Impact of immunogenicity on clinical efficacy and toxicity profile of biologic agents used for treatment of inflammatory arthritis in children compared to adults

Abstract

The treatment of inflammatory arthritis has been revolutionised by the introduction of biologic treatments. Many biologic agents are currently licensed for use in both paediatric and adult patients with inflammatory arthritis and contribute to improved disease outcomes compared with the pre-biologic era. However, immunogenicity to biologic agents, characterised by an immune reaction leading to the production of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), can negatively impact the therapeutic efficacy of biologic drugs and induce side effects to treatment. This review explores for the first time the impact of immunogenicity against all licensed biologic treatments currently used in inflammatory arthritis across age, and will examine any significant differences between ADA prevalence, titres and timing of development, as well as ADA impact on therapeutic drug levels, clinical efficacy and side effects between paediatric and adult patients. In addition, we will investigate factors associated with differences in immunogenicity across biologic agents used in inflammatory arthritis, and their potential therapeutic implications.

Keywords

anti-drug antibodies drug levels inflammatory arthritis immunogenicity

Introduction

The discovery and clinical use of biologic treatments in the management of inflammatory arthritis in children and adults has been associated with significant clinical benefits, as well as advances in understanding the pathogenesis of different types of inflammatory arthritis. Immunogenicity to biologic treatments is an unwanted immune reaction against a therapeutic antigen. This immune reaction generates anti-drug-antibodies (ADAs), which could counteract the therapeutic effects of the biologic treatment and, in rare cases, induce adverse reactions.^1,2

It has become increasingly recognised that biologic treatment duration, mode, rate and route of administration, and more specifically, the type of biologic therapeutic [e.g. monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) versus recombinant fusion proteins] are all factors that influence the risk of immunogenicity.³ In addition, individual patient factors, such as genetic background,⁴ disease type,⁵ and concomitant use of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs),⁶ all contribute differentially to the formation of ADAs. Recent research has been focused on highlighting the genetic risk for developing ADAs: e.g. HLA-DRB1*15 was associated with increased the risk for developing high ADA levels to interferon (IFN)β-1a treatment in multiple sclerosis, while HLA-DQA1*05 decreased this risk,⁷ and HLA-DQA1*05 was associated with increased ADA prevalence across various biologics and autoimmune diseases.⁸ Other factors such as smoking and infections are also associated with increased risk,^8,9 whereas concomitant use of antibiotics and immunosuppressant medication are associated with decreased immunogenicity risk.⁸ In addition, the manufacturing process of various biologic agents, in particular, their contamination with low-level host proteins, is a major contributor to immunogenicity.¹⁰

Therapeutic drug monitoring and immunogenicity testing comprise measurement of trough drug levels and ADAs. The most widely used ADA detection methods are bridging enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA; which use labelled therapeutic mAbs) and radioimmunoassay (RIA), while other new methods such as competitive displacement and tandem mass spectrometry have also been proposed.¹¹ Currently, most mAbs on the market are humanised or fully human; however, they still carry immunogenic risk. This could be attributed to anti-idiotype reactivity, which is a common reaction of the immune system to the appearance of any novel antibody.¹²

The molecular mechanisms leading to generation of ADA are not completely elucidated and a detailed discussion of immune mechanisms is beyond the scope of this review (for a recent review see¹³). One basis for ADA generation involves the capacity of the human immune system to recognise ‘non-self’. Since the first therapeutic mAbs of murine origin were developed, further efforts have now been made to improve their performance and decrease their immunogenicity. The continuous advancement in recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) technologies has led to the development of chimeric (fused human–murine mAbs) and humanised mAbs. Chimeric antibodies were developed by replacing the constant region of murine mAbs with human components and the humanised mAbs are constituted entirely of human sequences, with the exception of the complementarity determining regions of the variable regions which are of mouse-sequence origin. Subsequently, the advanced antibody engineering achieved the production of fully human antibodies where antigen specificity has been selected either in vivo in genetically modified mice or by antibody engineering processes combined with screening.¹⁴ Many factors contribute to differences in immunogenicity, from biopharmaceutical properties related to downstream processing and drug formulation¹⁵ to patient individual characteristics, including the antigen burden which correlates with their disease activity.¹⁶

Both ELISAs and RIAs detect only free circulating ADAs; therefore, they can be associated with false negative results in the context of presence of ADA-immune complexes which are detectable only if they exceed in concentration the circulating drug levels.^17,18 In one study, ELISA was more sensitive in detecting ADA when present in high titres than RIA, while in patients with ADA detected by RIA but not by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, only the drug levels were significantly associated with treatment response to adalimumab.¹⁹ Interestingly, measuring drug levels and drug clearance alone is also shown to be a reliable predictor for ADA in RA and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients.^20,21 Several studies concluded that although ADAs were not independently associated with treatment response, they may be helpful in determining the cause of low drug levels and guide therapeutic decisions.^22,23

The presence of ADAs may be associated with reduced clinical efficacy through two main mechanisms. ADAs that compete with the cytokine binding site (the Fab fragment of the therapeutic agent) have neutralising properties as they block the pharmacological function of the drug. ADAs directed against the Fc fragment (more frequently targeting the junction between Fc and Fab) lead to formation of immune complexes associated with enhanced drug clearance that may also influence the clinical response to biologic treatment through leading to sub-optimal (sub-therapeutic) drug levels.²⁴ Therefore, based on their specificity ADA can be grouped as neutralising (when they target the antigen binding sites of the therapeutic drug) or non-neutralising (when they recognise epitopes away from the drug-binding site, therefore not directly impairing the efficacy of the drug).³

Here, we review the evidence of impact of ADAs against various biologic therapeutics used for treatment of inflammatory arthritis in adults and children, as there are no previous reports investigating immunogenicity across age. This review focuses on depicting differences between ADA prevalence, titres and timing of development, as well as impact on therapeutic drug levels, clinical efficacy and side effects in children compared with adults with inflammatory arthritis. Where data are available, we will also investigate the clinical predictors for ADA development, as well as the influence of additional DMARD therapy on ADA development and biologic drug retention.

Neutralising ADAs against mAbs targeting TNF-α were more prevalent than ADA against fusion proteins (etanercept and biosimilars) while the kinetic of ADA generation varied across anti-TNF-α agents in adult and paediatric inflammatory arthritis studies

Many studies have reported the presence of ADAs against anti-tumour-necrosis-factor-alpha (anti-TNF-α) inhibitors used to treat different types of inflammatory arthritis, including etanercept [fusion protein of the extracellular ligand-binding portion of the human 75KD p75 TNF receptor (TNFR) linked to the Fc portion of human immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1)], adalimumab (fully human mAb), certolizumab (humanised antibody Fab’ fragment), golimumab (human IgG1κ monoclonal antibody) or infliximab (a chimeric mAb; Table 1). The general observation is that ADAs against etanercept have a lower prevalence compared with ADAs against adalimumab or infliximab.²⁵ Furthermore, comparative studies show that ADAs to human/humanised (adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab) and chimeric (infliximab) anti-TNF-α therapeutic mAbs are largely neutralising,²⁶ while the ADAs against etanercept are predominantly non-neutralising.²⁷

Table 1.

Impact of ADAs on disease outcomes in children and adults with inflammatory arthritis treated with anti TNF-α agents.

