified from the National Register for Antirheumatic and Biologic Treatment in Finland. Sickness absences, including sick leave and disability pension, in- and outpatient days and rehabilitation rates, 1 year before and after initiating the medication were retrieved from national registries. Factors affecting result variables were studied using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Overall, 787 patients were identified. Rates of work disability days per year were 55.6 the year before treatment onset and 55.2 the year after, with significant differences between patient subgroups. The rate of sick leave decreased after starting TNFi treatment. However, the rate of disability pension continued to rise. Patients with a diagnosis of nr-axSpA experienced a decrease in overall work disability and, especially, fewer sick leaves. No sex differences were detected. Conclusion: TNFi interrupts the increase in work disabled days evident during the year before its initiation. However, the overall work disability remains high. Treating patients earlier in the nr-axSpA phase, regardless of sex, appears important in maintaining the ability to work.

Differences and similarities between the EULAR/ASAS-EULAR and national recommendations for treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis across Europe.

This is the first report comparing EULAR and national treatment recommendations for PsA patients across Europe, and the first this decade to compare ASAS-EULAR and national treatment recommendations in axSpA patients. An electronic survey was completed from October 2021-April 2022 by rheumatologists in 15 European countries. One and four countries followed all EULAR and ASAS-EULAR recommendations, respectively. Five countries had no national treatment recommendations for PsA and/or axSpA, but followed other regulations. In several countries, national treatment recommendations predated the most recent EULAR/ASAS-EULAR recommendations. Entry criteria for starting biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs varied considerably. In several countries, for PsA patients with significant skin involvement, interleukin-17 inhibitors were not given preference. The positioning of Janus Kinase inhibitors differed and Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors were not in use/reimbursed in most countries. This study may motivate European countries to update their national treatment recommendations, to align them better with the latest international recommendations.

One-Year Treatment Outcomes of Secukinumab Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Spondyloarthritis: Results From Five Nordic Biologic Registries Including More Than 10,000 Treatment Courses.

OBJECTIVE: To describe baseline characteristics and to compare treatment effectiveness of secukinumab versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) using adalimumab as the main comparator. METHODS: This was an observational, prospective cohort study. Patients with SpA (clinical ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial SpA, or undifferentiated SpA) starting secukinumab or a TNFi during 2015-2018 were identified from 5 Nordic clinical rheumatology registries. Data on comorbidities and extraarticular manifestations (psoriasis, uveitis, and inflammatory bowel disease) were captured from national registries (data available in 94% of patients) and included in multivariable analyses. We assessed 1-year treatment retention (crude survival curves, adjusted hazard ratios [HRadj ] for treatment discontinuation) and 6-month response rates (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS] score <2.1, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] <40 mm, crude/LUNDEX-adjusted, adjusted logistic regression analyses with odds ratios [ORs]) stratified by line of biologic treatment (first, second, and third plus). RESULTS: In total, 10,853 treatment courses (842 secukinumab and 10,011 TNFi, of which 1,977 were adalimumab) were included. The proportions of patients treated with secukinumab during the first, second, and third-plus lines of treatment were 1%, 6%, and 22%, respectively). Extraarticular manifestations varied across treatments, while other baseline characteristics were largely similar. Secukinumab had a 1-year retention comparable to adalimumab as a first or second line of treatment but poorer as a third-plus line of therapy (secukinumab 56% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 51-61%] versus adalimumab 70% [95% CI 64-75%]; HRadj 1.43 [95% CI 1.12-1.81]). Across treatment lines, secukinumab had poorer estimates for 6-month response rates than adalimumab, statistically significantly only for the third-plus line (adjusted analyses: ASDAS score <2.1 OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.35-0.90]; BASDAI <40 mm OR 0.62 [95% CI 0.41-0.95]). Treatment outcomes varied across the 5 TNFi. CONCLUSION: Secukinumab was mainly used in biologics-experienced patients with SpA. Secukinumab and adalimumab performed similarly in patients who had failed a first biologic, although with increasing prior biologic exposure, adalimumab was superior.

Drug retention, inactive disease and response rates in 1860 patients with axial spondyloarthritis initiating secukinumab treatment: routine care data from 13 registries in the EuroSpA collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: To explore 6-month and 12-month secukinumab effectiveness in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) overall, as well as across (1) number of previous biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs), (2) time since diagnosis and (3) different European registries. METHODS: Real-life data from 13 European registries participating in the European Spondyloarthritis Research Collaboration Network were pooled. Kaplan-Meier with log-rank test, Cox regression, χ² and logistic regression analyses were performed to assess 6-month and 12-month secukinumab retention, inactive disease/low-disease-activity states (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) <2/<4, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) <1.3/<2.1) and response rates (BASDAI50, Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) 20/40, ASDAS clinically important improvement (ASDAS-CII) and ASDAS major improvement (ASDAS-MI)). RESULTS: We included 1860 patients initiating secukinumab as part of routine care. Overall 6-month/12-month secukinumab retention rates were 82%/72%, with significant (p<0.001) differences between the registries (6-month: 70-93%, 12-month: 53-86%) and across number of previous b/tsDMARDs (b/tsDMARD-naïve: 90%/73%, 1 prior b/tsDMARD: 83%/73%, ≥2 prior b/tsDMARDs: 78%/66%). Overall 6-month/12-month BASDAI<4 were observed in 51%/51%, ASDAS<1.3 in 9%/11%, BASDAI50 in 53%/47%, ASAS40 in 28%/22%, ASDAS-CII in 49%/46% and ASDAS-MI in 25%/26% of the patients. All rates differed significantly across number of previous b/tsDMARDs, were numerically higher for b/tsDMARD-naïve patients and varied significantly across registries. Overall, time since diagnosis was not associated with secukinumab effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of 1860 patients from 13 European countries, we present the first comprehensive real-life data on effectiveness of secukinumab in patients with axSpA. Overall, secukinumab retention rates after 6 and 12 months of treatment were high. Secukinumab effectiveness was consistently better for bionaïve patients, independent of time since diagnosis and differed across the European countries.