Skip to main content

Differences and similarities in clinical and functional responses among patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib plus methotrexate, and adalimumab plus methotrexate: a post hoc analysis of data from ORAL Strategy

Abstract

Background

This post hoc analysis assessed clinical and functional responses to tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib + methotrexate (MTX), and adalimumab + MTX, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis enrolled in the ORAL Strategy study, including evaluation of patient-level data using cumulative probability plots.

Methods

In the 12-month, phase IIIb/IV ORAL Strategy study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to MTX were randomized to receive tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID), tofacitinib 5 mg BID + MTX, or adalimumab 40 mg every other week + MTX. In this post hoc analysis, cumulative probability plots were generated for mean percent change from baseline (%∆) in the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI; clinical response) and mean change from baseline (∆) in the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI; functional response) at month 12. Median C-reactive protein (CRP) levels by time period were summarized by CDAI remission (≤ 2.8) status at months 6 and 12.

Results

Data for 1146 patients were analyzed. At month 12, cumulative probability plots for %∆CDAI and ∆HAQ-DI were similar across treatments in patients with greater response. At lower levels of response, patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy did not respond as well as those receiving combination therapies. With tofacitinib + MTX, numerically higher baseline CRP levels and numerically larger post-baseline CRP reductions were seen in patients achieving CDAI remission at months 6 and 12 vs those who did not.

Conclusions

These results suggest that patients with a greater response did well, irrespective of which therapy they received. Patients with lesser response had better outcomes with combination therapies vs tofacitinib monotherapy, suggesting they benefitted from MTX. High pre-treatment CRP levels may be associated with better response to tofacitinib + MTX.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02187055. Registered on 08 July 2014.

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting approximately 0.24% of the global population [1] and can lead to joint destruction, functional decline, disability, and decreased quality of life [2, 3]. An international, rheumatology-focused task force recommends that treatment should focus on controlling joint damage and normalizing function by abating disease activity [4]. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommend using a treat-to-target approach with the aim of achieving remission or, at least, low disease activity (LDA) [5, 6], to prevent progression of joint damage and optimize physical functioning [4].

Per ACR and EULAR guidelines, patients with RA should initiate treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), such as methotrexate (MTX). In patients with an inadequate response to csDMARDs, it is recommended to add a biologic DMARD (bDMARD), such as a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), or a targeted synthetic DMARD, such as a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor [5, 6].

Patients with RA who have an inadequate response to prior DMARDs have been shown to have a poorer response to subsequent treatment. In a post hoc analysis of patients with RA receiving the TNFi adalimumab (ADA) plus MTX in two randomized controlled trials, a greater number of prior csDMARDs (> 2 vs 0–1) were associated with less improvement from baseline in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, C-reactive protein (DAS28-4[CRP]) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and lower ACR response rates at week 24 [7].

Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of RA. The phase IIIb/IV ORAL Strategy study (NCT02187055) compared the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) monotherapy, tofacitinib 5 mg BID + MTX, and ADA 40 mg every other week + MTX in patients with RA and an inadequate response to MTX [8]. Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + MTX demonstrated non-inferiority vs ADA + MTX, based on ACR ≥ 50% response rate (ACR50) at month 6; non-inferiority of tofacitinib 5 mg BID monotherapy vs tofacitinib 5 mg BID + MTX or ADA + MTX was not demonstrated. The mechanism by which tofacitinib + MTX provides greater efficacy than tofacitinib monotherapy is currently unknown, but is conceivably related to the effects each drug has on different mediators of inflammation.

The objective of this post hoc analysis was to further assess the differences and similarities in clinical and functional responses among treatment groups in ORAL Strategy, looking in part at patient-level data using cumulative probability plots, and evaluate the relationship among clinical efficacy measures, to guide future studies on the link between clinical efficacy measurements, or paraclinical measurements, and treatment responses.

Methods

Study design

ORAL Strategy (NCT02187055) was a 12-month, triple-dummy, phase IIIb/IV, active comparator, head-to-head, randomized controlled study. The full study design has been reported previously [8]. All procedures were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guidelines, and were approved by the Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee at each study center. All patients provided written informed consent. The study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc.

