RA 2 Flashcards
DMARD Monitoring
CBC/diff ALT Albumin SCr CXR HBV/HCV
Baseline
q1-3mo
HCQ baseline, annually
ALL Ongoing Signs of infection; serious complications
PFT for MTX: preexisting lung disease or they were someone who presented with new shortness of breath that needed to be investigated, Is this a hypersensitivity to methotrexate
BP for LEF not for everyone ; on the cusp or treated for HTN
Some csDMARD Tips
● Infections
○ usually no increased risk
○ may last a little longer or seem a little worse
○ stop therapy if severe infection (ie, hospitalized) or on advice of
physician only (ideally in consultation with rheumatologist)
● Procedures/Surgery
○ most physicians/dentists will allow ongoing therapy
■ if concern, should speak with rheumatologist
● Utilized in those with an inadequate response to csDMARDs
○ Moderate-high disease activity despite treatment with at least 2
csDMARDs (mono/combo) after 3 months at target dose
○ Co-prescription with MTX recommended for improved efficacy
● TNFi usually recommended as initial ‘advanced therapy’ but could
use any bDMARD or tsDMARD
○ No response to TNFi: switch to alternate bDMARD or tsDMARD
■ called ‘primary failure’
○ Fail TNFi after year(s): switch to alternate TNFi, other b/tsDMARD
■ called ‘secondary failure’
Biologic DMARDs
● “Immune modulating” therapies
○ block specific parts of immune system – targeted therapy
● Highly effective, but also more risks involved compared to traditional
DMARD therapy
○ reduction in damage
○ ¯ symptoms
○ ¯ CV risk
○ But…infection risk
● MTX remains the Anchor:
○ improves effectiveness
○ reduces production of anti-drug Ab ( INFL) (dose ³10mg)
■ Increase risk of infusion/allergic reactions
■ Decrease effectiveness of bDMARD (cleared)
bDMARDs – The Science
ok
How Effective Are bDMARDs?
bDMARD
Sequence
ACR 20/50/70
Response
1st bDMARD: TNFi
* With MTX
* Alone
60/40/20%
45/25/12%
2nd bDMARD
* TNFi + MTX
* Any other + MTX 50/25/12%
TNFi
● Efficacy
○ Onset: ~2 weeks, peak 3-6 months
○ all have similar efficacy for use in moderate-severe RA
■ ~60% of patients will respond
■ trial of 1 (maybe 2) TNFi agents prior to moving onto alternate bDMARD
● Contraindication
○ HF (NYHA Class III-IV)
○ MS: personal history (and 1st degree relatives?)
○ active cancer (caution: history of lymphoma or skin)
○ [may also trigger lupus-like syndrome, psoriasis]
TNFi
Adalimumab
(Humira®, Abrilada®, Amgevita®, Hyrimoz®,
Hadlima®, Hulio®, Idacio®, Simlandi®,
Yuflyma®)
40mg subcut every other week
± MTX
Certolizumab
(Cimzia®)
400mg subcut @0,2,4wks;
then 400mg q4wks
± MTX
Etanercept
(Enbrel®, Brenzys®, Erelzi®)
50mg subcut weekly
(or 25mg subcut 2x/week)
± MTX
Golimumab
(Simponi®)
50mg subcut monthly
2mg/kg IV @0,4wks; then q8wks with MTX
Infliximab
(Remicade®, Avsola®, Inflectra®, Renflexis®)
(Remsima SC®)
3mg/kg IV @0,2,6wks;
then q8wks (can be to q6wks) x
120mg subcut q2wks
with MTX
Abatacept (Orencia®)
● MOA: T-cell co-stimulation modulator
○ mimics CTLA4, preventing CD28 from binding to its counter-receptor CD80/86, enabling T regulatory activity to continue
● Available both as IV and subcut formulation
● Efficacy:
○ Onset: 2-4 weeks, peak 3-6mo
○ Used in moderate-severe RA who fail TNFi
■ ~50% will respond to abatacept
■ Used preferentially with MTX
● Caution:
○ May ↑ incidence of AECOPD & pneumonia
IL-6i:
Tocilizumab (Actemra®)
Sarilumab (Kevzara®)
● MOA: bind membrane-bound and soluble IL-6 receptors
● TOC available IV and subcut; SAR only subcut
○ ensure ANC >2, platelets >100, ALT/AST <1.5x ULN
● Efficacy:
○ Onset: 2-4 weeks, peak 3-6mo
○ used in moderate-severe RA who fail TNFi
■ 30-50% will achieve response/remission
○ more effective with MTX (good evidence for TOC monotherapy)
● Caution:
○ Risk of GI perforation if history diverticulitis (RF: NSAID, prednisone)
IL-6i: Lab Monitoring
CBC /differential Platelets ALT / AST Lipids
baseline
@4-8 weeks
Every 3-6 months
Periodically
Fun Fact:
● elevated IL-6 (↑↑ CRP) down-regulates CYP enzyme activity
○ monitor drugs with narrow therapeutic index when start IL-6i
Rituximab
(Rituxan®; Truxima®
, Ruxience®
, Riximyo®
, Riabni®)
● MOA: B-cell inhibitor
● Dose: 1000mg IV @0,2wks every ~6 mo
○ patients should not be expected to flare before retreatment
○ always given with MTX
● Efficacy:
○ Onset: 8 weeks, peak 4-6 months
○ used in moderate-severe RA who fail TNFi
■ evidence supports use in Rf+ patients
○ preferred biologic in patients with:
■ B-cell lymphoma
■ latent TB infection
