Back to Journals » Biologics: Targets and Therapy » Volume 15

Certolizumab Can Also Be Effective in Monotherapy for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

Authors Santos-Moreno P , Martinez S, Ibatá L , Villarreal L, Rivero M, Rojas-Villarraga A

Received 4 June 2021

Accepted for publication 30 September 2021

Published 22 October 2021 Volume 2021:15 Pages 433—440

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/BTT.S322860

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Professor Shein-Chung Chow



Pedro Santos-Moreno,1 Susan Martinez,2 Linda Ibatá,2 Laura Villarreal,1 Manuel Rivero,3 Adriana Rojas-Villarraga4

1Rheumatology, Biomab IPS, Bogotá, DC, Colombia; 2Epidemiology, Biomab IPS, Bogotá, DC, Colombia; 3Pharmacy, Biomab IPS, Bogotá, DC, Colombia; 4Rheumatology, Research División, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud – FUCS, Bogotá, DC, Colombia

Correspondence: Pedro Santos-Moreno
Rheumatology, Biomab IPS, Calle 48 # 13-86, Bogotá, Colombia
Email [email protected]

Objective: Although it is known that methotrexate (MTX) increases the effectiveness of biological drugs (mainly anti-TNFs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in real life, it is known that many patients using anti-TNFs are on monotherapy due to many causes. This article compares the effectiveness of certolizumab as monotherapy as combined with MTX or leflunomide (LFN) in RA patients with failure to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in a real-world setting.
Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted at a specialized centre for RA management in Colombia. Patients treated with certolizumab as monotherapy or in combination with MTX, LFN, or MTX+LFN, between 2011 and 2020 with a minimum 3-month follow-up were included. Demographics and RA clinical characteristics were recorded; effectiveness was assessed as the improvement in Disease Activity Score (DAS28) getting remission or low disease activity at 3, 6, and 12 months of treatment.
Results: A total of 181 patients were included, 24 received certolizumab as monotherapy, 62 certolizumab plus MTX, 47 certolizumab plus LFN and 48 certolizumab plus MTX+LFN. At 3 months of follow-up, 80% of the patients showed decreased disease activity, with no significant differences between groups; at 12 months of treatment, response in certolizumab monotherapy group was 94.4% compared to 81.8% in combination with MTX, 80.5% in combination with LFN and 51.4% in combination with MTX+LFN. Response at 3 months (OR 4.04; 95% CI 1.28– 12.69) and positive anti-CCP (OR 3.83; 95% CI 1.11– 13.21) were associated with 12-month response.
Conclusion: Certolizumab seems to be effective as monotherapy in the treatment of RA patients with failure to csDMARDs.

Keywords: rheumatoid arthritis, treatment, anti-TNFs, certolizumab, monotherapy

Background

Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (antiTNFs) are one of the most commonly used biological therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients who do not show an adequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs).1 Although some anti-TNF inhibitors could be effective as monotherapy in the treatment of RA, current guidelines recommend that biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), including anti-TNFs, should be used in combination with methotrexate (MTX).2

Despite evidence suggests improved efficacy of TNF inhibitors in combination with MTX, some patients receive monotherapy because of intolerance to MTX or contraindication for its use.3,4 It is well known that MTX remains the csDMARD of the first choice in RA, but response varies depending on demographic, clinical and psychosocial predictors.5 While it is true that MTX cessation due to an adverse event is possible, some studies have demonstrated reasons for inefficacy and cessation; rheumatoid factor positivity, age, and higher baseline disease activity have an increased risk of MTX failure due to inefficacy.6 In addition, other studies have demonstrated that specific polymorphisms in some genes are involved in MTX monotherapy discontinuation.7

Although certolizumab, a PEGylated, Fc-free molecule, has been proven effective and safe in combination with MTX in the treatment of patients with RA after failure to csDMARDs, there is scarce information about its effectiveness as monotherapy in real life.8

Knowing the effectiveness of monotherapy with certolizumab versus certolizumab combined with MTX and other csDMARDs is of vital importance for patients and their health care providers. This article presents real-world clinical practice results of a cohort of patients with RA and failure to csDMARDs who received certolizumab as monotherapy, combined with MTX, or leflunomide (LFN), or MTX plus leflunomide (MTX+LFN).