Patients

Full inclusion and exclusion criteria have been previously published [8]. Briefly, eligible patients were ≥ 18 years of age with active RA per ACR/EULAR criteria [9], despite receiving MTX for ≥ 4 months before screening and at stable doses of 15–25 mg/week (< 15 mg/week permitted only for safety reasons) for ≥ 6 weeks before baseline.

Randomization and treatment

Patients were blindly randomized 1:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg BID (“tofacitinib monotherapy,” discontinuing MTX at the randomization visit), tofacitinib 5 mg BID + MTX (“tofacitinib + MTX”), or ADA 40 mg every other week + MTX (“ADA + MTX”).

Concomitant oral glucocorticoids (stable doses of ≤ 10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent) were permitted if a stable dose had been received for ≥ 4 weeks before the first study dose. Patients were required to discontinue all csDMARDs other than MTX for ≥ 4 weeks or 5 half-lives, whichever was longer, before baseline. Pre-study stable MTX dose was continued in patients receiving combination therapy.

Post hoc analysis of clinical and functional responses and inflammation

Here, we assessed differences and similarities in clinical and functional responses among treatment groups in ORAL Strategy. Clinical response was primarily assessed in terms of the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), as a sensitive measure of change and a purely clinical index (i.e., not including an acute-phase reactant or physical function) [10]. Outcomes assessed were mean percent change from baseline (%∆) in CDAI at month 12, proportion of patients who achieved a ≥ 85% decrease from baseline in CDAI (previously defined as a “major response”) [11], CDAI area under the curve (AUC) at month 12, CDAI remission (≤ 2.8) and LDA (> 2.8 to ≤ 10) [10] at months 6 and 12, time-averaged (TA)-CDAI (CDAI AUC divided by 12) remission/LDA status (≤ 10), and moderate/high disease activity status (> 10) [10].

Additionally, clinical response was assessed by ACR-N (ACR response rate, where ACR is the percentage improvement from baseline in ACR components, and N represents the minimum percentage achieved by each patient—see definition below) and ACR-N AUC at month 12. ACR-N was defined as the minimum percent improvement from baseline achieved by each patient, determined by three values: %∆28-tender joint count, %∆28-swollen joint count, and median %∆ for the remaining five ACR components (Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Patient Pain, HAQ-DI, and CRP).

Functional response was assessed at month 12 by mean ∆HAQ-DI, normalized HAQ-DI (< 0.5) [12, 13], and HAQ-DI minimum clinically important difference (MCID; decrease from baseline of ≥ 0.22) [14].

Laboratory markers of inflammation were assessed in terms of median CRP and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) levels by time period (baseline, > 0–12 months, > 0–3 months, > 0–6 months, > 6–12 months). For post-baseline time periods, mean values across the time period were calculated for each patient, and the median of these mean values was then calculated across all patients.

Statistical analyses

In order to show the distribution of changes for the population as a whole, cumulative probability plots were produced at month 12 for mean %∆CDAI, ACR-N, and mean ∆HAQ-DI.

The proportion of patients achieving normalized HAQ-DI or HAQ-DI MCID at month 12 were stratified by clinical response: CDAI remission and LDA status at months 6 and 12, and TA-CDAI remission/LDA or TA-CDAI moderate/high disease activity status.

Median CRP by time period was summarized by CDAI remission status at months 6 and 12, normalized HAQ-DI status at month 12, and HAQ-DI MCID status at month 12. Median ESR by time period was summarized by CDAI remission status at months 6 and 12.

Patients were defined as having a greater or lesser clinical or functional response per the cutoffs in Table 1.

Table 1 Cutoffs for greater or lesser clinical or functional response

All statistical comparisons in this analysis were considered exploratory, with no adjustment for multiplicity.

All data were summarized by treatment group. Only patients with month 12 data for ≥ 1 efficacy endpoint were included in the analyses. Observed data were used; missing values were not imputed. Patients with baseline and month 12 data were included in AUC calculations. AUC was calculated for CDAI and ACR-N (in months) with data from visits at baseline, week 6, and months 3, 6, 9, and 12, using the trapezoidal rule.