■ multiple sclerosis
■ concomitant vasculitis or overlap syndromes
bDMARD: Adverse Effects
● Infections:
○ URTI, sinusitis, pharyngitis, UTI
■ TNFi: URTI more common in first year
○ RARE: opportunistic infections (PCP, TB, candidiasis)
■ Serious infxn/OI assoc with: age, COPD/asthma, DM, CKD, prednisone
● Allergic Reactions:
○ Infusion reactions: INFL, RTX (£25%)
■ Pre-medicate: acetaminophen, cetirizine/loratadine, ± methylpred
○ Injection reactions (£ 10%)
● Fever, malaise, headache, backache/muscle ache (£ 10%)
● Nausea, diarrhea, GI upset (£ 10%)
Ø Remember to always compare AE rates between drug and placebo/comparator
Ø Consider overlap with s/s of undertreated disease as well
The Cancer Story…
● Historically increased risk of solid tumours (lung, prostate, cervical,
melanoma) and lymphoma in patients with RA
○ Risk correlates with severity and duration of disease activity
■ Which also correlated with use of various DMARDs…
● Most recent systematic review (EULAR 2019):
○ No increased risk with bDMARDs vs. general population or those on
csDMARDs (even if history of cancer)
■ Excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, where:
● MTX and bDMARDs were associated with a small risk compared to the
general population
● ABA (Tcell inhibitor) associated with risk (aHR 2) compared to csDMARDs
and TNF
What are biosimilars?
● Proteins intended to be sufficiently similar to originator product already
approved by a regulatory agency
○ ‘copies’ of originator biologics… similar to ‘generic’ drugs, but…
● Biosimilars are distinct from generics because:
○ generics are identical to the reference product, whereas biosimilars are
‘highly similar’
○ synthesized in living cells, are highly complex, and may have some variation
in each batch that is manufactured
○ at least one clincal study is required to compare the biosimilar to its
reference product
Clinical Development of biosimilars
Used to resolve
uncertainties in the
similarity of the
products
Used to
characterize
changes in
manufacturing
process during
development and
post-approval
Assessment
of biosimilarity
to licensed
reference
‘originator’
product
Companies, researchers are spending most of their time at the bottom part of this pyramid looking at analytical assays and functional assays as the reverse engineer these proteins and figure out exactly how to get the right sequencing. And so it’s binding to the receptor and doing everything that it wants to do.
unlike other studies, when drugs are coming to the market, only one clinical trial needs to be done. And it can be an all encompassing one looking at the kinetics as well as the clinical effects. So unlike a typical randomized control trial for a drug coming to market, their equivalent studies, right?
Equivalence Studies
● No clinically meaningful difference between biosimilar and originator
Originator Better Biosimilar Better
Risk ratio of the point estimate
± 95%CI lies within predefined
equivalence margin
(-! to +!)
Risk ratio of the point estimate
lower 95%CI no less than NI
margin (-!)
Alberta Health: Biosimilars Initiative
AIM: to expand the use of lower cost biosimilars on government
sponsored drug programs
○ savings to help ensure Alberta has a patient-centred health system
focused on providing the high quality care Albertans deserve
○ Reference Based listing: INFL, ETN, RTX, ADA
■ all patients have been switched to biosimilar product
interchangeability vs substituability
Interchangeability
● “Expected to produce the same
clinical result in any given patient”
● Substitution of innovator product
with the new product
○ usually a financial decision (most
cost-effective product)
● For example:
○ hydroxychloroquine for Plaquenil®
○ Inflectra® for Remicade®
Substitutability
● “Expected to produce similar
clinical outcome”
● Substitution of different drug
considered functionally
equivalent to treat a condition
○ usually a formulary or
coverage decision
● For example:
○ Prevacid® for Pantaloc®
○ Inflectra® for Humira®
´ Provincial regulation of a pharmacist’s ability to interchange or substitute an
biosimilar, however Health Canada has recommended against it.
because of that work that’s being done behind the scenes and might already be well in progress for a patient. If there’s some reason why we can’t get a particular biosimilar in. We want to have that conversation with the prescriber so that we move forward together and we’re not duplicating efforts behind the scenes.
