OBJECTIVE: The Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO) reviewed the most consistent literature to indicate the best strategy for the second-line biologic choice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Systematic review of the literature to identify English-language articles on efficacy of second-line biologic choice in RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data were extracted from available randomized, controlled trials, national biologic registries, national healthcare databases, post-marketing surveys, and open-label observational studies. RESULTS: Some previously stated variables, including the patients׳ preference, the indication for anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monotherapy in potential childbearing women, and the intravenous route with dose titration in obese subjects resulted valid for all the three rheumatic conditions. In RA, golimumab as second-line biologic has the highest level of evidence in anti-TNF failure. The switching strategy is preferable for responder patients who experience an adverse event, whereas serious or class-specific side effects should be managed by the choice of a differently targeted drug. Secondary inadequate response to etanercept (ETN) should be treated with a biologic agent other than anti-TNF. After two or more anti-TNF failures, the swapping to a different mode of action is recommended. Among non-anti-TNF targeted biologics, to date rituximab (RTX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) have the strongest evidence of efficacy in the treatment of anti-TNF failures. In PsA and AS patients failing the first anti-TNF, the switch strategy to a second is advisable, taking in account the evidence of adalimumab efficacy in patients with uveitis. The severity of psoriasis, of articular involvement, and the predominance of enthesitis and/or dactylitis may drive the choice toward ustekinumab or secukinumab in PsA, and the latter in AS. CONCLUSION: Taking in account the paucity of controlled trials, second-line biologic therapy may be reasonably optimized in patients with RA, SpA, and PsA.

Second-line biologic therapy optimization in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis / Cantini F.; Niccoli L.; Nannini C.; Cassara E.; Kaloudi O.; Giulio Favalli E.; Becciolini A.; Benucci M.; Gobbi F.L.; Guiducci S.; Foti R.; Mosca M.; Goletti D.. - In: SEMINARS IN ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM. - ISSN 0049-0172. - ELETTRONICO. - 47:(2017), pp. 183-192. [10.1016/j.semarthrit.2017.03.008]

Second-line biologic therapy optimization in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis

Nannini C.;Kaloudi O.;Becciolini A.;Benucci M.;Guiducci S.;
2017

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO) reviewed the most consistent literature to indicate the best strategy for the second-line biologic choice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Systematic review of the literature to identify English-language articles on efficacy of second-line biologic choice in RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data were extracted from available randomized, controlled trials, national biologic registries, national healthcare databases, post-marketing surveys, and open-label observational studies. RESULTS: Some previously stated variables, including the patients׳ preference, the indication for anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monotherapy in potential childbearing women, and the intravenous route with dose titration in obese subjects resulted valid for all the three rheumatic conditions. In RA, golimumab as second-line biologic has the highest level of evidence in anti-TNF failure. The switching strategy is preferable for responder patients who experience an adverse event, whereas serious or class-specific side effects should be managed by the choice of a differently targeted drug. Secondary inadequate response to etanercept (ETN) should be treated with a biologic agent other than anti-TNF. After two or more anti-TNF failures, the swapping to a different mode of action is recommended. Among non-anti-TNF targeted biologics, to date rituximab (RTX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) have the strongest evidence of efficacy in the treatment of anti-TNF failures. In PsA and AS patients failing the first anti-TNF, the switch strategy to a second is advisable, taking in account the evidence of adalimumab efficacy in patients with uveitis. The severity of psoriasis, of articular involvement, and the predominance of enthesitis and/or dactylitis may drive the choice toward ustekinumab or secukinumab in PsA, and the latter in AS. CONCLUSION: Taking in account the paucity of controlled trials, second-line biologic therapy may be reasonably optimized in patients with RA, SpA, and PsA.
2017
47
183
192
Cantini F.; Niccoli L.; Nannini C.; Cassara E.; Kaloudi O.; Giulio Favalli E.; Becciolini A.; Benucci M.; Gobbi F.L.; Guiducci S.; Foti R.; Mosca M.; Goletti D.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S0049017217300628-main.pdf

Accesso chiuso

Tipologia: Pdf editoriale (Version of record)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione 440.98 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
440.98 kB Adobe PDF   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/1180523
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 63
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 57
social impact