Treatment comparisons for CDAI AUC and ACR-N AUC were evaluated using analysis of variance with fixed effects of treatment and geographical region. A significance level of 0.05 was used for statistical testing. There was no adjustment for multiplicity.

Results

Patients

In this post hoc analysis, clinical and functional efficacy data were evaluated in the 1146 patients who received study treatment (tofacitinib monotherapy, n = 384; tofacitinib + MTX, n = 376; ADA + MTX, n = 386) in ORAL Strategy [8]. Prior to randomization, mean (standard deviation) MTX dose was 16.6 (3.4) mg/week in the tofacitinib monotherapy group, 16.7 (3.7) mg/week in the tofacitinib + MTX group, and 16.5 (3.7) mg/week in the ADA + MTX group.

Clinical and functional response at month 12

At month 12, mean %∆CDAI, ACR-N, and ∆HAQ-DI were similar between the combination therapies, but numerically lower (i.e., worse response) with tofacitinib monotherapy (Table 2). Least squares mean (LSM) values for CDAI AUC for months 0 − 12 were similar between the combination therapies, but numerically lower (i.e., better response) for tofacitinib + MTX vs tofacitinib monotherapy (0.05 < P < 0.1), and significantly (P < 0.05) lower for ADA + MTX vs tofacitinib monotherapy (Table 3). Likewise, LSM values for ACR-N AUC for months 0 − 12 were similar between the combination therapies, but significantly higher (i.e., better response) for the combination therapies vs tofacitinib monotherapy (Table 3).

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for %∆CDAI, ACR-N, and ∆HAQ-DI at month 12
Table 3 Statistical analysis of CDAI AUC and ACR-N AUC for months 0 − 12

Cumulative probability plots: clinical and functional response at month 12

In cumulative probability plots, at lesser levels of CDAI response (%∆CDAI increase or < 85% decrease), patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy had a numerically poorer response than patients receiving combination therapies (Fig. 1a). The proportion of patients who achieved a greater level of response (%∆CDAI decrease ≥ 85%) was 28.8% with tofacitinib monotherapy, 37.2% with tofacitinib + MTX, and 39.1% with ADA + MTX. At this greater level of response (%∆CDAI decrease ≥ 85%), responses were similar across treatment groups in cumulative probability plots (Fig. 1a). Similar trends were observed with ACR-N (Fig. 1b) and ∆HAQ-DI (Fig. 1c).

Fig. 1
figure1

Cumulative probability plots at month 12. Plots show the cumulative probability for a %∆CDAIa, b ACR-Nb, and c ∆HAQ-DI. aOne extreme value for %∆CDAI is not shown: tofacitinib monotherapy, %∆CDAI = 175%. bTen extreme values for ACR-N are not shown: tofacitinib monotherapy, ACR-N =  − 1700, − 200, − 167, − 160, and − 150; cumulative probability = 0.003, 0.006, 0.009, 0.013, 0.019; tofacitinib + MTX, ACR-N =  − 106, cumulative probability = 0.003; ADA + MTX, ACR-N =  − 463, − 167, − 158, and − 129; cumulative probability = 0.003, 0.006, 0.010, and 0.013. ∆, change from baseline; ACR20/50/70, American College of Rheumatology ≥ 20%, ≥ 50%, or ≥ 70% response rates; ACR-N, American College of Rheumatology response rate, where ACR is the percentage improvement from baseline in American College of Rheumatology components, and N represents the minimum percentage achieved by each patient; ADA, adalimumab; CDAI, Clinical Disease Activity Index; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index; MCID, minimum clinically important difference; MTX, methotrexate

Association between HAQ-DI response and CDAI disease activity level

Across treatment groups, patients with a greater clinical response at months 6 and 12 (those achieving CDAI remission/LDA) were more likely to achieve a greater functional response at month 12 (normalized HAQ-DI) than patients with a lesser clinical response (those not achieving CDAI remission/LDA) at months 6 and 12 (Fig. 2a). Similar trends were seen when greater functional response was assessed in terms of achievement of HAQ-DI MCID at month 12 (Fig. 2b), and when greater CDAI response was assessed in terms of achievement of TA-CDAI remission/LDA (Fig. 2c–d). Thus, in this group of patients, a greater improvement in CDAI was associated with greater functional improvement, as assessed by the HAQ-DI.