Author(s) and reference number	CountryType of study (including meta-analyses)Number of patients treated with a certain biologic	Type of inflammatory arthritisAge range or mean age (years)	Disease durationRange or mean ± SD (years)	Prevalence of ADAsImpact of additional DMARD therapy on ADA prevalence	Impact on clinical efficacy	Impact on side effects to biologic therapy
Adalimumab and biosimilars
Strand et al.²⁸	Systematic reviewRA n = 1282PsA n = 59JIA n = 23AS = 204	RA (35–64)PsA (43–55)JIA (3–14.2)AS (30–48)	RA: 1–34PsA: 5–21JIA: 1–5AS: 4–15	RA 0–51%; PsA 0–54%JIA 6–33%; AS 8–39%Concomitant use of MTX, AZA, leflunomide or MMF was associated with lower rates of ADA in RA, JIA, AS	ADA was associated with less improvement of disease activity for RA, PsA and AS. A higher proportion of ADA+ve JIA patients experienced loss of response than ADA−ve patients (no p value reported)	Adverse events occurred more frequently in ADA+ve patients compared to ADA−ve (27% versus 15%, no p value reported)
Doeleman et al.²⁹	Systematic review and meta-analysis n = 355	JIA 10.5	3.45	Pooled prevalence of 21.5% (95% CI = 14.1 to −29.8)Addition of MTX reduced the risk of ADA development by 67% (RR 0.33)	Increased median disease activity score in patients with ADA was found (no p value reported)	No association with adverse events generally was found, but in patients with JIA-associated uveitis, ADA were associated with a significantly higher severity of uveitis (no p value reported)
Marino et al.³⁰	ItalyProspective observational studyn = 27	JIAAge at inclusion9.5 ± 3.32ADA+ve11.15 ± 3.11ADA−ve8.52 ± 3.12	4.79 ± 3.04	Overall prevalence 37%31% versus 45% in MTX+ve versus MTX−ve groupsNo impact of MTX treatment duration on ADA development was found: 22.9 months (MTX+ve group) versus 17.8 months (MTX−ve group)	ADA+ve patients experienced more relapses, p < 0.017.30% of ADA+ve patients were in clinical remission, compared to 41.2% of ADA– patients, p = 0.56	No infusion reactions or side effects were found
Maid et al.³¹	ArgentinaCross-sectional studyn = 52	RA56.5 (13.3)	10.8 ± 8.5	36.5%36% of MTX+ve patients and 38% of MTX−ve patients tested positive for ADA	ADA−ve patients had a tendency towards better clinical outcomes than those who were ADA+ve −39.4% of ADA−ve patients achieved a HAQ-DI score < 0.5, compared with only 31.6% of ADA+ve patients (comparative statistics were not performed)	Injection site reactions were reported by 6.3% in the ADA−ve group and 4.3% in the ADA+ve group (no p value reported) (combined data for adalimumab, infliximab and etanercept)
Balsa et al.³²	SpainCross-sectional, observational studyn = 217	RA and SpARA = 56.3 (12.1)SpA = 47.9 (11.5)	RA = 13.9 ± 8.7SpA = 12.5 ± 10.2	RA: 25.5%SpA: 32.7%No significant difference between the two patient groups (p = 0.221)Lower proportion of patients receiving concomitant DMARDs (24.1% versus 36.9% were ADA+ve, p = 0.037)	82.5% ADA+ve patients had no detectable drug levels in the serum; only one ADA+ve patient reported drug concentrations within the normal range; no p value reported	Data not available
Quistrebert et al.⁹	Europeanretrospectivemulti-cohort analysisn = 240	RA50.3	2.18	19.2%96.6% of patients were MTX+ve, but study was not powered to analyse the effects	ADA positivity was significantly associated with a lower probability of a good clinical response based on 278 clinical observations from 215 patients (hazard ratio = 0.58, 95% CI 0.39–0.86)	Data not available
Verstegen et al.³³	Systematic reviewn = 103	JIA10.6	Data not available	6.7–37%Concomitant treatment with MTX showed a protective effect against ADA development for patients treated with adalimumab and infliximab	ADAs to adalimumab were associated to impaired clinical outcome (no comparative statistics performed)	Data not available
Skrabl-Baumgartner et al.³⁴	AustriaProspective observational studyn = 20	JIA9.9 ± 4.2	JIA data not availableDuration of JIA-associated uveitis 3.5 ± 3.5	45% (including permanent and transient ADAs)Concomitant use of DMARDs significantly lower in group with permanent ADA+ve (2/7) versus ADA−ve (10/11); p < 0.05	7/8 who had a loss of response had permanent ADAs Transient ADAs were not associated with a diminished response (no comparative statistics performed)	No severe adverse reactions were found
Moots et al.²⁷	Multinational non-interventional studyn = 199	RA54.3 ± 12.95	Symptom duration 9.3 ± 8.43	RA 31.2%	Significant differences between patients with and without detectable ADAs were observed in ESR (p = 0.008) and CRP (p = 0.0011)When data for all three TNF inhibitors were pooled, a greater proportion of patients without detectable ADAs (226/484; 46.7%) than those with detectable ADAs (29/94; 30.9%) were in remission (p = 0.0046)	No differences in safety outcomes were reported
Infliximab and biosimilars
Strand et al.²⁸	Systematic reviewRA n = 1412PsA n = 173JIA n = not availableAS n = 163	RA (35–64)PsA (43–55)JIA (3–14.2)AS (30–48)	RA: 1–34PsA: 5–21JIA: 1–5AS: 4–15	RA 8–62%; PsA 15–33%, JIA 26–42%; AS 6.1–6.9%; Concomitant use of MTX, AZA, leflunomide or MMF was associated with lower rates of ADA in RA	ADA+ve patients showed less improvement in disease activity and were less likely to achieve clinical responses (RA, PsA, AS; no comparative statistics performed)	Increased risk of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events and higher rates of infusion reactions were reported in ADA+ve patients (no comparative statistics performed)
Maid et al.³¹	ArgentinaCross-sectional studyn = 13	RA55.5 (10.6)	13.1 ± 8.5	30.8%22.2% of MTX+ve and 50% of MTX−ve patients had ADAs	ADA−ve patients had a tendency towards better clinical outcomes than those who were ADA+ve: no comparative statistics were performed due to low numbers.	Injection-site reactions were reported by 6.3% in the ADA−ve and 4.3% in the ADA+ve group (no p value reported; combined data for adalimumab, infliximab and etanercept)
Balsa et al.³²	SpainCross-sectional, observational studyn = 188	RA and SpARA = 56.3 (12.1)SpA = 47.9 (11.5)	RA = 13.9 ± 8.7SpA = 12.5 ± 10.2	RA: 21.1%SpA: 31.3%No significant difference between the two patient groups (p = 0.114)Concomitant use of DMARDs associated with lower ADAs: ADA−ve 29/130 (22.3%) versus 22/58 ADA+ve (37.9%; p = 0.021)	78.4% ADA+ve patients had no detectable drug in the serum. Only one ADA+ve patient reported drug concentrations within the normal range; no p value reported	Data not available
Quistrebert et al.⁹	European retrospective multi-cohort analysisn = 126	RA50.6	2.65	RA 29.4%ADAs were detected more frequently in infliximab-treated patients (29.4%) than in adalimumab-treated patients (19.2%)	ADA positivity was significantly associated with a lower probability of a good clinical response based on 149 clinical observations from 125 patients (hazard ratio = 0.61, 95% CI 0.32–0.76)	Data not available
Ruperto et al.³⁵	Multicentre RCTn = 122	JIA11.2	3.9	25.5%	Data not available	Infusion reactions were observed in 58% of ADA+ve patients compared with 19% of ADA−ve patientsSerious infusion reactions additionally occurred in 20% of ADA+ve patients, compared with 0% of ADA−ve patientsNo comparative statistics performed
Ruperto et al.³⁶	Multicentreopen-label extension studyn = 78	JIAData not available	Data not available	37% (+32% inconclusive)	Data not available	32% patients had ⩾1 infusion-related reaction, with a higher occurrence among patients who were ADA+ve [15/26 (58%) ADA+ve patients had infusion-related reactions]No comparative statistics performed
Moots et al.²⁷	Multicentrenoninterventional studyn = 196	RA60.7 ± 13.01	Symptom duration 10.0 ± 10.11	RA 17.4%	95/184 (51.6%) were in low disease activity, of which 14/32 (43.8%) had detectable ADAs and 81/152 (53.3%) had no detectable ADAs (p = 0.3387)Significant differences between patients with and without detectable ADA were observed in ESR (p < 0.0001) and CRP (p = 0.0001)	No significant correlation between adverse events and ADAs was found
Etanercept and biosimilars
Strand et al.²⁸	Systematic reviewRA N = 589PsA, JIA, ASn = not available	RA (35–64)PsA (43–55)JIA (3–14.2)AS (30–48)	RA: 1–34PsA: 5–21JIA: 1–5AS: 4–15	RA 0–13% PsA 0%JIA 0–6%AS 0%	Data not available	Data not available
Balsa et al.³²	SpainCross-sectional, observational studyn = 165	RA and SpARA = 56.3 (12.1)SpA = 47.9 (11.5)	RA = 13.9 ± 8.7SpA = 12.5 ± 10.2	RA: 0%SpA: 0%	Data not available	Data not available
Doeleman et al.²⁹	Systematic review and meta-analysisn = 268	JIA11.8	4.7	Pooled prevalence 8.5% (95% CI = 0.5 to −23.2)	No reported association between treatment failure and the presence of non-neutralizing ADAs	No association between adverse events and ADAs was observed
Maid et al.³¹	ArgentinaCross-sectional studyn = 54	RA54.5 (13.6)	12.5 ± 10.1	0%	Data not available	Data not available
Bader-Meunier et al.³⁷	FranceProspective multicentre studyn = 126	JIA10.5 (2–17)	4.62 (0.16–16.3)	15.7% at baseline33% after 366 (302–712) days of treatment	ADA levels not significantly different between responders and non-responders (7.22 ± 3.60 versus 6.47 ± 3.98 ng/ml),No significant difference with concomitant MTXp values <0.05 were considered significant	No severe adverse events occurred
Moots et al.²⁷	Multicentre non-interventional studyn = 200	RA56.5 ± 13.37	Symptom duration0.8 ± 10.67	0%	No patients developed ADAs on etanercept)	Data not available
Constantin et al.³⁸	Multicentre prospective open-label studyn = 127	JIA 8.6 ± 4.6ERA 14.5 ± 1.6JPsA 14.5 ± 2.0	JIA 31.6 ± 31.7 monthsERA23.0 ± 19.8 monthsJPsA21.8 ± 20.2 months	JIA 18.3%, ERA 23.7%, JPsA 20.5%, combined: 20.7%None of the ADA+ve patients had neutralising antibodies	No significant changes in effectiveness in patients who were ADA+ve was found	No safety concerns in patients who were ADA+ve were reported
Golimumab
Strand et al.²⁸	Systematic reviewRA n = 1249PsA, JIA and AS n = not available	RA (35–64)PsA (43–55)JIA (3–14.2)AS (30–48)	RA: 1–34PsA: 5–21JIA: 1–5AS: 4–15	RA: 2–10% PsA: 6%AS: 0–6.4%Concomitant use of MTX, AZA, leflunomide or MMF was associated with lower rates of ADAs in RA, PsA and AS	ADA+ve RA patients showed less improvement in disease activity and were less likely to achieve clinical responses (no comparative statistics performed)	Data not available
Brunner et al.³⁹	Multicentre withdrawal RCTn = 154	JIA11.1 ± 4.5	Disease duration not available	46.8% (72/154)	ADAs did not appear to have a substantial impact on clinical efficacy	ADAs were not associated with injection-site reactions, disease flares or adverse events
Leu et al.⁴⁰	Samples from 3 RCTs	RAPsAAS	Data not available	RA: 24.9%PsA: 39.9%AS: 30.3%	No effect of ADA on clinical response was found	Injection-site reactions were not affected by ADAs
Kneepkens et al.⁴¹	The NetherlandsProspective observational cohort studyn = 37	RA	Data not available	8.1%	3 patients out of 37 (8.1%) were ADA+ve at 52 weeks and all 3 discontinued golimumab prematurely due to inefficacy	Data not available
Certolizumab
Strand et al.²⁸	Systematic reviewRA n = 358PsA, JIA and AS n = not available	RA (35–64)PsA (43–55)JIA (3–14.2)AS (30–48)	RA: 1–34PsA: 5–21JIA: 1–5AS: 4–15	RA 2.8–37%Concomitant use of MTX, AZA, leflunomide or MMF was associated with lower rates of ADA	Data not available	Data not available
Gehin et al.⁴²	NorwayLongitudinal observational studyn = 116	RA, AS, PsA and other inflammatory joint disease42	2.60.6–14.1	Prevalence 6.1% (19/310 patients: 6 AS, 5 RA, 4 PsA and 4 other IJD)Among RA patients, 80% of ADA+ve patients had concomitant synthetic DMARDs (mostly MTX) versus 73% of ADA−ve patients	9% ADA+ve patients were responders at 3 months versus 55% of ADA−ve patients No p value reported	Data not available8 patients experienced one or more injection-site reactions, all of which were ADA−ve at 3 months
Jani et al.⁴³	The NetherlandsProspective observation cohort studyn = 115	RA58.0ADA+ve 57.3 ADA−ve 58.5	7.03.3–14.4ADA+ve 8.3 ADA−ve 6.0	37%	No correlation between ADA+ve and EULAR response was found (p = 0.18)	Data not available

ve, positive; −ve, negative; ADA, anti-drug antibody; AS, ankylosing spondylitis; AZA, azathioprine; CI, confidence interval; CRP, C-reactive protein; DMARD, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; ERA, enthesitis-related arthritis; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; EULAR, European League Against Rheumatism; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disease Index; IJD, inflammatory joint disease; JIA, juvenile idiopathic arthritis; JPsA, juvenile psoriatic arthritis; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; MTX, methotrexate; n, number of patients treated with a certain biologic included in the study/systematic review; PsA, psoriatic arthritis; RA, rheumatoid arthritis; RCT, randomised control trial; SD, standard deviation.