Methods

This retrospective observational cohort study was conducted at a specialized centre for RA management in Colombia. Patients treated with certolizumab as monotherapy or in combination with MTX, or LFN, or MTX+LFN, between 2011 and 2020 were included in this study, regardless of their previous treatment or disease status. All participants met either the 1987 ACR criteria or the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria for RA diagnosis.9,10 The indication of certolizumab was a medical decision based on disease activity. Patients could be taking other drugs like non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COX2 inhibitors and/or opioids and corticosteroids. Patients who did not complete 3 months of follow-up or patients with change or addition of other csDMARDs or dosing adjustments were excluded.

Certolizumab was administered 400 mg SC monthly after three induction doses at weeks 0, 2 and 4, as a monotherapy or in combination with MTX (until 25 mg/week), LFN (20 mg/day) or MTX (until 25 mg/week) plus LFN (20 mg/day) as a first-line treatment after failure with csDMARDs or as a second-line treatment after failure with one or more biological drugs.

For each patient, demographic characteristics, and RA characteristics, such as duration and activity level according to DAS28 scores, were recorded. Patients were classified as remission (DAS28 <2.6), low disease activity (DAS28 between 2.6 and 3.2), moderate activity (DAS28 >3.2 and ≤5.1), or high activity (DAS28 >5.1.). Effectiveness was assessed as the change in DAS28 at 3, 6, and 12 months of treatment. The response was defined as a decrease >1.2 in activity level using DAS28 or to remain in low activity or remission. A DAS28 ≤3.2 was considered an indicator of disease control.

Analysis Methods

Frequencies and proportions were calculated for qualitative variables and central tendency and dispersion measures for quantitative variables based on the distribution (Shapiro–Wilk test). Exploratory comparisons of numeric variable data between groups were made through one-way ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis test. Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were used for categorical variables. For all tests, a p-value <0.05 indicates statistical significance. Variables with statistical significance or clinical interest related to response to therapy were included in multivariate analyses. Logistic regressions were performed to analyze individual, clinical, and pharmacological factors on the response at 6 and 12 months. All calculations were performed using PASW Statistics software version 25.

Results

Of the 181 enrolled patients, 24 received certolizumab as monotherapy, 62 certolizumab combined with MTX, 47 certolizumab in combination with LFN and 48 certolizumab in combination with MTX+LFN. In 55.2% of the patients, these interventions were first-line treatment (after csDMARDs) and 44.8% second-line treatment (bDMARDs), without significant differences between groups. All the patients were treated before the study with MTX at a 25 mg/per week dose. MTX was suspended by gastric or hepatic adverse events or lack of efficacy. Table 1 describes the characteristics of patients at the time of diagnosis based on the type of treatment. The mean age of subjects included was 57.87 ± 12.33 years, with significant differences between groups, with a mean age of around 60 years in patients treated with CTZ+MTX and CTZ+LFN. Women predominated in all groups (84.0% of the total). The most common comorbidities at the time of RA diagnosis were osteoporosis (31.5%) and Sjogren’s syndrome (31.5%). Overall, comorbidities were similar among groups, except for hypertension, which was more common (38.7%) in the group of patients treated with CTZ+MTX.

Table 1 Baseline Characteristics of Patients According to Treatment

The duration of arthritis on average was 8.27 ± 8.73 years, without significant differences between treatment groups. In terms of disease activity, at baseline, 78.5% of the patients were in moderate or high disease activity according to DAS28, without significant differences between the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in hand and foot x-ray results, initial C-reactive protein (CRP), rheumatoid factor, and anti-citrullinated antibodies (anti-CCP) values. Differences in the number of biologicals and corticoid use were observed; patients in the combination groups had used in a higher proportion two or more biological than in the monotherapy group and had used corticosteroids more frequently. The dose in patients receiving corticoids was low (7.5 mg/day), and there were no changes during the observed period.