Fig. 2
figure2

Patients with normalized HAQ-DI scores/HAQ-DI MCID at month 12, categorized by CDAI remission and LDA. Plots show a patients with normalized HAQ-DI scores (< 0.5) at month 12 and b patients achieving HAQ-DI MCID (decrease from baseline of ≥ 0.22) at month 12, categorized by CDAI remission/LDA (≤ 10) status at months 6 and 12, and c patients with normalized HAQ-DI scores (< 0.5) at month 12 and d patients achieving HAQ-DI MCID (decrease from baseline of ≥ 0.22) at month 12, categorized by TA-CDAI remission/LDA and moderate/high disease activity status. TA-CDAI was defined as CDAI AUC divided by 12. ADA, adalimumab; AUC, area under the curve; CDAI, Clinical Disease Activity Index; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index; LDA, low disease activity; MCID, minimum clinically important difference; MTX, methotrexate; TA, time-averaged; SE, standard error

Association between laboratory markers of inflammation and clinical and functional response

Patients receiving tofacitinib + MTX with greater clinical response at month 6 (Fig. 3a) or month 12 (Fig. 3c), and greater functional response at month 12 (Fig. 4a and c), had numerically higher median baseline CRP levels and larger post-baseline CRP reductions, compared with patients with a lesser clinical (Fig. 3b, d) and functional (Fig. 4b, d) response. However, interquartile ranges were wide and overlapping. There was not such a clear trend in the tofacitinib monotherapy and ADA + MTX groups; again, interquartile ranges were wide and overlapping.

Fig. 3
figure3

Median CRP levels by time period, categorized by CDAI remission at months 6 and 12. Plots show median CRP levels by time period for a patients who achieved CDAI remission (≤ 2.8) at month 6, b patients who did not achieve CDAI remission (> 2.8) at month 6, c patients who achieved CDAI remission (≤ 2.8) at month 12, and d patients who did not achieve CDAI remission (> 2.8) at month 12. Error bars represent the interquartile range (Q1‒Q3). ADA, adalimumab, CDAI, Clinical Disease Activity Index; CRP, C-reactive protein; MTX, methotrexate; Q1, 25th percentile; Q3, 75th percentile

Fig. 4
figure4

Median CRP levels by time period, categorized by HAQ-DI status at month 12. Plots show the median CRP levels for a patients who achieved normalized HAQ-DI (< 0.5) at month 12, b patients who did not achieve normalized HAQ-DI (≥ 0.5) at month 12, c patients who achieved HAQ-DI MCID (decrease from baseline of ≥ 0.22) at month 12, and d patients who did not achieve HAQ-DI MCID (increase, or decrease < 0.22 from baseline) at month 12. Error bars represent the interquartile range (Q1–Q3). ADA, adalimumab; CRP, C-reactive protein; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index; MCID, minimum clinically important difference; MTX, methotrexate; Q1, 25th percentile; Q3, 75th percentile

Findings were similar when inflammation was assessed by median ESR levels in patients with greater vs lesser clinical response at month 6 (see Additional file 1, Figure S1a and b) and month 12 (see Additional file 1, Figure S1c and d).

Discussion

In this post hoc analysis, we assessed clinical and functional responses between treatment groups in ORAL Strategy in greater depth than previously reported [8]. Our results support the primary findings of ORAL Strategy, which demonstrated non-inferiority of tofacitinib + MTX vs ADA + MTX, based on ACR50 response rates at month 6, while non-inferiority of tofacitinib monotherapy vs tofacitinib + MTX was not demonstrated [8]. In our analysis, clinical and functional responses at month 12 were generally similar with tofacitinib + MTX and ADA + MTX, but somewhat lower with tofacitinib monotherapy. Using cumulative probability plots, we showed that clinical and functional responses assessed across the study population were similar among the three treatment groups at greater levels of response. At lower levels of response, however, patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy vs combination therapies did not appear to respond as well.

