Article Text

Download PDFPDF

FRI0186 Influence of immunogenicity to the first tnf-i therapy on response to the second biologic agent in ra patients
  1. P Bogas1,
  2. C Plasencia1,
  3. D Pascual-Salcedo2,
  4. G Bonilla1,
  5. E Moral1,
  6. C Tornero1,
  7. L Nuño1,
  8. A Villalba1,
  9. D Peiteado1,
  10. A Martinez2,
  11. B Hernandez2,
  12. A Balsa1
  1. 1Rheumatology
  2. 2Immunology, Hospital Universitario la Paz, Madrid, Spain


Background There is currently no consensus on selecting a therapeutic target in patients (pts) non-responsive to their first TNF-inhibitors (TNF-i). The development of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) is a frequent cause of secondary inefficacy in our pts with TNF-i and there is evidence that those who develop ADA at their 1st TNF-i achieve a higher degree of response to the second one, compared to ADA- pts. Thus ADA measurement can help in choosing a therapeutic target in pts who failed to respond to their 1st TNF-i

Objectives To assess if development of ADA to the 1st TNF-i determines better response when switching to a 2nd TNF-i versus a nonTNF-i. As secondary objective, analyze whether the presence or absence of ADA to a 1st TNF-i influences the efficacy of a 2nd TNF-i

Methods Of a total of 144 pts that switched from infliximab or Adalimumab to a 2nd biologic agent (Etanercept, Rituximab, Tocilizumab, Adalimumab, Abatacept, Certolizumab and Infliximab), only 60, who had measured drug levels (DL)/ADA at discontinuation of the 1st TNF-I, were included. Clinical response was evaluated with DAS28, Delta-DAS28 (ΔDAS28) and EULAR response (E-resp) at 6 (v-6) and 12 (v-12) months after initiating 2nd biologic agent and at the last visit prior to drug discontinuation or ending of the study for those who did not interrupt the biological therapy (v-end). DL/ADA levels were measured by ELISA. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 20.0

Results Within the 60 pts who had measured DL/ADA at suspension of the 1st TNF-i, 26 (43%) were ADA- (i.e. DL +). In this ADA- subpopulation, 50% changed to a 2nd TNF-i; at v-6 there were no differences between switchers to a 2nd TNF-i and switchers to a nonTNF-i in DAS28 (3.7±2.1 TNF-i vs 4.2±1.1 nonTNF-i, p=0.286), ΔDAS28 (1,4±2 TNF-i, 1±1,2 nonTNF-i, p=0,374) and resp-E (75% good/moderate resp in TNF-I, 40% in nonTNF-i, p=0,064). At v-12, switchers to a 2nd TNF-i showed a lower DAS28 (2.5±0.6 TNF-i, 3.9±0.9 nonTNF-i, p=0.009) and a higher good E-resp rate with a marginally significant difference (80% in TNF-i, 22% in nonTNF-i, p=0.071). However, at v-end, pts with a 2nd nonTNF-i had better response (DAS28 >5,1 in 50% of TNF-i pts, 0% of nonTNF-i, p=0.044). Likewise ΔDAS28 at v-end was higher in the nonTNF-i group with trend to significance (0,7±1,7 TNF-i, 1,7±0,8 nonTNF-i, p=0,06). Along these lines, the good/moderate E-resp rate was higher in switchers to a nonTNF-i (70% in TNF-i, 8.3% in nonTNF-i, p=0.006). In ADA+ subpopulation (n=34), no differences were found in clinical response at v-end in DAS28 (3.7±1.2 TNF-i, 3.9±1.1 non-TNF-i, p=0.64), ΔDAS28 (0,63±1,6 in TNF-i, 1,4±1,4 in nonTNF-i, p=0,35) and good/moderate E-resp rate (30% in TNF-i, 91% in nonTNF-i, p=0,703). In pts who changed to a 2nd TNF-i, those with ADA to 1st TNF-i had a higher good response rate than ADA- pts (65% in ADA +, 30% in ADA-, p=0.07)

Conclusions The development of ADA to the first TNF-i entails a better response when switching to a 2nd TNF-i, with a similar efficacy to the pts who switched to a nonTNF-i. In those pts who did not develop immunogenicity to the 1st TNF-I, there is a better response when changing therapeutic target. The ADA measurement can help to select the pts who can benefit from a 2nd TNF-i

Disclosure of Interest None declared

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.