The immunogenicity of anti-TNF therapy in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis
01 Dec 2013-Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (BMJ Publishing Group Ltd)-Vol. 72, Iss: 12, pp 1947-1955
TL;DR: ADA reduces drug response, an effect that can be attenuated by concomitant immunosuppression, which reduces ADA frequency, and drug immunogenicity should be considered for the management of patients receiving biological therapies.
Abstract: Background Immunogenicity of aTNFs is one of the mechanisms behind treatment failure. Objective To assess the effect of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) on drug response to infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept, and the effect of immunosuppression on ADA detection, in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Spondyloarthritis, Psoriasis and Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Data sources PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, article reference lists (through August 19 2012). Study selection Out of 2082 studies, 17 were used in the meta-analysis (1RCT; 16 observational studies). Data extraction Two reviewers extracted data. Risk ratios (RR), 95% CI, using random-effect models, sensitivity analysis, meta-regressions and Egger9s test were calculated. Data synthesis Of 865 patients, ADA against infliximab or adalimumab reduced drug response rate by 68% (RR=0.68, 95% CI=0.12 to 0.36), an effect attenuated by concomitant methotrexate (MTX): Conclusions ADA reduces drug response, an effect that can be attenuated by concomitant immunosuppression, which reduces ADA frequency. Drug immunogenicity should be considered for the management of patients receiving biological therapies.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The therapeutic modulation of TNF now moves into the era of personalized medicine with society's challenging expectations of durable treatment success and of achieving long-term disease remission.
645 citations
Cites background from "The immunogenicity of anti-TNF ther..."
...Interestingly, co-administration of immune suppressants, such as methotrexate, generally reduces the incidence of anti-drug antibodies [228]....
[...]
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that concomitant loss of either p53 or Lkb1, two clinically relevant tumour suppressors, markedly impaired the response of Kras-mutant cancers to docetaxel monotherapy, highlighting the rationale for synchronous co-clinical trials.
Abstract: Targeted therapies have demonstrated efficacy against specific subsets of molecularly defined cancers. Although most patients with lung cancer are stratified according to a single oncogenic driver, cancers harbouring identical activating genetic mutations show large variations in their responses to the same targeted therapy. The biology underlying this heterogeneity is not well understood, and the impact of co-existing genetic mutations, especially the loss of tumour suppressors, has not been fully explored. Here we use genetically engineered mouse models to conduct a 'co-clinical' trial that mirrors an ongoing human clinical trial in patients with KRAS-mutant lung cancers. This trial aims to determine if the MEK inhibitor selumetinib (AZD6244) increases the efficacy of docetaxel, a standard of care chemotherapy. Our studies demonstrate that concomitant loss of either p53 (also known as Tp53) or Lkb1 (also known as Stk11), two clinically relevant tumour suppressors, markedly impaired the response of Kras-mutant cancers to docetaxel monotherapy. We observed that the addition of selumetinib provided substantial benefit for mice with lung cancer caused by Kras and Kras and p53 mutations, but mice with Kras and Lkb1 mutations had primary resistance to this combination therapy. Pharmacodynamic studies, including positron-emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT), identified biological markers in mice and patients that provide a rationale for the differential efficacy of these therapies in the different genotypes. These co-clinical results identify predictive genetic biomarkers that should be validated by interrogating samples from patients enrolled on the concurrent clinical trial. These studies also highlight the rationale for synchronous co-clinical trials, not only to anticipate the results of ongoing human clinical trials, but also to generate clinically relevant hypotheses that can inform the analysis and design of human studies.
442 citations
TL;DR: The key efficacy and safety trials for currently approved treatments in rheumatoid arthritis are provided and the major lessons learned from a decade of use in clinical practice are reviewed, focusing mainly on anti-TNF and anti-interleukin (IL)-6 agents.
Abstract: The human immune system involves highly complex and coordinated processes in which small proteins named cytokines play a key role Cytokines have been implicated in the pathogenesis of a number of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases Cytokines are therefore attractive therapeutic targets in these conditions Anticytokine therapy for inflammatory diseases became a clinical reality with the introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors for the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis Although these therapies have transformed the treatment of patients with severe inflammatory arthritis, there remain significant limiting factors: treatment failure is commonly seen in the clinic; safety concerns remain; there is uncertainty regarding the relevance of immunogenicity; the absence of biomarkers to direct therapy decisions and high drug costs limit availability in some healthcare systems In this article, we provide an overview of the key efficacy and safety trials for currently approved treatments in rheumatoid arthritis and review the major lessons learned from a decade of use in clinical practice, focusing mainly on anti-TNF and anti–interleukin (IL)-6 agents We also describe the clinical application of anticytokine therapies for other inflammatory diseases, particularly within the spondyloarthritis spectrum, and highlight differential responses across diseases Finally, we report on the current state of trials for newer therapeutic targets, focusing mainly on the IL-17 and IL-23 pathways
263 citations
Cites background from "The immunogenicity of anti-TNF ther..."