Real World Switch Data - FYI
How to Combat the Nocebo Effect
Bottom Line:
* Inflectra found to
be ”similar” to
Remicade from
efficacy and
safety standpoint
* Reassuring data
supported switch
protocols around
the world
Defined: When negative perceptions (based on gaps in knowledge) trigger feelings of uncertainty and
ungrounded negative attitudes toward biosmilars, negatively impacting adherence and treatment outcomes
see slide 68
health care professionals can influence how patients receive medications and decide to be adherent to those medications. S
discussion, joint decision-making, than those patients hopefully feel empowered to move forward with drug therapy.
We have our own patient experiences that we can then share back with patients. So maybe dispel some myths that they’re hearing about, about biosimilars or any other drug product, right? Even methotrexate, there’s so much online about h
JAK Inhibitors
● MOA: Small molecule inhibitor of JAK-induced cytokine production
○ Tofacitinib (Xeljanz®)
○ Baricitinib (Olumiant®)
○ Upadacitinib (Rinvoq®)
● Efficacy:
○ Onset: 2-4 weeks, peak 3-6mo
○ Used in moderate-severe RA who fail csDMARD +/- bDMARD
■ May be used with or without MTX
○ Less likely to lose effect than bDMARDs (no anti-drug Ab)
● Caution:
○ Risk of GI perforation if history diverticulitis (RF: NSAID, prednisone)
stops the down stream cascade of activation of multiple different types of cytokines. They work in some ways very similarly to IL-6 inhibitors because they also drive down that CRP. They’re really good at getting down that systemic inflammation.
we use a lot more tofacitinib and upad than bari
they’re like oral biologic. So this is a pill like biologics. They’re taking that slice out of the immune system. So really specific in how they’re targeting.
How Effective Are tsDMARDs?
csDMARD naïve
* With MTX
* Alone
75/50/25%
70/50/25%
Failed csDMARD (MTX)
* With MTX
* Alone
70/40/25%
60/30/15%
Failed bDMARD
* With MTX 45/25/12%
JAKi: Adverse Effects
● Common (>5%):
○ URTI, nasopharyngitis
○ headache
○ diarrhea (TOF)
● Less Common:
○ serious infections (including opportunistic, TB, herpes zoster)
○ ¯WBC, Hb
○ LDL (0.6mmol/L)
○ ALT/AST elevation (>1x ULN)
○ TOF: bradycardia (¯HR 5-7 beats, lengthen PR interval)
● Caution:
○ VTE (DVT or PE): signal with BAR (close surveillance for all JAKs)
○ Cardiovascular Events / Cancers: post marketing surveillance
Tofa: on rate-limiting medication, something to be aware of that they might have a little bit more symptomatic bradycardia might not be a great medication for them
Bari: signal w/ VTE
TOF Safety: ORAL Surveillance
ORAL-Surveillance
Ann Rheum Dis 2022
Type PROBE (N=4362) NIT
P Active RA ≥50 with ≥1 CV risk factor or CVD
I/C TOF 5mg BID vs.
TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept)
(+MTX, other csDMARDs)
F/U 4 years (median)
O 1° MACE: 3.2 v 2.5%, HR 1.24 (0.81-1.91) (did not meet NI)
* Hx ASCVD: 8.3 v 4.2%, HR 1.96 (0.87-4.40) (did not meet NI)
* No Hx: 2.4 v 2.3%, HR 1.03 (0.62-1.73) (met NI)
there was a difference. You can see the primary outcome, major adverse cardiovascular events
id not meet non-inferiority. So it wasn’t totally worse than on that side of the line of no effect, but the confidence interval did pass that non-inferiority margin can’t say that they are similar.
those who had a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were the ones who are driving that outcome. In folks who had no history seemed to be a little bit more similar
Need to be cautious for JAK inhibitor prescribing for over the age of 65 who have multiple cardiovascular risk factors or history of cardiovascular disease
JAKi: Lab Monitoring
Baseline
@4-8 weeks
Every 3 months
Every 6 months (TOF)
Periodically (BAR, UPA)
*BAR contraindicated GFR<60
the lipids not so much related to what’s happening with cardiovascular disease. It’s more that suppression of that systemic inflammation that unmasks the lipids and they increase just a little bit