The response to treatment was assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months according to the decrease in DAS28 (see Table 2). Overall, approximately 80% of the patients had responded to treatment with decreased disease activity, and 63% were in remission or low activity within 3 months of follow-up, with no significant differences between groups. This trend continued until the sixth month. At 12 months of treatment, although the response was maintained in most patients, in the Certolizumab monotherapy group, this was 94.4% compared to 81.8% in combination with MTX, 80.5% in combination with LFN and 51.4% in combination with MTX+LFN.

Table 2 Response at 3, 6 and 12 Months by Treatment Group

A simple and multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to explore the relationship of different variables with the DAS28 response at 6 and 12 months (see Tables 3 and 4). There was no association between a positive rheumatoid factor and DAS28 response at 6 or 12 months. No differences were observed in the response at 6 and 12 months between the treatment groups, and the only variable associated with these outcomes is the response at 3 months. In the multivariate analysis, the response at 3 months was the only one associated with the 6-month response (OR 5.46; 95% CI 2.08–14.32). The response at 3 months (OR 4.04; 95% CI 1.28–12.69) and positive anti-CCP (OR 3.83; 95% CI 1.11–13.21) were associated with 12-month response.

Table 3 Simple Regression Analysis to Estimate the Risk of Response at 6 and 12 Months by Treatment Group

Table 4 Multiple Regression Analysis to Estimate the Risk of Response at 6 and 12 Months by Treatment Group

Discussion

Rheumatoid arthritis requires for its control the use of disease-modifying medications. According to EULAR recommendations, MTX plus glucocorticoids should be initiated as the first line of treatment in the short term to achieve an improvement of at least 50% at 3 months and remission at 6 months; if this is not achieved, treatment should be modified according to the presence of prognostic markers. If there are no unfavourable prognostic factors, other csDMARDs could be added. On the contrary, if there are unfavourable prognostic factors, a bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added.11

Although EULAR recommends combination therapy with biological DMARDs, a significant proportion of patients are treated with monotherapy due to csDMARDs intolerance or adherence failure to MTX in real life.4 This study included patients with MTX failure who received CTZ alone, CTZ combined with methotrexate or leflunomide, and CTZ combined with MTX and LFN. Several studies have reported that approximately 25% to 30% of the patients are treated with monotherapy.3,12 In our study, this proportion is lower (13%) probably related to the scarce information available regarding the effectiveness of certolizumab monotherapy.

Regarding CTZ in monotherapy, there are two clinical trials in patients who did not respond or were intolerant to treatment with csDMARDs. The REALISTIC study compared the efficacy of CTZ monotherapy vs CTZ in combination with csDMARDs and found that patients in the monotherapy group had lower ACR20/50/70 response rates but a slightly greater change in DAS28, although the results were not statistically significant.13 The FAST4WARD study compared CTZ monotherapy vs placebo at week 24 observed ACR20 response rate was 45.5% with CTZ and 9.3% with placebo.14 Improvement was also observed in DAS28 and patient-reported outcomes at long-term use.15 Most adverse events were mild or moderate.

