ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00780793; EudraCT identifier: 2007-004483-41.

IMPORTANCE One-third of patients with rheumatoid arthritis show inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors; little guidance on choosing the next treatment exists. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of a non-TNF-targeted biologic (non-TNF) vs a second anti-TNF drug for patients with insufficient response to a TNF inhibitor. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A total of 300 patients (conducted between 2009-2012) with rheumatoid arthritis, with persistent disease activity (disease activity score in 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] Ն 3.2 [range, 0-9.3]) and an insufficient response to anti-TNF therapy were included in a 52-week multicenter, pragmatic, open-label randomized clinical trial. The final follow-up date was in August 2013. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a non-TNF-targeted biologic agent or an anti-TNF that differed from their previous treatment. The choice of the biologic prescribed within each randomized group was left to the treating clinician. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with good or moderate response according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) scale at week 24. Secondary outcomes included the EULAR response at weeks 12 and 52; at weeks 12, 24, and 52; DAS28ESR, low disease activity (DAS28 Յ3.2), remission (DAS28 Յ2.6); serious adverse events; and serious infections. RESULTS Of the 300 randomized patients (243 [83.2%] women; mean [SD] age, 57.1 [12.2] years; baseline DAS28-ESR, 5.1 [1.1]), 269 (89.7%) completed the study. At week 24, 101 of 146 patients (69%) in the non-TNF group and 76 (52%) in the second anti-TNF group achieved a good or moderate EULAR response (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.37; P = .004, with imputation of missing data; absolute difference, 17.2%; 95% CI, 6.2% to 28.2%). The DAS28-ESR was lower in the non-TNF group than in the second anti-TNF group (mean difference adjusted for baseline differences, −0.43; 95% CI, −0.72 to −0.14; P = .004). At weeks 24 and 52, more patients in the non-TNF group vs the second anti-TNF group showed low disease activity (45% vs 28% at week 24; OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.43; P = .004 and 41% vs 23% at week 52; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.86; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with anti-TNF drugs but with inadequate primary response, a non-TNF biologic agent was more effective in achieving a good or moderate disease activity response at 24 weeks than was the second anti-TNF medication.

Objective. Continuous treatment with the antitumor necrosis factor ␣ (anti-TNF␣) antibody infliximab is efficacious in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), whereas treatment discontinuation results in disease relapse, with variable delay. This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy of continuous treatment with infliximab with that of a treatment regimen adapted to symptom recurrence. Methotrexate (MTX) in combination with infliximab was also tested.Methods. Patients with active AS were randomly assigned at week 0 to receive infliximab every 6 weeks (continuous treatment) or upon symptom recurrence (on-demand treatment), following infusions at weeks 4, 6, and 10. Patients in the on-demand group were randomly assigned to receive either MTX in combination with infliximab or infliximab alone. Patients were monitored for 1 year. The primary end point was the proportion of patients who met the ASsessment in AS International Working Group criteria for 20% improvement (ASAS20) at week 58.Results. Of 247 patients, 124 were assigned to receive infliximab every 6 weeks and 123 to receive on-demand treatment. Among the latter, 62 received MTX, and 61 received infliximab alone. A greater proportion of patients receiving infliximab every 6 weeks fulfilled ASAS20 response criteria at week 58 than did patients receiving on-demand treatment (75% versus 46%; P < 0.0001). Patients in the continuous treatment group received more infliximab infusions after week 10 than did those in the on-demand group (mean ؎ SD 5.8 ؎ 2.2 versus 3.5 ؎ 2; P < 0.0001). Addition of MTX did not significantly affect the proporClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00439283.

Aims Infliximab, an anti‐tumour necrosis factor‐α monoclonal antibody, is indicated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our objective was to evaluate the influence of the sources of infliximab pharmacokinetic variability in RA. Methods Eighty‐four patients treated with infliximab for RA were included in a prospective noncomparative study. They were analysed between two consecutive infliximab infusions. Infliximab concentrations were measured before the infusion, 2 h, 1 and 4 weeks after the infusion and immediately before the next infusion. Infliximab concentrations were described using a two‐compartment population pharmacokinetic model. Results The mean (interindividual standard deviation) estimated central volume of distribution was 2.3 l (36%) and systemic clearance was 0.019 l h−1 (37%). The central volume of distribution increased with bodyweight; it was doubled between 50 and 90 kg. Systemic clearance increased with pre‐infusion C‐reactive protein concentration by 20%, varying from 3 to 14 mg l−1, and was decreased by 30% when methotrexate was coadministered. Conclusions The influence of methotrexate and inflammation on infliximab clearance suggests that individual adjustment of infliximab doses according to disease activity may be useful in RA.