In adults, the rates of ADA formation against infliximab range from 8% to 62% in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 15% to 33% for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and 6.1% to 69% for ankylosing spondylitis (AS;²⁸ Table 1). ADAs against infliximab are also shown to be associated with lower serum biologic drug concentrations in adult inflammatory arthritis patients.^{27,28,31,32,44–48} There is a paucity of studies investigating the timing of development of ADA against various anti-TNF-α agents: evidence suggests that longer exposure to infliximab increases immunogenicity; for example, ADAs against infliximab in adults with RA occurred after the first 10 infusions (23.4 ± 2.4 weeks), while ADAs were detected in 25% of JIA patients after 52 weeks and in 37% at 204 weeks.^35,36,49 The dose of biologic agent, as well as patients’ age, could influence immunogenicity: a higher incidence of ADAs was observed in patients treated with infliximab 3 mg/kg (38%), compared with 6 mg/kg (12%),³⁶ while a significantly higher prevalence of ADAs was found in younger children (ADA-positive mean age 7.01 years versus ADA negative 9.88 years, p = 0.003).²⁹

The prevalence of ADAs against adalimumab has high variability across different types of autoimmune diseases in adults^{25,28,31,50–52} and children with JIA³⁵ (Table 1). The timing of adalimumab ADA development is controversial: in some adult studies ADA prevalence did not increase with treatment duration,^53,54 while in other studies there was a significant increase, with ADA developing between 4.5 months and 12 months of treatment.^{9,34,44,50,52,55} Similarly, studies in JIA showed both trends: a significant increase of ADA with time³⁵ or no correlation with treatment duration,³⁰ suggesting that ongoing monitoring to establish their clinical relevance and impact on management is required.

Etanercept treatment was associated with a lower ADA rate than infliximab and adalimumab²⁵ (Table 1), with the vast majority of adult studies reporting no detectable ADA^{25,27,28,31,32,50,52,55} This pinpoints that the chemical structure of the anti-TNF-α therapeutic agent (fusion protein versus mAb) is likely to be a key factor in inducing drug immunogenicity. When detected, ADAs against etanercept were found to be non-neutralising in both adult and paediatric studies.^28,35 ADA prevalence increased with treatment duration with a corresponding decrease in etanercept drug levels over time in JIA.^37,38

A highly sensitive ELISA test detected ADA against golimumab in 31.7% of patients with RA, PsA and AS in comparison with standard ELISA which detected ADA only in 4.1%,⁴⁰ while their prevalence varied across adult studies (Table 1). The impact of ADA on serum golimumab concentrations was consistent in JIA and RA studies, whereby higher ADA titres were associated with lower drug concentrations.^28,39,41,56 This was generally shown at ADA titres >1:1000 in JIA,³⁹ and in adults, median peak titres ⩾100 were associated with undetectable or very low drug levels.⁵⁷ Interestingly, in another study in PsA, which used a standard assay, the golimumab dose (50 mg versus 100 mg) did not appear to affect the ADA rates, which remained low for the whole duration of the study through to week 52 (4.9%).⁵⁸

There are fewer studies investigating the presence of ADAs against certolizumab,^42,43 although in both studies, ADAs were associated with lower drug levels (Table 2). A more recent study, however, reported that there was no significant correlation between ADA and certolizumab drug levels (r = −0.471, p = 0.122). There is evidence that ADAs were still detected at higher certolizumab concentrations of >10 mg/l.⁵⁹ The majority of patients with ADA had detectable titres from week 16 onwards, and 65% remained ADA positive after 1 year of follow up.⁵⁹ There are no studies in paediatric populations.

Table 2.

Impact of ADAs on disease outcomes in children and adults with inflammatory arthritis treated with other biologic agents.

Author(s) and reference number	CountryType of study	Type of inflammatory arthritisn (F:M)Age (mean ± SD)	Disease duration		Prevalence of ADAsImpact of additional DMARD therapy on ADA prevalence	Impact on clinical efficacy	Impact on side effects
B-cell depletion (rituximab and biosimilars)
Strand et al.²⁸	Systematic review	RAPatient demographics n/a	Data not available		0–21%	Patients with ADAs versus RTX showed less improvement in disease activity and were less likely to achieve clinical responses in RA patients; no comparative statistics/meta-analysis performed	Higher rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (89% versus 68%) were reported in patients with RA who develop anti-RTX ADAs compared with those who did not
Thurlings et al.⁶⁰	The NetherlandsOpen-label cohort study	RAn = 58(F:M = 44:14)	Data not available		Data not available	Response to treatment and re-treatment measured by decrease in DAS28 and EULAR response was similar in ADA-positive and ADA-negative patients: p = 0.87 and p = 0.32 for the responses at 24 weeks after courses 1 and 2, respectively)	Data not available
Combier et al.⁶¹	FranceRetrospective cohort study	RAn = 124 (F:M = 97:27)Age (mean = 62; range 22–89)Other ARDS (including pSS, SLE, myositis)n = 75(F:M = 59:16)Age (mean = 57; range 21–85)	RA13 years (1–60)Other ARDS10 years (1–28)		RA 2.4%Other ARDS 14.7%	No data available on ADA impact on clinical efficacy14.29% were tested because of loss of efficacy, and 78.6% were tested because of adverse reactionsNo comparative statistics performed	78.57% of ADA+ve patients (48/62 tested) with RA and other ARDs had infusion reactions to second or subsequent RTX cycles
Co-stimulatory blockade (abatacept)
Strand et al.²⁸	Systematic review	RA (age 35–64)JIA (age 3–14.2)RA: n = 1993JIA: n = not available	RA: 1–54JIA: 1–5		RA 2%–20%JIA 2%–11%Suggested that IV therapy associated with less immunogenicity than SC	Data not available	Data not available
Doeleman et al.²⁹	Systematic review and meta-analysis	JIAIV: n = 190SC: n = 173Mean ageIV: 12.4 (3.0)SC: 13.0 (10.0–15.0)	IV: 4.4 (3.8)SC: 2.0 (0.0–4.0)		9.9% (pooled from 3 studies)(95% CI = 0.3–28.6)	No association between ADAs and treatment failure was found	No injection-site reactions experienced with SC and no adverse reactions for IV formulations were described
Hara et al.⁶²	JapanOpen label, multicentre single arm study	JIAIV n = 20Mean age 10.5 years (5–16)4–8 years: 40%9–12 years: 35%13–17 years: 25%	0.75 (0.2–11.9)		5% (IV only)	No association between immunogenicity and loss of efficacy was foundNo comparative statistics performed	No association with safety, adverse events or hypersensitivity was found
Brunner et al.⁶³	International open label, multicentre study single-arm study	JIA:n = 2192–5 years: n = 46, median age 4.0 (3.0–5.0)6–17 years: n = 173, median age 13.0 (10.0–15.0)	2–5 years, 0.5 (0.0–1.0)6–17 years 2.0 (0.0–4.0)		2.3% 6–17 years8.7% 2–5 years(SC only)	No clinical significance of ADAs was found	No issues regarding safety were found
Lovell et al.⁶⁴	Multicentre RCT	JIAn = 58(active arm)n = 59 (placebo)Mean age 12.4 ± 2.9	3.8 ± 3.8		Whole abatacept molecule 3.4% (2/58)CTLA-4 region only 5.5% (9/58; IV only)	No loss of efficacy was found in the two patients with anti-abatacept antibodies to the whole moleculesOf the 9 patients with ADA against the CTLA-4 region, 3 discontinued due to lack of efficacy (small sample size, so no comparative statistics performed)	No infusion reactions were experienced
Haggerty et al.⁶⁵	Integrated analysis across multiple double-blind and open-label studies	RAn = 2237	Data not available		RA 2.1%ADA+ve with MTX 2.3% versus ADA+ve without MTX 1.4%: not significant	Patients who discontinued had a higher level of ADAs compared with those who did not discontinue (7.4% versus 2.6%); no comparative statistics performed	No adverse safety outcomes were described
IL-6 blockade (tocilizumab/sarilumab)
Benucci et al.⁶⁶	ItalyCohort study of tocilizumab	RAn = 126 (F:M = 110:16)Mean age: 59 ± 12 yearsRange: 26–83 years	Mean disease duration: 11 ± 5 years		0.79% (1/126 patients)	The occurrence of ADAs against Tocilizumab is very rare	Data not available
Sigaux et al.⁶⁷	FranceCohort study of tocilizumab	RAn = 40 (F:M = 32:8)Mean age: 56.5 ± 14 years	16 ± 11.7 months		3.2%	No association between ADA status and disease activity was found
Burmester et al.⁶⁸	Meta-analysis of phase III RCTs of Tocilizumab	RATCZ-SC: N = 3099TCZ-IV: N = 5875	Data not available		TCZ-SC: 1.5%TCZ-IV: 1.2%	No association with decreased clinical efficacy was found	No clear impact of ADA on safety and side effects was found
Yokota et al.⁶⁹	JapanPhase II–III RCTs of tocilizumab	sJIAn = 67 (F:M = 38:29)Mean age: 8.3 ± 4.3 years	4.4 ± 3.5 years		7.5%	No decrease in clinical effectiveness was reported	4/5 patients with ADAs experienced mild to moderate infusion reactions
Burmester et al.⁷⁰	Multicentre RCT of sarilumab	RAn = 184 (F:M = 157:27)Mean age: 50.9 ± 12.6 years	8.1 ± 8.1 years		7.1%	ADAs were not associated with a loss of efficacy	ADAs were not associated with hypersensitivity reactions
Wells et al.⁷¹	USAOpen-label study of sarilumab	RAn = 132 (F:M = 106:26)Mean age: 52.4 ± 13.4 years	10.5 ± 9.0 years		150 mg: 12.3%200 mg: 6.1%	Persistent ADAs were associated with lower sarilumab levels but no correlation with clinical efficacy	There was no evidence that ADA status was linked to adverse effects No notable differences in hypersensitivity reactions based on ADA status (no comparative statistics performed)
Genovese et al.⁷²	Multicentre RCT of sarilumab	RA150 mg: n = 40050.1 ± 11.9 years200 mg: n = 39950.8 ± 11.8 years	150 mg: mean 9.5 years (range: 0.3–44.7)200 mg: 8.6 years (0.3–34.2)		150 mg: 16.7%200 mg: 13.0%	The presence of ADAs was not associated with discontinuations due to lack of efficacy	The presence of ADAs was not associated with hypersensitivity reactions
Xu et al.⁷³	WorldwideTwo-compartment model study of sarilumab	RAn = 1770 (F:M = 1466:304)Mean age: 52 ± 12 years	Data not available		18%	ADAs may be linked to higher drug clearance, but this study did not evaluate the impact on clinical efficacy	Data not available
IL-17 blockade (secukinumab/ixekizumab)
Deodhar et al.⁷⁴	Pooled clinical trial safety data for Secukinumab	PsAn = 1380 (F:M = 742:638)Mean age: 48.8 ± 12.0 yearsASn = 794 (F:M = 265:529)Mean age: 42.4 ± 12.3 years	Data not available		<1% across all studies	No effect of ADA positivity on clinical efficacy was reported	Immunogenicity was not related to adverse effects
Mease et al.⁷⁵	Multicentre phase III RCT of ixekizumab	PsAN = 417 (F:M = 225:192)Mean age: 49.5 ± 11.9	6.7 ± 7.2 years		5.3%	72.7% (8/11) of ADA+ve patients achieved a clinical response; no comparative statistics performed as very small sample size	Data not available
Gordon et al.⁷⁶	Combined phase III RCTs of ixekizumab	Plaque psoriasisn = 1150	Data not available		9%	19 patients (1.7%) with high titres of ADAs had a lower clinical response than that of patients with no or low–moderate ADAs (no p value given)	Data not available
IL-12/23 blockade (ustekinumab)
Strand et al.²⁸	Systematic review	PsAPatient demographic data not available	Data not available		8–11%Concomitant use of MTX, AZA, leflunomide or mycophenolate is associated with lower rates of ADAs against INF in PsA	Data not available	Data not available
Smolen et al.⁷⁷	MulticentreRCT	RA 90 mg/8 weeksn = 55 (F:M = 46:9)Age 50.8 ± 13.0RA 90 mg/12 weeksn = 55 (F:M = 47:8)Age 51.1 ± 10.6	RA 90 mg/8 weeks5.6 ± 5.5RA 90 mg/12 weeks6.8 ± 5.9		RA: 5.7% (3.3% neutralising)	Data not available	Data not available
IL-1 blockade (anakinra, canakinumab and rilonacept)
Fleischmann et al.⁷⁸	Multicentre RCT of anakinra	RAn = 1340(F:M = 1045:354)Mean age:55.2 years (range: 19–85)	10.3 years(range: 0.2–59.5 years)		50.1% (1.9% neutralising)	52% of those with neutralising ADA reported disease progression (no comparative statistics performed)	No associations between ADAs and adverse effects
Cohen et al.⁷⁹	Multicentre RCT of anakinra	RAn = 419Anakinra dose: 0.04 mg/kg/dayn = 63Mean age: 52.6 years0.1 mg/kg/dayn = 74Mean age: 53.0 years0.4 mg/kg/dayn = 77Mean age: 52.8 years1.0 mg/kg/dayn = 59Mean age: 49.0 years2.0 mg/kg/dayn = 72Mean age: 54.1 years	0.04 mg/kg/day:6.3 years0.1 mg/kg/day:8.8 years0.4 mg/kg/day:7.0 years1.0 mg/kg/day:6.5 years2.0 mg/kg/day:8.0 years		2.7% (8 out of 297 screened for antibodies)	No impact on clinical efficacy was found	87.5% of ADA positive patients experienced injection-site reactions; no p value reported
Ilowite et al.⁸⁰	Multicentre RCT of anakinra	JIAn = 25(F:M = 17:8)Mean age: 10 years (range: 3–17)		Mean: 3.9 years(range: 1–11)	72% (none were neutralising)	No impact on clinical efficacy was found	Data not available
Sun et al.⁸¹	Prospective study of canakinumab	JIAn = 201Age range: 2 to <20 years			3.1% (6 of the 14 patients screened for antibodies were positive, giving an incidence of 6/196)	No evidence of loss in clinical efficacy was foundObserved trough canakinumab concentrations in ADA+ve patients were comparable with ADA−ve patients (no comparative statistics performed)	No association was demonstrated between ADAs and adverse effects
Ruperto et al.⁸²	Multicentre RCT of canakinumab	JIAn = 50(F:M = 28:22)Median age: 8.0 years(IQR: 6.0–12.0)		Median: 2.7 years(IQR: 1.3–6.2)	8% (4/50 patients)None were neutralising	Data not available	Data not available
Lovell et al.⁸³	USARCT of rilonacept	JIAn = 24(F:M = 16:8)Mean age: 12.6 ± 4.3 years		3.1 years (mean)	54.2% (13/24)	No correlation between ADA and clinical responses was foundStatistical testing not performed due to small sample size	All patients who experienced ⩾3 injection-site reactions were ADA+ve