Overall, these results suggest that in a group of patients with RA, tofacitinib + MTX may provide greater efficacy than tofacitinib monotherapy, but the reason for these differences is not fully understood. Multiple cytokines are involved in the pathology of RA, and it is hypothesized that treatment may result in changes in dominant pathological cytokines [15], and modification of gene transcription, protein levels, and immunophenotype that are aligned with altered disease activity [16]. It has previously been shown that in patients with RA, clinical and functional responses are greater with bDMARDs in combination with MTX, compared with bDMARD monotherapy [17,18,19,20]. While bDMARDs target extracellular elements of the inflammation pathway, JAK inhibitors directly bind to, and modulate, the intracellular catalytic activity of JAKs, which are essential enzymes in the JAK/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signaling pathways of type I and type II cell-surface cytokine receptors [21,22,23,24]. It is possible that concomitant MTX may suppress cytokines, such as interleukin (IL)-1 [25], IL-17 [26, 27], and TNF [28], which do not signal via the JAK/STAT pathway [24]. MTX may additionally exhibit a synergistic effect with bDMARDs, due to its effect in inhibiting the production of neutralizing antibodies against the bDMARD [29, 30]. Tofacitinib is a small molecule [22] and therefore unlikely to induce the formation of neutralizing anti-drug antibodies. The effects of JAK inhibitors, including tofacitinib, on the immunogenomic network have been investigated in in vitro and murine models [29,30,31], as well as in a phase II synovial biopsy study, in which tofacitinib reduced expression of genes implicated in RA, including matrix metalloproteinase and interferon-regulated chemokines [32].

Additionally, we found that across treatment groups, reaching the clinical response target of CDAI remission/LDA at month 12 was associated with improvement in functional response (achievement of normalized HAQ-DI or HAQ-DI MCID) at month 12. It has previously been reported that there is a direct association between increased disease activity and reduced functional capacity [33,34,35,36]. These findings support the hypothesis that treating RA with a target of remission or LDA allows many patients to reach normative functional capacity.

To improve our understanding of the differences we observed in clinical and functional responses, we analyzed laboratory markers of inflammation. With tofacitinib + MTX, numerically higher baseline CRP levels, and numerically larger post-baseline CRP reductions, were seen in patients achieving greater vs lesser clinical and functional response at months 6 and 12. These results suggest that high pre-treatment CRP levels and early post-baseline CRP reductions may be associated with better response to tofacitinib + MTX. However, interquartile ranges were wide and overlapping, and no formal statistical comparisons were conducted, so results should be interpreted with caution.

Limitations of this analysis must be considered. This was a post hoc analysis from a single study not designed to investigate the objectives of this analysis. Additionally, this analysis included only patients with complete data; missing values were not imputed. Loss of patients over time could have led to attrition biases which overestimated treatment response. Furthermore, the size of some subgroups was small, and MCID data were only evaluated at limited time points. The number of analyses carried out could have increased the risk of a type I error; all comparisons were considered exploratory. Also, this analysis did not assess the impact of some factors which can affect response, such as smoking status, seropositivity (for rheumatoid factor and/or anti-citrullinated protein antibodies), or duration of RA. In addition, assessment of ACR-N AUCs can be prone to error, as small variations in ACR-N AUC at study baseline can be inflated over time and lead to possible interpretation bias [37]. Finally, serum IL-6 was not measured, and measurement of functional capacity was limited to HAQ-DI rather than including other patient-reported outcomes.

Conclusions

In this post hoc analysis of data from ORAL Strategy, cumulative probability plots suggest that there is a subset of patients who will achieve a deep clinical and functional response with tofacitinib treatment, irrespective of whether they receive concomitant MTX. However, at lower levels of response, patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy did not appear to respond as well as those receiving combination treatments. Overall, patients experienced greater response with tofacitinib + MTX vs tofacitinib monotherapy. As such, tofacitinib monotherapy may be considered in patients who wish to discontinue MTX due to tolerability or toxicity issues. However, in patients who are able to take MTX, as recommended by ACR and EULAR, tofacitinib should be added to MTX, and tapering or discontinuation of MTX should be considered only after the patient reaches their targeted disease control [5, 6].