In our study, the response starts to be noted from the third month and is maintained through time. And, 94.4% of monotherapy patients achieved disease control (DAS28 ≤3.2) per year of treatment, compared to approximately 80% in combination groups with csDMARDs and 51.4% of patients in the CTZ + MTX + LFN group. These differences are not explained by the number of previous biologicals received or the use of glucocorticoids. They may be related to adherence issues, not quantified in this study. After adjusting the results by confusion, no differences are observed between the groups to respond at months 6 and 12. Regardless of the treatment group and previous biologics, the 3-month response is strongly associated with a higher probability of response at months 6 and 12. This finding is concordant with the reported results in observational studies where non-response at month 3 is a predictor of failure to achieve the therapeutic target at month 12.16–18 In our study, we did not find an association with a response and a biologic-naïve status as other studies have reported.17 Additionally, it is observed that having positive anti-CCP is associated with a greater probability of response at month 12; this finding is similar to that reported with abatacept.19 However, this finding is debatable as other studies have linked high anti-CCP levels with decreased response to anti-TNF.20 Regarding disease progression, a study (C-OPERA) comparing a group of patients under CTZ+MTX combo versus a group of placebo + MTX patients showed a trend of greater modified Total Sharp Score change from baseline independently of positive titres of anti-CCP in both groups.21 In another study comparing the efficacy of CTZ versus adalimumab, there were no baseline differences in anti-CCP positivity nor in the efficacy endpoints regarding the anti-CCP result.22

This study has significant limitations inherent to its design, which implies a selection bias. Some patients were intolerant to MTX and went on monotherapy; others showed a lack of efficacy and therefore used LFN and glucocorticoids. In addition, important variables as body mass index and anti-certolizumab antibodies were not measured. However, these exploratory results show a clear trend of certolizumab being effective as monotherapy in patients previously treated with csDMARDs and even after being treated with one bDMARD. Even though results are not statistically different, it seems that certolizumab in monotherapy could be as least as effective as combination therapy. Prospective studies with a larger sample size and with a structured follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.

Data Sharing Statement

The authors declare that the database and other study materials are available for review at any time. All files, databases and other documents related to the study are available on a computer in our research office and with access only to the team of researchers. In any case, please contact PSM.

Ethical Aspects

According to Resolution 8430 of 1993 from the Ministry of Health of Colombia, this research presents no risks to patients because no intervention and/or intentional modification of the variables was carried out. Therefore, this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Biomab IPS, act number 006-2020, October 2020 (code GC.IN.01.FR.03) without the need of obtaining informed consent of the individuals. In addition, to comply with the principles, rights and guarantees in the treatment of regulated personal data according to Law 1266 of 2008 and Law 1581 of 2012, all the individuals signed a general data protection regulation consent when entering to the specialized centre for RA. The group of researchers adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The database was anonymized to protect the confidentiality and privacy of patients.

Acknowledgments

We thank Anggie Aza, Fernando Rodriguez-Florido and Biomab IPS for the administrative data provided for this study. An abstract of this work/paper was presented and published as an abstract at EULAR2021 (ANNUAL EUROPEAN CONGRESS OF RHEUMATOLOGY), with interim findings. The poster’s abstract was published in: Ann Rheum Dis, volume 80, supplement 1, year 2021, page 1146. doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-eular.4008. Session: Rheumatoid arthritis - biological DMARDs (Publication Only).

Author Contributions

All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure

Pedro Santos-Moreno has received fees for conferences, counseling, advisory boards, travel to academic meetings expenses and research grants in the last 5 years from Abbvie, Abbott, Biopas-UCB, Bristol, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi. Adriana Rojas-Villarraga has received fees for conferences, counseling, advisory boards in the last 5 years from Abbvie, Amgen, Biopas-UCB, Bristol, Glaxo, Janssen, Pfizer. The other authors did not declare conflict of interest.

References

1. Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL, et al. 2015 American college of rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2016;68:1–26.

2. Smolen JS, Landewé RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(6):685–699. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216655

3. Jørgensen TS, Kristensen LE, Christensen R, et al. Effectiveness and drug adherence of biologic monotherapy in routine care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a cohort study of patients registered in the Danish biologics registry. Rheumatology. 2015;54:2156–2165.

4. Aaltonen KJ, Turunen JH, Sokka T, Puolakka K, Valleala H. A survey on the medication adherence to methotrexate among rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with self-administered biologic drugs. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016;34:694–697.