ve, positive; −ve, negative; ADA, anti-drug antibody; ARDS, autoimmune rheumatic diseases; AS, ankylosing spondylitis; AZA, azathioprine; DMARD, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; F, female; INF, infliximab; IL, interleukin; IQR, interquartile range; IV, intravenous; JIA, juvenile idiopathic arthritis; M, male; MTX, methotrexate; PsA, psoriatic arthritis; pSS, primary Sjögren syndrome; RA, rheumatoid arthritis; RCT, randomised control trial; RTX, rituximab; SC, subcutaneous; SD, standard deviation; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; TCZ, tocilizumab.

When anti-TNF-α agents have been studied comparatively in adults, there was evidence of increased prevalence of ADAs against infliximab compared with adalimumab (25.3% versus 14.1% respectively), as well as between adalimumab and golimumab (14.1% versus 3.8%).²⁵ A similar trend was found in a meta-analysis of biologic agents in JIA, where the pooled prevalence of ADAs against infliximab was 36.6% compared with 21.8% for ADAs against adalimumab.³⁵ As mentioned above, the prevalence of ADAs against golimumab seems to be higher in children (46.8%) but based on limited evidence.³⁹

Variable impact of ADAs directed against anti-TNF-α treatments on clinical efficacy: loss of efficacy to adalimumab and infliximab was consistently found in children and adults who developed ADAs

Various studies in RA, PsA and AS provided evidence for an association between the presence of ADA against adalimumab and loss of clinical efficacy or diminished clinical response,^23,28,31,50 while other studies found no association^53,54 (Table 1). The impact of ADAs on the trend of inflammatory markers is not clear; some studies found higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) in patients who had detectable ADAs,^27,31 whereas other studies found no such association.⁵³ In addition, the presence of both ADA and low adalimumab concentration at 3 months were together significant predictors of poor response at 12 months.^50,52 However, the risk of flares following various adalimumab tapering strategies in RA did not seem to be influenced by the adalimumab serum levels or ADA prevalence.⁸⁴

A higher proportion of ADA-positive JIA patients treated with adalimumab experienced loss of response and more clinical relapses than those without ADAs.^28,30 In JIA, it was noted that transient ADAs (defined as measurable ADAs on up to two consecutive time points which disappeared on subsequent measurements without having any impact on treatment efficacy of toxicity) were not associated with diminished response to medication, whereas permanent ADAs did lower treatment response.³⁴

Most adult rheumatology studies found no detectable ADAs against etanercept.^27,44 It has been suggested that neither etanercept concentrations nor ADA positivity correlated with JIA activity or remission states.³⁷

A meta-analysis of nine studies of infliximab in adult autoimmune diseases found that the presence of ADAs decreased the odds of response by 58%.²⁵ After 52 weeks of treatment with infliximab, non-responder RA patients were significantly more likely to be ADA positive.⁴⁷

Adult RA studies found that ADAs against golimumab were associated with a poorer clinical response.^28,56 ADA-positive RA patients (15.2% at 24 weeks) had a worse EULAR response and higher DAS-28 compared with ADA-negative patients.⁵⁶ However, one study which utilised a more sensitive method of ADA detection (drug-tolerant enzyme immunoassay, DT-EIA) in adults, reported no effects of ADAs to golimumab on clinical responses at 24 and 52 weeks, across RA, PsA and AS.⁴⁰ This highlights the importance in sensitivities of assays used. Studies in children with JIA found that ADAs to golimumab did not appear to have impact on clinical responses.^39,57 Brunner et al.³⁹ reported that none of the eight JIA patients found with high ADA titres >1:1000, experienced flares.

ADAs against certolizumab appeared to have an impact on RA clinical response at 3 months, where the majority of ADA-positive patients were non-responders,⁴² but there was no independent correlation with the 12-month EULAR response,⁴³ suggesting that there was a time-dependent relationship. There are no paediatric studies.