Availability of data and materials

Upon request, and subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions (see https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/trial-data-and-results for more information), Pfizer will provide access to individual de-identified participant data from Pfizer-sponsored global interventional clinical studies conducted for medicines, vaccines, and medical devices (1) for indications that have been approved in the US and/or EU, or (2) in programs that have been terminated (i.e., development for all indications has been discontinued). Pfizer will also consider requests for the protocol, data dictionary, and statistical analysis plan. Data may be requested from Pfizer trials 24 months after study completion. The de-identified participant data will be made available to researchers whose proposals meet the research criteria and other conditions, and for which an exception does not apply, via a secure portal. To gain access, data requestors must enter into a data access agreement with Pfizer.

Abbreviations

ACR:

American College of Rheumatology

ACR20/50/70:

American College of Rheumatology ≥ 20%, ≥ 50%, or ≥ 70% response rates

ACR-N:

American College of Rheumatology response rate, where ACR is the percentage improvement from baseline in American College of Rheumatology components, and N represents the minimum percentage achieved by each patient

ADA:

Adalimumab

AUC:

Area under the curve

bDMARD:

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug

BID:

Twice daily

CDAI:

Clinical Disease Activity Index

CI:

Confidence interval

CRP:

C-reactive protein

csDMARD:

Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug

DAS28-4(CRP):

Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, C-reactive protein

DMARD:

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug

ESR:

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

EULAR:

European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology

HAQ-DI:

Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index

IL:

Interleukin

JAK:

Janus kinase

LDA:

Low disease activity

LSM:

Least squares mean

MCID:

Minimum clinically important difference

MTX:

Methotrexate

Q1:

25th percentile

Q3:

75th percentile

RA:

Rheumatoid arthritis

SD:

Standard deviation

SE:

Standard error

STAT:

Signal transducer and activator of transcription

TA:

Time-averaged

TNF:

Tumor necrosis factor

TNFi:

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor

References

  1. 1.

    Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D, Carmona L, Wolfe F, Vos T, Williams B, Gabriel S, Lassere M, Johns N, et al. The global burden of rheumatoid arthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(7):1316–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Scott DL, Wolfe F, Huizinga TW. Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2010;376(9746):1094–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Heinimann K, von Kempis J, Sauter R, Schiff M, Sokka-Isler T, Schulze-Koops H, Muller R. Long-term increase of radiographic damage and disability in patients with RA in relation to disease duration in the era of biologics. Results from the SCQM cohort. J Clin Med. 2018;7(3):E57.

  4. 4.