5. Sergeant JC, Hyrich KL, Anderson J, et al. Prediction of primary non-response to methotrexate therapy using demographic, clinical and psychosocial variables: results from the UK Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Study (RAMS). Arthritis Res Ther. 2018;20:147. doi:10.1186/s13075-018-1645-5

6. Bluett J, Sergeant JC, MacGregor AJ, et al. Risk factors for oral methotrexate failure in patients with inflammatory polyarthritis: results from a UK prospective cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2018;20(1):50. doi:10.1186/s13075-018-1544-9

7. Uribarri M, Ruiz-Larrañaga O, Arteta D, et al. Influence of MTHFR C677T polymorphism on methotrexate monotherapy discontinuation in rheumatoid arthritis patients: results from the GAPAID European project. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2015;33:699–705.

8. Emery P, Pope JE, Kruger K, et al. Efficacy of monotherapy with biologics and JAK inhibitors for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Adv Ther. 2018;35(10):1535–1563. doi:10.1007/s12325-018-0757-2

9. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, et al. 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American college of rheumatology/European league against rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(9):2569–2581. doi:10.1002/art.27584

10. Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, et al. The American rheumatism association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 1988;31(3):315–324. doi:10.1002/art.1780310302

11. Smolen JS, Landewé R, Bijlsma J, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2017;76(6):960–977. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210715

12. Engel-Nitz NM, Ogale S, Kulakodlu M. Use of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: a Retrospective Study of monotherapy and adherence to combination therapy with non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Rheumatol Ther. 2015;2(2):127–139. doi:10.1007/s40744-015-0015-x

13. Weinblatt ME, Fleischmann R, Huizinga TWJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol in a broad population of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results from the REALISTIC phase IIIb study. Rheumatology. 2012;51(12):2204–2214. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kes150

14. Fleischmann R, Vencovsky J, van Vollenhoven RF, et al. Efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol monotherapy every 4 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis failing previous disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy: the FAST4WARD study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(6):805–811. doi:10.1136/ard.2008.099291

15. Fleischmann R, van Vollenhoven RF, Vencovský J, et al. Long-term maintenance of certolizumab pegol safety and efficacy, in combination with methotrexate and as monotherapy, in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatol Ther. 2017;4(1):57–69. doi:10.1007/s40744-017-0060-8

16. Berenbaum F, Pham T, Claudepierre P, et al. Early non-response to certolizumab pegol in rheumatoid arthritis predicts treatment failure at one year. Data from a randomized Phase III clinical trial. Joint Bone Spine. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2017.01.011

17. Iannone F, Semeraro A, Carlino G, et al. Effectiveness of certolizumab-pegol in rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis based on the BIOPURE registry: can early response predict late outcomes? Clin Drug Investig. 2019;39(6):565–575. doi:10.1007/s40261-019-00782-9

18. Saraux A, Flipo R-M, Fagnani F, et al. Early non-response to certolizumab pegol in rheumatoid arthritis predicts failure to achieve low disease activity at 1 year: data from a prospective observational study. RMD Open. 2020;6(1):e000991. doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000991

19. Alten R, Nüßlein HG, Mariette X, et al. Baseline autoantibodies preferentially impact abatacept efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are biologic naïve: 6-month results from a real-world, international, prospective study. RMD Open. 2017;3(1):e000345. doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2016-000345

20. Takeuchi T, Miyasaka N, Inui T, et al. High titers of both rheumatoid factor and anti-CCP antibodies at baseline in patients with rheumatoid arthritis are associated with increased circulating baseline TNF level, low drug levels, and reduced clinical responses: a post hoc analysis of the RISING study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19:194.

21. Atsumi T, Yamamoto K, Takeuchi T, et al. The first double-blind, randomized, parallel-group certolizumab pegol study in methotrexate-naive early rheumatoid arthritis patients with poor prognostic factors, C-OPERA, shows inhibition of radiographic progression. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75:75–83. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207511

22. Smolen JS, Burmester G-R, Combe B, et al. Head-to-head comparison of certolizumab pegol versus adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year efficacy and safety results from the randomised EXXELERATE study. Lancet. 2016;388(10061):2763–2774. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31651-8

Creative Commons License © 2021 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.