A meta-analysis performed on 12 observational prospective cohort studies in adults demonstrated that the development of ADA reduced the anti-TNF response rate (RR) by 68% [RR = 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22, 0.48],⁸⁵ while in children with JIA, a qualitative analysis found that antibodies to infliximab and adalimumab were associated with treatment failure.³⁵

Additional methotrexate treatment decreased the rate of ADA formation against anti-TNF-α treatments

Generally, for both adults and children, concomitant DMARD therapy was beneficial and resulted in a decrease in ADA positivity, but the impact of DMARDs on ADA formation was not always analysed to enable reliable conclusions^9,30 (Table 1). Most studies looked at concomitant methotrexate (MTX) therapy, but azathioprine, leflunomide and mycophenolate have also been shown to be associated with lower ADA prevalence, suggesting that all DMARDs may be associated with benefits against drug-induced immunogenicity.^23,28,32,52 Unfortunately, none of the studies evaluated comparatively the impact of individual DMARDs on immunogenicity in inflammatory arthritis because of small numbers of patients on DMARDs other than MTX, and because some patients were treated with more than one conventional DMARD. Concomitant use of MTX was associated with lower rates of ADAs against infliximab in RA.^{28,32,45,50,86} Moreover, RA patients treated with infliximab were less likely to develop ADAs if they received high biologic doses/induction therapy, or if they received continuous versus intermittent therapy.^{28,33,44,45,86} A randomised controlled trial (RCT) of infliximab plus MTX for the treatment of JIA, found that more patients achieved clinical response in the ADA-negative group (79% versus 67%).³⁶

Similar evidence has been found in children, with studies suggesting a protective effect with the addition of MTX.^34,35,57 Interestingly, DMARD use in children was found to be significantly lower in those who developed permanent ADAs to adalimumab.³⁴ It has also been suggested that MTX reduces immunogenicity against adalimumab in a dose-dependent manner,^44,50 as patients who did not develop ADAs were on a higher MTX dose.⁵⁵ However, a paediatric study found that there was no difference in ADA rates in JIA patients with longer exposure to MTX.³⁰

In adults, concomitant use of MTX was associated with lower incidence of ADAs to golimumab.^28,40,87 A study found that the mean trough golimumab level at 24 weeks was comparable in ADA-positive versus -negative patients, with or without concomitant MTX.⁸⁷

ADAs against infliximab and adalimumab have been associated with side effects to therapy

In both adults and children, there was no clear consensus on whether ADAs have an impact on safety (Table 1). As expected, most reports included a small number of cases experiencing side effects. Adverse events more frequently mentioned included injection-site or infusion reactions, serum sickness and thromboembolic events. Some studies suggested that adverse events occurred more frequently in patients with ADAs to adalimumab,^28,31,33 with others showing no significant differences.^27,54 In paediatric studies, despite limited information available, no association between the presence of ADA and adverse events was reported.³⁵ There was a suggestion of a possible increase in minor upper respiratory tract infections in children with detectable ADAs; however, this conclusion was limited by the small sample size.³⁴

ADAs against infliximab have been reported to confer a higher likelihood of adverse drug reactions.^{25,28,33,44,45,48,50} In an RA study,⁴⁸ ADA-positive patients had an increased risk of adverse drug reactions compared with ADA-negative patients over 52 weeks [21 (18%) versus 7 (7%), p < 0.018].⁵⁰ Similarly, JIA infusion reactions to infliximab were more commonly seen in ADA-positive patients (58% versus 19%).³⁶ A retrospective chart review of children with JIA and paediatric inflammatory ocular diseases found that patients with ADAs had a 15-fold increased risk of infusion reactions to infliximab compared with patients without ADAs.²⁹ This study also found that ADA-positive children were significantly younger (mean age 7.01 versus 9.88 years, p = 0.003).

Limited data were available regarding the impact of immunogenicity against etanercept on safety. Studies across age did not report an association between ADA positivity and adverse events.^35,57 In JIA studies, the proportion of patients with ADAs did not differ between responders and non-responders to etanercept.³⁷

Studies in both paediatric and adult populations did not report an association between ADAs and adverse effects to golimumab.^39,56,57 Similarly, multiple adult studies reported no association between the presence of ADAs against certolizumab and adverse effects;^42,43,59 in addition, RA patients who experienced adverse effects did not have ADAs.^42,43

Immunogenicity to anti-TNF-α biosimilars is similar to or lower than that of their originators

Biosimilars are new biological products which are highly similar to their biological reference drug and have comparable clinical efficacy. At present, the use of biosimilars in JIA is limited, thus most evidence related to their immunogenicity is available from adult studies. Multiple studies have shown similar clinical efficacy and immunogenicity profiles when comparing biosimilars with their reference products.^28,88–96 For example, ADA-positive CT-P13 (an infliximab biosimilar) patients showed less clinical improvement.²⁸ ADA against infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars were associated with lower drug concentrations.^93,97 The PLANETRA study found that peak serum CT-P13 concentrations were reduced in the ADA-positive group (C_max = 85.1 µg/ml) compared with the ADA-negative subset (C_max = 96.7 µg/ml).⁹³ One meta-analysis reported on the pooled response rates (RRs) of ADA against anti-TNF-α biosimilars compared with their reference product.⁹⁰ There were no significant differences in ADA formation rates between the infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars and their reference drugs at 24 to 30 weeks. The etanercept biosimilars showed significantly lower rates of ADA formation compared with the reference product, with a pooled RR = 0.05 at 24–30 weeks.⁹⁰ A study of etanercept biosimilar GP2015 did not detect any neutralising ADAs, and all ADA responses were transient (absent by week 24).⁹⁶

Clinical relevance of ADAs against other biologic agents in adult and paediatric inflammatory arthritis studies

ADAs against abatacept are mainly non-neutralising and do not have significant impact on clinical efficacy unless treatment is temporarily discontinued

The prevalence of ADAs to fusion proteins, such as abatacept (which comprises an Fc region of IgG1 fused to the extracellular domain of CTLA-4) is generally acknowledged to be lower than to therapeutic mAbs. The prevalence of ADAs to abatacept ranged from 1% to 20% in adult studies,^28,44,51,65 and from 8.7% to 23.3% in paediatric studies³⁵ (Table 2). Younger children with JIA (2–5 years) had a higher prevalence of ADAs than older children (6–17 years).⁶³ One JIA study compared the prevalence of abatacept specific ADA with anti-CTLA-4-specific antibodies and found the latter to be much higher (1.2% versus 20.7%).⁹⁷ In terms of timing of the development of ADAs in children, one study found that ADA concentration increased with a longer duration of exposure to abatacept,⁶² whereas another found no increase with continued exposure.⁶⁴

Similar to etanercept, abatacept generated ADAs which bind to the Fc fragment (hinge region) and have no neutralising activity.²⁸ Non-neutralising ADAs decreased the circulating levels of abatacept by enhancing drug clearance in adults.^44,51 In children, ADAs were also found to be non-neutralising but were not found to be associated with low abatacept concentrations.^62,97

No loss of efficacy due to ADA against abatacept was found in JIA studies,^35,62,64,97 while in contrast, in adults with RA, intermittent treatment discontinuation led to higher incidence of immunogenicity and loss of clinical response.⁶⁵ It was observed that adult patients who discontinued the treatment temporarily had higher ADA rates than those on continuous treatment (7.4% versus 2.6% respectively).⁴⁴ Similarly, ADAs were more frequent in children with JIA who interrupted treatment and had abatacept concentration below therapeutic levels, suggesting that higher treatment doses may be beneficial against immunogenicity.⁹⁷

Some adult studies suggested that intravenous therapy was associated with less immunogenicity than subcutaneous administration,^28,98 while other studies found no difference.⁴⁴ In JIA, no difference was found between the two routes of administration.³⁵

In RA, concomitant MTX therapy did not significantly affect immunogenicity.⁶⁵ In paediatric studies, the impact of MTX has not been studied.³⁵ Reassuringly, ADAs against abatacept were not associated with increased risk for injection site reactions, hypersensitivity or any other safety concerns,^35,62,65,97 even when patients have been followed up to 7 years.⁶⁴

ADAs against B-cell-targeted therapies are dose dependent and have impact on clinical efficacy and risk of adverse reactions

Rituximab is a chimeric mAb against CD20. There have been no paediatric studies investigating the relevance of ADAs against rituximab. However, ADAs against rituximab have been reported in 0–21% of adult RA patients.²⁸ Additionally, ADAs were found to be associated with a reduced treatment response and higher rates of treatment serious adverse events.^28,61 Lower serum rituximab concentrations have been reported in ADA-positive patients compared with ADA-negative patients in RA.⁶⁰ Moreover, the use of higher rituximab doses and induction therapy has been associated with a decreased incidence of ADAs in RA.²⁸

A meta-analysis reported that the pooled RR of ADA formation for rituximab biosimilars was 0.86 at weeks 24–28.⁹¹ Of note, the pooled RR of neutralising ADA formation at the same time point was 1.16. Neutralising ADAs were also of a very low incidence at week 72 in the rituximab biosimilar CT-P10.⁹² Multiple studies have demonstrated a similar side-effect profile for biosimilars, as higher rates of infusion-related reactions were present in ADA-positive patients compared with ADA-negative patients^{28,88,89,94,95} (Table 2).

Neutralising ADAs against tocilizumab has no clear impact on clinical efficacy and potential on side effects in adults, while there is a trend for clinical impact in children

Tocilizumab is a humanised mAb against the interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6R). Several studies have reported low ADA rates in RA patients.^28,66,67 ADA positivity has been recorded in 1.5% and 1.2% of RA patients receiving intravenous and subcutaneous tocilizumab, respectively, with a high proportion of these being neutralising ADAs⁶⁸ (Table 2). The rate of ADA formation has not been seen to significantly differ in tocilizumab monotherapy versus combination therapy with conventional synthetic DMARDs.⁶⁸ No correlation has been found between ADA rates and adverse events or a reduced treatment efficacy in adults.^51,68 Similarly, low levels of ADAs to tocilizumab have been reported in JIA patients, with a pooled prevalence of 2.3% across four studies.³⁵ However, neutralising antibodies against tocilizumab in JIA have indeed been shown to correlate with treatment failure, as well as with infusion and hypersensitivity reactions.^35,69 Yokota et al.⁶⁹ found that out of five JIA patients treated with tocilizumab who developed ADA, four (80%) withdrew from the study due to infusion reactions.

ADAs to sarilumab seem to have limited impact on clinical efficacy and no impact on adverse events

Sarilumab is human recombinant mAb that blocks both the soluble and membrane-bound IL-6 receptor, similarly to tocilizumab, but with a higher affinity. Currently, there are no studies of immunogenicity in paediatric populations. The presence of ADAs did not appear to affect clinical efficacy in various trials.^70–72 The MONARCH trial demonstrated that only 2.7% of RA patients had persistent ADAs, however, no neutralising ADA were detected.⁷⁰ It has been suggested that ADAs against sarilumab are, in most cases, transient.⁹⁹ Xu et al.⁷³ described a trend towards higher apparent linear clearance of sarilumab when ADAs were present. In addition, patients with persistent ADAs had a lower mean drug levels compared with ADA-negative patients. At a dose of 150 mg, treatment-emergent ADA incidence was 24.6% compared with 18.2% at a higher dose of 200 mg. Of those who had persistent ADA, the incidence of neutralising ADA was also higher in the group receiving 150 mg sarilumab compared with 200 mg (10.8% and 3.0% respectively).⁷¹ Multiple studies have shown that ADA positivity was not associated with a higher incidence of adverse effects.^70–72 Hypersensitivity reactions occurring during treatment were reported in 8.0% of ADA-negative patients and in 3.1% of ADA-positive patients.⁷²

Neutralising ADAs against IL-12/23 blockade have low prevalence but possible impact on clinical efficacy in inflammatory arthritis

Ustekinumab is a human immunoglobulin G1κ mAb against common sub-unit p40 of IL-12 and IL-23. The prevalence of ADAs was 8% to 11% in psoriatic arthritis adult patients treated with ustekinumab.²⁸ Moreover, a study evaluating the efficacy of subcutaneous ustekinumab in the treatment of RA reported that 7/123 (5.7%) of patients had ADAs, while 4/123 (3.3%) had neutralising ADAs.⁷⁷ In this study, serum concentrations of ustekinumab were generally lower in ADA-positive patients⁷⁷ (Table 2). There is evidence that neutralising ADAs against ustekinumab were associated with lower drug levels and loss of clinical efficacy in psoriasis and Crohn’s disease,^100,101 suggesting overall that they may have similar impact in inflammatory arthritis. The relevance of ustekinumab immunogenicity is yet to be studied in children.