    Smolen JS, Breedveld FC, Burmester GR, Bykerk V, Dougados M, Emery P, Kvien TK, Navarro-Compán MV, Oliver S, Schoels M, et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(1):3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL Jr, Akl EA, Bannuru RR, Sullivan MC, Vaysbrot E, McNaughton C, Osani M, Shmerling RH, et al. 2015 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(1):1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Smolen JS, Landewé RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, Burmester GR, Dougados M, Kerschbaumer A, McInnes IB, Sepriano A, van Vollenhoven RF, de Wit M, 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):685–99.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Aletaha D, Maa J-F, Chen S, Park S-H, Nicholls D, Florentinus S, Furtner D, Smolen JS. Effect of disease duration and prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use on treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(12):1609–15.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Fleischmann R, Mysler E, Hall S, Kivitz AJ, Moots RJ, Luo Z, DeMasi R, Soma K, Zhang R, Takiya L, et al. Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib with methotrexate, and adalimumab with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (ORAL Strategy): a phase 3b/4, double-blind, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10093):457–68.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham CO III, Birnbaum NS, Burmester GR, Bykerk VP, Cohen MD, et al. 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(9):2569–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Smolen JS, Aletaha D. Scores for all seasons: SDAI and CDAI. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014;32(Suppl 85):S75-79.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Aletaha D, Martinez-Avila J, Kvien TK, Smolen JS. Definition of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis based on the simplified and the clinical disease activity index. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(7):1190–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Krishnan E, Sokka T, Häkkinen A, Hubert H, Hannonen P. Normative values for the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index: benchmarking disability in the general population. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(3):953–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Keystone EC, van der Heijde D, Kavanaugh A, Kupper H, Liu S, Guérette B, Mozaffarian N. Clinical, functional, and radiographic benefits of longterm adalimumab plus methotrexate: final 10-year data in longstanding rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2013;40(9):1487–97.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Wells GA, Tugwell P, Kraag GR, Baker PR, Groh J, Redelmeier DA. Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient’s perspective. J Rheumatol. 1993;20(3):557–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Thalayasingam N, Isaacs JD. Anti-TNF therapy. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011;25(4):549–67.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Tasaki S, Suzuki K, Kassai Y, Takeshita M, Murota A, Kondo Y, Ando T, Nakayama Y, Okuzono Y, Takiguchi M, et al. Multi-omics monitoring of drug response in rheumatoid arthritis in pursuit of molecular remission. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):2755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    van der Heijde D, Klareskog L, Singh A, Tornero J, Melo-Gomes J, Codreanu C, Pedersen R, Freundlich B, Fatenejad S. Patient reported outcomes in a trial of combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis: the TEMPO trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(3):328–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Breedveld FC, Weisman MH, Kavanaugh AF, Cohen SB, Pavelka K, van Vollenhoven R, Sharp J, Perez JL, Spencer-Green GT. The PREMIER study: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54(1):26–37.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kaneko Y, Atsumi T, Tanaka Y, Inoo M, Kobayashi-Haraoka H, Amano K, Miyata M, Murakawa Y, Yasuoka H, Hirata S, et al. Comparison of adding tocilizumab to methotrexate with switching to tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to methotrexate: 52-week results from a prospective, randomised, controlled study (SURPRISE study). Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(11):1917–23.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kameda H, Kanbe K, Sato E, Ueki Y, Saito K, Nagaoka S, Hidaka T, Atsumi T, Tsukano M, Kasama T, et al. Continuation of methotrexate resulted in better clinical and radiographic outcomes than discontinuation upon starting etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 52-week results from the JESMR study. J Rheumatol. 2011;38(8):1585–92.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Schwartz DM, Kanno Y, Villarino A, Ward M, Gadina M, O’Shea JJ. JAK inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for immune and inflammatory diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017;17(1):78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kuek A, Hazleman BL, Ostör AJ. Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and biologic therapy: a medical revolution. Postgrad Med J. 2007;83(978):251–60.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hodge JA, Kawabata TT, Krishnaswami S, Clark JD, Telliez JB, Dowty ME, Menon S, Lamba M, Zwillich S. The mechanism of action of tofacitinib - an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016;34(2):318–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Clark JD, Flanagan ME, Telliez JB. Discovery and development of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for inflammatory diseases. J Med Chem. 2014;57(12):5023–38.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Barrera P, Boerbooms AM, Demacker PN, van de Putte LB, Gallati H, van der Meer JW. Circulating concentrations and production of cytokines and soluble receptors in rheumatoid arthritis patients: effects of a single dose methotrexate. Br J Rheumatol. 1994;33(11):1017–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Yue C, You X, Zhao L, Wang H, Tang F, Zhang F, Zhang X, He W. The effects of adalimumab and methotrexate treatment on peripheral Th17 cells and IL-17/IL-6 secretion in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatol Int. 2010;30(12):1553–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Noack M, Miossec P. Effects of methotrexate alone or combined with arthritis-related biotherapies in an in vitro co-culture model with immune cells and synoviocytes. Front Immunol. 2019;10:2992.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Chan ESL, Cronstein BN. Molecular action of methotrexate in inflammatory diseases. Arthritis Res. 2002;4(4):266–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    McInnes IB, Byers NL, Higgs RE, Lee J, Macias WL, Na S, Ortmann RA, Rocha G, Rooney TP, Wehrman T, et al. Comparison of baricitinib, upadacitinib, and tofacitinib mediated regulation of cytokine signaling in human leukocyte subpopulations. Arthritis Res Ther. 2019;21(1):183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Traves PG, Murray B, Campigotto F, Galien R, Meng A, Di Paolo JA. JAK selectivity and the implications for clinical inhibition of pharmacodynamic cytokine signalling by filgotinib, upadacitinib, tofacitinib and baricitinib. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80:865–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Moodley D, Yoshida H, Mostafavi S, Asinovski N, Ortiz-Lopez A, Symanowicz P, Telliez JB, Hegen M, Clark JD, Mathis D, et al. Network pharmacology of JAK inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(35):9852–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Boyle DL, Soma K, Hodge J, Kavanaugh A, Mandel D, Mease P, Shurmur R, Singhal AK, Wei N, Rosengren S, et al. The JAK inhibitor tofacitinib suppresses synovial JAK1-STAT signalling in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(6):1311–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Markusse IM, Dirven L, Gerards AH, van Groenendael JHLM, Ronday HK, Kerstens PJSM, Lems WF, Huizinga TWJ, Allaart CF. Disease flares in rheumatoid arthritis are associated with joint damage progression and disability: 10-year results from the BeSt study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015;17(1):232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Welsing PM, van Gestel AM, Swinkels HL, Kiemeney LA, van Riel PL. The relationship between disease activity, joint destruction, and functional capacity over the course of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44(9):2009–17.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Aletaha D, Nell VP, Stamm T, Uffmann M, Pflugbeil S, Machold K, Smolen JS. Acute phase reactants add little to composite disease activity indices for rheumatoid arthritis: validation of a clinical activity score. Arthritis Res Ther. 2005;7(4):R796-806.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Radner H, Smolen JS, Aletaha D. Remission in rheumatoid arthritis: benefit over low disease activity in patient-reported outcomes and costs. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16(1):R56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Boers M. Use of the American College of Rheumatology N (ACR-N) index of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis: argument in opposition. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(6):1642–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ermeg Akylbekova for her contributions to supporting the data analyses. This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support, under the guidance of the authors, was provided by Sarah Piggott, MChem, CMC Connect, McCann Health Medical Communications and was funded by Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA, in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines (Ann Intern Med 2015;163:461-4).