...It is, however, clear that the TNF inhibitors differ in their immunogenicity, which is influenced by factors that include the structure of the drug; route, dose, and schedule of administration; concomitant medications; underlying disease; age; immune status; and genetics (Garces et al., 2013)....
[...]
TL;DR: Based on reviewed reports, biologic/biosimilar immunogenicity differs among agents, with the highest rates observed with infliximab and adalimumab.
Abstract: A systematic review was conducted to explore the immunogenicity of biologic agents across inflammatory diseases and its potential impact on efficacy/safety. Literature searches were conducted through November 2016 to identify controlled and observational studies of biologics/biosimilars administered for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), psoriasis (Ps), Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. Of >21,000 screened publications, 443 were included. Anti-drug antibody (ADAb) rates varied widely among biologics across diseases (and are not directly comparable because of immunoassay heterogeneity); the highest overall rates were reported with infliximab (0–83%), adalimumab (0–54%), and infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 (21–52%), and the lowest with secukinumab (0–1%), ustekinumab (1–11%), etanercept (0–13%), and golimumab (0–19%). Most ADAbs were neutralizing, except those to abatacept and etanercept. ADAb+ versus ADAb− patients had lower rates of clinical response to adalimumab (RA, PsA, JIA, AS, Ps), golimumab (RA), infliximab (RA, PsA, AS, Ps), rituximab (RA), ustekinumab (Ps), and CT-P13 (RA, AS). Higher rates of infusion-related reactions were reported in infliximab- and CT-P13-treated ADAb+ patients. Background immunosuppressives/anti-proliferatives reduced biologic immunogenicity across diseases. Based on reviewed reports, biologic/biosimilar immunogenicity differs among agents, with the highest rates observed with infliximab and adalimumab. As ADAb formation in biologic-/biosimilar-treated patients may increase the risk of lost response, the immunogenicity of these agents is an important (albeit not the only) consideration in the treatment decision-making process.
236 citations
Cites background from "The immunogenicity of anti-TNF ther..."
..., RCTs, longitudinal observational studies (LOSs)] and duration of treatment, vary widely and thus data interpretation is challenging [5]....
[...]
TL;DR: The evidence to date on the effect of immunomodulatory therapy when co-administered with anti-TNFs is reviewed and whether such a strategy should be employed in SpA and psoriasis is discussed, and if optimization of the MTX dose could improve biologic drug survival and thereby benefit disease management.
Abstract: The management of RA, SpA, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease has significantly improved over the last decade with the addition of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNFs) to the therapeutic armamentarium. Immunogenicity in response to monoclonal antibody therapies (anti-drug antibodies) may give rise to low serum drug levels, loss of therapeutic response, poor drug survival and/or adverse events such as infusion reactions. To combat these, the use of concomitant MTX may attenuate the frequency of anti-drug antibodies in RA, SpA and Crohn's disease. Although a similar effect to methotrexate has been observed with AZA usage in the management of Crohn's disease, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that other DMARDs impact immunogenicity. In this article we review the evidence to date on the effect of immunomodulatory therapy when co-administered with anti-TNFs. We also discuss whether such a strategy should be employed in SpA and psoriasis, and if optimization of the MTX dose could improve biologic drug survival and thereby benefit disease management.
186 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.
Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.
The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
25,711 citations
TL;DR: It is concluded that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity, and one or both should be presented in publishedMeta-an analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.
Abstract: The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.
25,460 citations
TL;DR: A checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion should improve the usefulness ofMeta-an analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers.
Abstract: ObjectiveBecause of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health
and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature,
research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used
to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A
workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting
of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid
authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.ParticipantsTwenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based
on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social
sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open
to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.EvidenceWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the
conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE,
Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index
to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved
and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group
discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity,
study categorization, and statistical methods.Consensus ProcessFrom the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a
checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational
studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference
attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed.ConclusionsThe proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses
of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy,
methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should
improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers,
and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are
explored.
17,663 citations
TL;DR: Patients with Crohn's disease who respond to an initial dose of infliximab are more likely to be in remission at weeks 30 and 54, to discontinue corticosteroids, and to maintain their response for a longer period of time, if inflIXimab treatment is maintained every 8 weeks.
3,870 citations
TL;DR: Infliximab was well-tolerated; withdrawals for adverse events as well as the occurrence of serious adverse events or serious infections did not exceed those in the placebo group.
2,411 citations