Very low prevalence of ADAs against IL-17 blockade has been reported, and no impact on side effects or clinical efficacy

Secukinumab is a mAb targeting IL-17A. The treatment is not licensed for children. In a recent systematic review, the prevalence of ADAs against secukinumab was 0–1%.²⁸ A study evaluated the prevalence of ADAs at 52 weeks in patients with psoriasis, PsA and AS treated with secukinumab and found it to be <1%; ADAs were not associated with loss of efficacy, changes in drug levels or adverse events.⁷⁴

Ixekizumab is a humanised mAb which targets IL-17A used for the treatment of plaque psoriasis, PsA and AS. The prevalence of ADAs was 5.3%⁷⁵ and 9%⁷⁶ in adult patients with psoriasis and PsA, respectively, and they occurred within the first 12 weeks of treatment.⁷⁶ ADAs were found to be non-neutralising and did not correlate with the rate of adverse reactions (Table 2). Patients with psoriasis or PsA who developed ADAs against ixekizumab had low and constant titres, which did not significantly impact clinical response. No data in children are available.

ADAs against IL-1 blockade do not have significant impact on clinical efficacy or side effects

Anakinra is a recombinant a human IL-1 recombinant receptor antagonist initially trialled in RA, where it has been associated with a prevalence of ADA ranging from 50.1% to 70.9%.^78,79 Similar to other recombinant proteins, only a small proportion of ADAs were neutralising (25/1240, 1.9%)⁷⁸ (Table 2). Of these 25 RA patients, 13 (52%) reported disease progression; however, no relationships were found between neutralising antibody status and the occurrence of severe allergic reactions, malignancies, opportunistic infections, or serious infections.⁷⁸ One study assessing the efficacy of anakinra in patients with JIA found that the prevalence of ADAs increased from 75% at 12 weeks to 82% at 12 months.⁸⁰ At 12 weeks, all 4/64 (6%) of patients who had neutralising antibodies to anakinra were non-responders to treatment.⁸⁰ However, non-neutralising antibodies to anakinra were not associated with a reduced response to treatment.⁸⁰ There have been no studies analysing the association between ADAs to anakinra and adverse events in JIA.

Canakinumab is a fully human mAb against anti-IL-1β used in systemic-onset JIA (soJIA). Studies in children with systemic JIA found a prevalence of ADAs against canakinumab of 3.1% (6/196),⁸¹ and 8%,⁸² and ADAs had no neutralising capacity and did not affect the drug levels or the rate of side effects.

Rilonacept is a fully human dimeric fusion protein that acts as a soluble decoy receptor which blocks IL-1β. An RCT in soJIA did not find an association between ADA positivity and clinical response.⁸³ This trial found that 54.2% (13/24) of patients developed ADA during the 23-month period of open-label treatment (following a 4-week double-blind treatment phase). There was no correlation between ADA positivity and plasma levels of rilonacept.⁸³ Although the sample size was small, this study noted that the patients who developed at least three injection-site reactions were all ADA positive, thus suggesting there is an association between ADAs and adverse effects.

Conclusion

Immunogenicity to biologic treatment has been investigated in various types of inflammatory arthritis in children and adults. The overall impression is that immunogenicity to biologics used in rheumatology was not particularly confounded by clinical indication or significantly affected by patients’ age (Table 3). However, a direct comparison between the studies evaluated by this report is not possible, because of the high study heterogeneity, a low number of studies investigating less commonly used biologic treatments and high variability between the methods of ADA detection and time points of ADA measurements, study design and concomitant MTX therapy.

Table 3.

Comparison between the prevalence ranges for ADAs to various biologic agents in adult versus paediatric populations.

Prevalence of ADAs	Adults with inflammatory arthritis (%)	Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (%)
TNF-α blockers
Adalimumab and biosimilars	0–67	6–45
Infliximab and biosimilars	6.1–62	26–37
Etanercept and biosimilars	0–13	0–33
Golimumab	2–39.9	46.8
Certolizumab	2.8–65	Data not available
B-cell depletion
Rituximab and biosimilars	0–21	Data not available
Co-stimulatory blockade
Abatacept IV	2–20	2–11
Abatacept SC	2–20	2–11
IL-6 blockade
Tocilizumab	0–16	1–8
Sarilumab	7–24.6	Data not available
IL-17 blockade
Sekukinumab	0–1	Data not available
Ixekizumab	5.3–9	Data not available
IL-12/23 blockade
Ustekinumab	5.7–11	Data not available
IL-1 blockade
Anakinra	50.1–70.9	81.8
Canakinumab	Data not available	3.1–8
Rinolacept	Data not available	54.2

ADA, anti-drug antibody; IL, interleukin; IV, intravenous; SC, subcutaneous; SD, standard deviation; TNF, tumour necrosis factor.

As there are some differences between the biologic agents approved for use in paediatric versus adult rheumatic diseases, in some cases there were no data available to enable comparisons between the two populations (e.g. certolizumab, sarilumab, secukinumab, ustekinumab and ixekizumab have no studies in children, while rilonacept and canakinumab are not commonly used in adults). The discrepancy found between the rate of ADAs against golimumab is not easy to interpret because they have been investigated only in one study in JIA.

This literature review provided evidence for variable prevalence of ADAs depending on the study methodology, sample size, time points for sample evaluation, concomitant DMARD therapy, as well as laboratory assays used for ADA detection. Overall, the highest ADA prevalence was found in patients treated with mAbs against TNF-α and recombinant human IL-1 receptor antagonist (anakinra), although the impact of ADAs on clinical efficacy was clearly influenced by their neutralising properties and impact on drug levels. In contrast to immunogenicity to IL-1 blockade, which had minimal or no impact on clinical efficacy as the proportion of neutralising ADA was very low, ADA against adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab, and to a certain extent, golimumab had a significant impact on clinical efficacy. As a consequence, the choice of biologic therapeutic agent for individual patients influences their immunogenicity monitoring strategy.

All mAbs against TNF-α (and their biosimilars) were associated with higher prevalence of ADAs than etanercept (a fusion protein) and this is probably explained by the structure of the biologic agent as well as frequency of administration, which in the case of etanercept, ensures more constant serum drug levels. It is recognised that anti-idiotypic ADAs against therapeutic mAbs usually target the drug-binding site, as this does not belong to the patient immunoglobulin repertoire, therefore these ADAs have neutralising properties with impact of drug efficacy and they are clinically relevant.³³ The detection of neutralising ADAs in certain patients should be monitored and correlated with clinical response and drug levels to guide further therapeutic decisions.¹⁰² Neutralising ADAs have been found in patients treated with adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol and golimumab, as well as tocilizumab, ustekinumab and secukinumab.

By contrast, in the case of fusion proteins which comprise a naturally occurring receptor fused with the constant region of human Ig, the immunogenicity process is primarily triggered by the recognition of the fusion part of the molecule with no direct impact on the drug-binding site. Overall, these therapeutic agents were associated with less immunogenicity, although neutralising ADAs against fusion proteins have also been described with both etanercept and abatacept,^65,103 suggesting that their monitoring could be relevant in selected categories of patients, especially if the treatment has been discontinued temporarily.

Despite the potential side effects associated with the presence of ADAs overall, irrespective of their neutralising properties, detection of ADAs does not preclude loss of clinical response, as long as it does not reduce the serum concentration of the biologic agent below the therapeutic threshold,³³ therefore monitoring of ADA without drug levels has no clinical relevance.

High ADA concentration correlated with lower drug levels and impact on clinical efficacy when patients of all ages were treated with adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab, rituximab, abatacept, anakinra, canakinumab, and possibly ustekinumab, while the presence of ADA had less impact on clinical efficacy in adult patients treated with IL-6 and IL-17 blockage and children treated with rilonacept (IL-1β decoy receptor). Patients with higher ADA titres and lower or not/detectable drug levels are probably at risk of losing clinical efficacy and need to be monitored more closely.

It is clinically important to take into consideration the fact that not all detectable neutralising ADAs had impact on clinical outcomes (e.g. tocilizumab ADAs lowered treatment response in children with JIA but less in adults with RA). Neutralising ADAs were more commonly found in patients treated with mAbs compared with fusion proteins; however, not all ADAs against mAbs had neutralising properties or impact on clinical efficacy (e.g. ADAs against ixekizumab were predominantly non-neutralising and did not influence clinical response).

The timing of developing ADAs varied according to the type of biologic treatment and patients’ age. Patients developed ADAs against adalimumab earlier in their disease course, while ADAs in children with JIA treated with abatacept increased with longer time exposure to the drug.

Although data from paediatric studies are scarce overall, studies found that younger age in children with JIA was associated with a higher prevalence of ADAs, as well as side effects to certain biologics, suggesting that caution in monitoring younger patients is advisable.

There is good evidence that higher doses of rituximab and infliximab, as well as more regular administration (as in the case of etanercept) were associated with lower ADA prevalence, suggesting that medication discontinuation and tapering biologic treatment doses could have impact on clinical efficacy. Monitoring patients’ compliance and taking into consideration their dosing regimen, route and frequency of biologic medication administration are important aspects of immunogenicity risk assessment. Increasing treatment dose as well as switching to intravenous formulations can lower the ADAs and restore treatment response; therefore, these are useful therapeutic strategies to address the clinical impact of drug-induced immunogenicity.