Some data reported in this manuscript have been previously presented at the Annual EULAR European Congress of Rheumatology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 13–16, 2018, Takeuchi T, Smolen JS, Fleischmann R, et al. Clinical and functional response to tofacitinib and adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: probability plot analysis of results from the ORAL Strategy trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77(Suppl 2):987–8. Some data were also previously presented at the ACR Annual Scientific Meeting, Chicago, IL, USA, October 19–24, 2018, Takeuchi T, Smolen JS, Fleischmann R, et al. Clinical and functional response to tofacitinib and adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: probability plot analysis of results from the ORAL Strategy trial. Arthritis Rheum 2018;70(Suppl 9):653–4.

Funding

This study was funded by Pfizer Inc.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors were involved in the conception and design of the study. RF, KS, and TH acquired the data. All authors contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the data. All authors revised and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomohiro Hirose.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guidelines, and were approved by the Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee at each study center. All patients provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

TT has received research grants from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, AYUMI, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Nippon Kayaku, Novartis, Pfizer Japan Inc, and Takeda; has received consulting fees or other remuneration from AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Eli Lilly Japan, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Nippon Kayaku, Novartis, Taiho, Taisho Toyama, and UCB Japan; and has participated in speakers, bureaus for AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer Japan Inc, Sanofi, Takeda, and Teijin. RF has received grants/research support from, and is a consultant for, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho, and UCB. NI, HS, KS, and TH are employees and shareholders of Pfizer Inc. JP is an employee of Syneos Health, who were paid contractors to Pfizer Inc in the development of this manuscript and in providing statistical support. JSS has received research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer Inc, and Roche; and has received consulting fees or other remuneration from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, ILTOO, Janssen, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, and UCB.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Figure S1. Median ESR levels by time period. Median ESR levels by time period for patients who: achieved CDAI remission (≤2.8) at month 6; did not achieve CDAI remission (>2.8) at month 6; achieved CDAI remission (≤2.8) at month 12; and did not achieve CDAI remission (>2.8) at month 12

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Takeuchi, T., Fleischmann, R., Iikuni, N. et al. Differences and similarities in clinical and functional responses among patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib plus methotrexate, and adalimumab plus methotrexate: a post hoc analysis of data from ORAL Strategy. Arthritis Res Ther 23, 220 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-021-02591-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Adalimumab
  • Methotrexate
  • Rheumatoid arthritis
  • Tofacitinib