In addition, the large variability of ADA levels against biologic agents detected in various adult and paediatric studies of inflammatory arthritis is very likely influenced by the sensitivity of the assay used, concomitant MTX dose, time point of sample collection, as well as patients’ characteristics (genetic background, smoking, age). The overall impact of ADAs on drug efficacy, as well as therapeutic drug monitoring, are particularly relevant in guiding future therapeutic strategies of tapering biologic treatments in inflammatory arthritis patients,^102,104 although further research related to their impact on clinical decision making is required.^16,84

Based on data available in the literature, concomitant treatment with MTX to address the risk of immunogenicity is recommended in patients treated with abatacept, infliximab, golimumab, while in the case of treatment with etanercept, abatacept and tocilizumab, the impact of additional MTX is not significant.

We propose a potential strategy for drug immunogenicity monitoring for improved clinical benefit (Figure 1). The main clinical instances when ADAs and drug levels should be monitored is loss of clinical efficacy, monotherapy with biologic agents recommended to be prescribed in addition to MTX, clinical reasons for frequent dose intermittent discontinuation, in patients who tapered biologics (especially administered subcutaneously), patients who develop infusion/injection reactions and other side effects to therapy. Further research especially focused on patient individual risk to develop immunogenicity to biologics is required to enable personalised therapy selection.

Figure 1.

Potential clinical applications of the assessment of immunogenicity to biologic treatments.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: ECJ and CC were supported by NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre grants (BRC772/III/EJ/101350 and BRC525/III/CC/191350). LC was supported by the UCL and Birkbeck MRC Doctoral Training Programme. This work was performed within the Centre for Adolescent Rheumatology Versus Arthritis at UCL. UCLH and GOSH were supported by grants from versus Arthritis (21593 and 20164), GOSCC, and the NIHR-Biomedical Research Centres at both GOSH and UCLH. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

ORCID iD

Coziana Ciurtin

References

De Groot

Scott

. Immunogenicity of protein therapeutics. Trends Immunol 2007; 28: 482–490.

Hansel

Kropshofer

Singer

, et al. The safety and side effects of monoclonal antibodies. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010; 9: 325–338.

Boehncke

Brembilla

. Immunogenicity of biologic therapies: causes and consequences. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2018; 14: 513–523.

Sazonovs

Kennedy

Moutsianas

, et al. HLA-DQA1*05 carriage associated with development of anti-drug antibodies to infliximab and adalimumab in patients with Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 189–199.

Bloem

Hernandez-Breijo

Martinez-Feito

, et al. Immunogenicity of therapeutic antibodies: monitoring antidrug antibodies in a clinical context. Ther Drug Monit 2017; 39: 327–32.

Jani

Barton

Warren

, et al. The role of DMARDs in reducing the immunogenicity of TNF inhibitors in chronic inflammatory diseases. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2014; 53: 213–222.

Link

Lundkvist Ryner

Fink

, et al. Human leukocyte antigen genes and interferon beta preparations influence risk of developing neutralising anti-drug antibodies in multiple sclerosis. PLoS One 2014; 9: e90479.

Hassler

Bachelet

Duhaze

, et al. Clinicogenomic factors of biotherapy immunogenicity in autoimmune disease: a prospective multicohort study of the ABIRISK consortium. PLoS Med 2020; 17: e1003348.

Quistrebert

Hassler

Bachelet

, et al. Incidence and risk factors for adalimumab and infliximab anti-drug antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis: a European retrospective multicohort analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2019; 48: 967–975.

10.

Vanderlaan

Zhu-Shimoni

Lin

, et al. Experience with host cell protein impurities in biopharmaceuticals. Biotechnol Prog 2018; 34: 828–837.

11.

El Amrani

Gobel

Egas

, et al. Quantification of neutralising anti-drug antibodies and their neutralising capacity using competitive displacement and tandem mass spectrometry: infliximab as proof of principle. J Transl Autoimmun 2019; 1: 100004.

12.

Van Schouwenburg

Van de Stadt

De Jong

, et al. Adalimumab elicits a restricted anti-idiotypic antibody response in autoimmune patients resulting in functional neutralisation. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72: 104–109.

13.

Vaisman-Mentesh

Gutierrez-Gonzalez

DeKosky

, et al. The molecular mechanisms that underlie the immune biology of anti-drug antibody formation following treatment with monoclonal antibodies. Front Immunol 2020; 11: 1951.

14.

Nelson

Dhimolea

Reichert

.Development trends for human monoclonal antibody therapeutics. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010; 9: 767–774.

15.

Schellekens

.Bioequivalence and the immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002; 1: 457–462.

16.

Mulleman

Balsa

.Adalimumab concentration-based tapering strategy: as good as the recommended dosage. Ann Rheum Dis 2018; 77: 473–475.

17.

Sethu

Govindappa

Alhaidari

, et al. Immunogenicity to biologics: mechanisms, prediction and reduction. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 2012; 60: 331–344.

18.

Rup

Pallardy

Sikkema

, et al. Standardizing terms, definitions and concepts for describing and interpreting unwanted immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals: recommendations of the Innovative Medicines Initiative ABIRISK consortium. Clin Exp Immunol 2015; 181: 385–400.

19.

Jani

Isaacs

Morgan

, et al. Detection of anti-drug antibodies using a bridging ELISA compared with radioimmunoassay in adalimumab-treated rheumatoid arthritis patients with random drug levels. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2016; 55: 2050–2055.

20.

Ternant

Elhasnaoui

Szely

, et al. AB0310 Trough concentration and estimated clearance can detect immunogenicity to adalimumab IN RA patients: a prospective longitudinal multicentre study. Ann Rheum Dis 2020; 79(Suppl. 1): 1453–1454.

21.

Martina

Gabriella

Francesca

, et al. Assessing the clinical relevance and risk minimization of antibodies to biologics in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) (ABIRISK)-preliminary results. Pediatr Rheumatol 2018; 16(Suppl. 2): P191.

22.

Bartelds

Krieckaert

Nurmohamed

, et al. Development of antidrug antibodies against adalimumab and association with disease activity and treatment failure during long-term follow-up. JAMA 2011; 305: 1460–1468.

23.

Chen

Tsai

, et al. Significant associations of antidrug antibody levels with serum drug trough levels and therapeutic response of adalimumab and etanercept treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2015; 74: e16.

24.

Gunn

III Sealey

Jamali

, et al. From the bench to clinical practice: understanding the challenges and uncertainties in immunogenicity testing for biopharmaceuticals. Clin Exp Immunol 2016; 184: 137–146.

25.

Thomas

Borazan

Barroso

, et al. Comparative immunogenicity of TNF inhibitors: impact on clinical efficacy and tolerability in the management of autoimmune diseases. A systematic review and meta-analysis. BioDrugs 2015; 29: 241–258.

26.

Van Schie

Hart

de Groot

, et al. The antibody response against human and chimeric anti-TNF therapeutic antibodies primarily targets the TNF binding region. Ann Rheum Dis 2015; 74: 311–314.

27.

Moots

Xavier

Mok

, et al. The impact of anti-drug antibodies on drug concentrations and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab: results from a multinational, real-world clinical practice, non-interventional study. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0175207.

28.

Strand

Balsa

Al-Saleh

, et al. Immunogenicity of biologics in chronic inflammatory diseases: a systematic review. BioDrugs 2017; 31: 299–316.

29.

Doeleman

MJH

Maarseveen

EMV

Swart

. Immunogenicity of biologic agents in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Rheumatology, 2019; 58: 1839–1849.

30.

Marino

Real-Fernandez

Rovero

, et al. Anti-adalimumab antibodies in a cohort of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: incidence and clinical correlations. Clin Rheumatol 2018; 37: 1407–1411.

31.

Maid

Xavier

Real

, et al. Incidence of antidrug antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis patients from argentina treated with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab in a real-world setting. J Clin Rheumatol 2018; 24: 177–182.

32.

Balsa

Sanmarti

Rosas

, et al. Drug immunogenicity in patients with inflammatory arthritis and secondary failure to tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapies: the REASON study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2018; 57: 688–693.

33.

Van Schouwenburg

Rispens

Wolbink

.Immunogenicity of anti-TNF biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2013; 9: 164–172.

34.

Skrabl-Baumgartner

Seidel

Langner-Wegscheider

, et al. Drug monitoring in long-term treatment with adalimumab for juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis. Arch Dis Child 2019; 104: 246–250.

35.

Doeleman

MJH

van Maarseveen

Swart

. Immunogenicity of biologic agents in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019; 58: 1839–1849.

36.

Ruperto

Lovell

Cuttica

, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of infliximab plus methotrexate for the treatment of polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56: 3096–3106.

37.

Bader-Meunier

Krzysiek

Lemelle

, et al. Etanercept concentration and immunogenicity do not influence the response to etanercept in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2019; 48: 1014–1018.

38.

Constantin

Foeldvari

Vojinovic

, et al. Two-year efficacy and safety of etanercept in pediatric patients with extended oligoarthritis, enthesitis-related arthritis, or psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol 2016; 43: 816–824.

39.

Brunner

Ruperto

Tzaribachev

, et al. Subcutaneous golimumab for children with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised-withdrawal trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2018; 77: 21–29.

40.

Leu

Adedokun

Gargano

, et al. Immunogenicity of golimumab and its clinical relevance in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019; 58: 441–446.

41.

Kneepkens

Plasencia

Krieckaert

, et al. Golimumab trough levels, antidrug antibodies and clinical response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated in daily clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73: 2217–2219.

42.

Gehin

Goll

Warren

, et al. Associations between certolizumab pegol serum levels, anti-drug antibodies and treatment response in patients with inflammatory joint diseases: data from the NOR-DMARD study. Arthritis Res Ther 2019; 21: 256.

43.

Jani

Isaacs

Morgan

, et al. High frequency of antidrug antibodies and association of random drug levels with efficacy in certolizumab pegol-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the BRAGGSS cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76: 208–213.

44.

Schaeverbeke

Truchetet

Kostine

, et al. Immunogenicity of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis patients: lessons for clinical practice. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2016; 55: 210–220.

45.

Ducourau

Mulleman

Paintaud

, et al. Antibodies toward infliximab are associated with low infliximab concentration at treatment initiation and poor infliximab maintenance in rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Res Ther 2011; 13: R105.

46.

Hambardzumyan

Hermanrud

Marits

, et al. Association of female sex and positive rheumatoid factor with low serum infliximab and anti-drug antibodies, related to treatment failure in early rheumatoid arthritis: results from the SWEFOT trial population. Scand J Rheumatol 2019; 48: 362–366.

47.

Siljehult

Arlestig

Eriksson

, et al. Concentrations of infliximab and anti-drug antibodies in relation to clinical response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 2018; 47: 345–350.

48.

Krintel

Grunert

Hetland

, et al. The frequency of anti-infliximab antibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated in routine care and the associations with adverse drug reactions and treatment failure. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013; 52: 1245–1253.

49.

Ruperto

Lovell

Cuttica

, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of infliximab plus methotrexate for the treatment of polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis: findings from an open-label treatment extension. Ann Rheum Dis 2010; 69: 718–722.

50.

Murdaca

Spano

Contatore

, et al. Immunogenicity of infliximab and adalimumab: what is its role in hypersensitivity and modulation of therapeutic efficacy and safety? Expert Opin Drug Saf 2016; 15: 43–52.

51.

Niccoli

Nannini

Blandizzi

, et al. Personalization of biologic therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: less frequently accounted choice-driving variables. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2018; 14: 2097–2111.

52.

Jani

Chinoy

Warren

, et al. Clinical utility of random anti-tumor necrosis factor drug-level testing and measurement of antidrug antibodies on the long-term treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015; 67: 2011–2019.

53.

Bandres Ciga

Salvatierra

Lopez-Sidro

, et al. An examination of the mechanisms involved in secondary clinical failure to adalimumab or etanercept in inflammatory arthropathies. J Clin Rheumatol 2015; 21: 115–119.

54.

Paramarta

Baeten

.Adalimumab serum levels and antidrug antibodies towards adalimumab in peripheral spondyloarthritis: no association with clinical response to treatment or with disease relapse upon treatment discontinuation. Arthritis Res Ther 2014; 16: R160.

55.

Benucci

Grossi

Manfredi

, et al. Laboratory monitoring of biological therapies in rheumatology: the role of immunogenicity. Ann Lab Med 2020; 40: 101–113.

56.

Tahir

Kavanaugh

.The role of golimumab in inflammatory arthritis. A review of the evidence. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 2018; 10: 181–194.

57.

Verstegen

RHJ

McMillan

Feldman

, et al. Towards therapeutic drug monitoring of TNF inhibitors for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a scoping review. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020; 59: 386–397.

58.

Kavanaugh

Van der Heijde

McInnes

, et al. Golimumab in psoriatic arthritis: one-year clinical efficacy, radiographic, and safety results from a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64: 2504–2517.

59.

Berkhout

Vogelzang

Hart

, et al. The effect of certolizumab drug concentration and anti-drug antibodies on TNF neutralisation. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2020; 38: 306–313.

60.

Thurlings

Teng

Vos

, et al. Clinical response, pharmacokinetics, development of human anti-chimaeric antibodies, and synovial tissue response to rituximab treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010; 69: 409–412.

61.

Combier

Nocturne

Henry

, et al. Immunization to rituximab is more frequent in systemic autoimmune diseases than in rheumatoid arthritis: ofatumumab as alternative therapy. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020; 59: 1347–1354.

62.

Hara

Umebayashi

Takei

, et al. Intravenous abatacept in Japanese patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from a phase III open-label study. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2019; 17: 17.

63.

Brunner

Tzaribachev

Vega-Cornejo

, et al. Subcutaneous abatacept in patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from a phase III open-label study. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018; 70: 1144–1154.

64.

Lovell

Ruperto

Mouy

, et al. Long-term safety, efficacy, and quality of life in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis treated with intravenous abatacept for up to seven years. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015; 67: 2759–2770.

65.

Haggerty

Abbott

Reilly

, et al. Evaluation of immunogenicity of the T cell costimulation modulator abatacept in patients treated for rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2007; 34: 2365–2373.

66.

Benucci

Meacci

Grossi

, et al. Correlations between immunogenicity, drug levels, and disease activity in an Italian cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with tocilizumab. Biologics 2016; 10: 53–58.

67.

Sigaux

Hamze

Daien

, et al. Immunogenicity of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Joint Bone Spine 2017; 84: 39–45.

68.

Burmester

Choy

Kivitz

, et al. Low immunogenicity of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76: 1078–1085.

69.

Yokota

Imagawa

Mori

, et al. Longterm safety and effectiveness of the anti-interleukin 6 receptor monoclonal antibody tocilizumab in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis in Japan. J Rheumatol 2014; 41: 759–767.

70.

Burmester

Lin

Patel

, et al. Efficacy and safety of sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (MONARCH): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group phase III trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76: 840–847.

71.

Wells

Parrino

Mangan

, et al. Immunogenicity of sarilumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were inadequate responders or intolerant to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Rheumatol Ther 2019; 6: 339–352.

72.

Genovese

Fleischmann

Kivitz

, et al. Sarilumab plus methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate: results of a phase III study. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015; 67: 1424–1437.

73.

Paccaly

, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of sarilumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Pharmacokinet 2019; 58: 1455–1467.

74.

Deodhar

Mease

McInnes

, et al. Long-term safety of secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: integrated pooled clinical trial and post-marketing surveillance data. Arthritis Res Ther 2019; 21: 111.

75.

Mease

Van der Heijde

Ritchlin

, et al. Ixekizumab, an interleukin-17A specific monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of biologic-naive patients with active psoriatic arthritis: results from the 24-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active (adalimumab)-controlled period of the phase III trial SPIRIT-P1. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76: 79–87.

76.

Gordon

Blauvelt

Papp

, et al. Phase 3 Trials of ixekizumab in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 345–356.

77.

Smolen

Agarwal

Ilivanova

, et al. A randomised phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of subcutaneously administered ustekinumab and guselkumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76: 831–839.

78.

Fleischmann

Tesser

Schiff

, et al. Safety of extended treatment with anakinra in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65: 1006–1012.

79.

Cohen

Hurd

Cush

, et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with anakinra, a recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, in combination with methotrexate: results of a twenty-four-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 46: 614–624.

80.

Ilowite

Porras

Reiff

, et al. Anakinra in the treatment of polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis: safety and preliminary efficacy results of a randomized multicenter study. Clin Rheumatol 2009; 28: 129–137.

81.

Sun

Van

Floch

, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of canakinumab in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J Clin Pharmacol 2016; 56: 1516–1527.

82.

Ruperto

Brunner

Quartier

, et al. Two randomized trials of canakinumab in systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2396–2406.

83.

Lovell

Giannini

Reiff

, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of rilonacept in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65: 2486–2496.

84.

Emery

Burmester

Naredo

, et al. Adalimumab dose tapering in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are in long-standing clinical remission: results of the phase IV PREDICTRA study. Ann Rheum Dis 2020; 79: 1023–1030.

85.

Garces

Demengeot

Benito-Garcia

.The immunogenicity of anti-TNF therapy in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72: 1947–1955.

86.

Nencini

Vultaggio

Pratesi

, et al. The kinetics of antidrug antibodies, drug levels, and clinical outcomes in infliximab-exposed patients with immune-mediated disorders. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2018; 6: 2065–2072.e2.

87.

Wang

Leu

Watson

, et al. Investigation of the mechanism of therapeutic protein-drug interaction between methotrexate and golimumab, an anti-TNFalpha monoclonal antibody. AAPS J 2018; 20: 63.

88.

Yoo

Hrycaj

Miranda

, et al. A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study to demonstrate equivalence in efficacy and safety of CT-P13 compared with innovator infliximab when coadministered with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: the PLANETRA study. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72: 1613–1620.

89.

Yoo

Prodanovic

Jaworski

, et al. Efficacy and safety of CT-P13 (biosimilar infliximab) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison between switching from reference infliximab to CT-P13 and continuing CT-P13 in the PLANETRA extension study. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76: 355–363.

90.

Komaki

Yamada

Komaki

, et al. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of biosimilars of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents in rheumatic diseases; a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Autoimmun 2017; 79: 4–16.

91.

Lee

Kim

.Comparative efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab and originator rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis and non-hodgkin’s lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BioDrugs 2019; 33: 469–483.

92.

Shim

Bozic-Majstorovic

Berrocal Kasay

, et al. Efficacy and safety of switching from rituximab to biosimilar CT-P10 in rheumatoid arthritis: 72-week data from a randomized phase 3 trial. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019; 58: 2193–2202.

93.

Suh

Yoo

Berrocal Kasay

, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of biosimilar CT-P10 versus innovator rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: 48-week results from a randomized phase III trial. BioDrugs 2019; 33: 79–91.

94.

Cohen

Alonso-Ruiz

Klimiuk

, et al. Similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of adalimumab biosimilar BI 695501 and Humira reference product in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis: results from the phase III randomised VOLTAIRE-RA equivalence study. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77: 914–921.

95.

Smolen

Choe

Prodanovic

, et al. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy after switching from reference infliximab to biosimilar SB2 compared with continuing reference infliximab and SB2 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised, double-blind, phase III transition study. Ann Rheum Dis 2018; 77: 234–240.

96.

Matucci-Cerinic

Allanore

Kavanaugh

, et al. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of GP2015, an etanercept biosimilar, compared with the reference etanercept in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: 24-week results from the comparative phase III, randomised, double-blind EQUIRA study. RMD Open 2018; 4: e000757.

97.

Kuemmerle-Deschner

Benseler

.Abatacept in difficult-to-treat juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Biologics 2008; 2: 865–874.

98.

Amano

Matsubara

Tanaka

, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of treatment with subcutaneous abatacept in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are methotrexate inadequate responders. Mod Rheumatol 2015; 25: 665–671.

99.

Lamb

Deeks

. Sarilumab: a review in moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. Drugs 2018; 78: 929–940.

100.

Chiu

Chu

Cheng

, et al. The association between clinical response to ustekinumab and immunogenicity to ustekinumab and prior adalimumab. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0142930.

101.

Travis

.IM-UNITI at Three years: stellar stelara® or stardust? The efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of ustekinumab treatment of Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis 2020; 14: 1–3.

102.

Sauna

Richards

Maillere

, et al. Editorial: immunogenicity of proteins used as therapeutics. Front Immunol 2020; 11: 614856.

103.

Christen

Thuerkauf

Stevens

, et al. Immune response to a recombinant human TNFR55-IgG1 fusion protein: auto-antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and multiple sclerosis (MS) patients have neither neutralising nor agonist activities. Hum Immunol 1999; 60: 774–790.

104.

Perry

Abdullah

Frleta

, et al. The potential value of blood monitoring of biologic drugs used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 2020; 12: 1759720X20904850.