Secondary Logo

Prediction of infection risk in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with biologics

are we any closer to risk stratification?

Jani, Meghnaa,d; Barton, Anneb,c; Hyrich, Kimmea,c

Current Opinion in Rheumatology: May 2019 - Volume 31 - Issue 3 - p 285–292
doi: 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000598
RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: Edited by Jon T. Giles
Open

Purpose of review There are currently several available biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with similar efficacy in most trials. A major consideration therefore in choosing a biologic, continues to be safety concerns such as infection. Considerable advances have been made in the understanding of biologic safety on a population level; however, how close are we to stratifying risk for individual patients? This review discusses evidence published in the last year, with reference to key previous literature.

Recent findings Comparative safety of biologics has been studied in observational cohorts, with a possible increased risk of serious infection in tocilizumab-treated patients compared with etanercept. Rheumatoid arthritis patients on biologics are often on concomitant medications such as steroids and opioids, and the advances in relation to infection are summarized. Pharmacological biomarkers and optimizing existing risk prediction scores may allow better future risk stratification.

Summary Improved quantification of personalized benefit:harms would allow better-informed decisions, reduction of infection-associated morbidity as well as direct/indirect costs associated with biologics. Although advances have been made to better understand and predict risk, future studies are likely to require a range of novel data sources and methodologies for the goal of precision medicine to be truly realized.

aArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, The University of Manchester

bArthritis Research UK Centre for Genetics and Genomics, Division of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, The University of Manchester

cNIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester

dRheumatology Department, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK

Correspondence to Meghna Jani, MRCP, MSc, PhD, Arthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Division of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, Room 2.612 Stopford Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK. E-mail: meghna.jani@manchester.ac.uk

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Back to Top | Article Outline

INTRODUCTION

Biologics such as tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) have transformed the treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A rapidly evolving armamentarium of biologic therapies that now includes biosimilars, excitingly provides more choice and therapeutic options for RA patients than ever before. However, with most biologics reported to have similar efficacy in RA, clinicians are often required to tailor treatment decisions based on risk of adverse events for the individual patient. The risk of infection is one of the most important considerations before starting biologic agents, as it represents a substantial source of morbidity and mortality in RA patients [1]. Therefore, the aim of this review is to summarize the latest evidence to inform stratification of patients based on infection risk and includes information on patient characteristics, choice of biologic, concomitant therapy, biomarkers and the utility of available risk prediction scores for infection.

Box 1

Box 1

Back to Top | Article Outline

BURDEN OF INFECTION IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS-TREATED BIOLOGIC PATIENTS

The increased risk of infection seen in RA is complex and likely multifactorial. High disease activity, multimorbidity, treatment/disease-related immunosuppression and polypharmacy all likely contribute. Serious infections are defined as events resulting in hospitalization or death. A UK-based real-world study that surveyed RA patients reported 8% required hospitalization because of serious infection each year [2]; however, hospitalized infections are likely to be an underrepresentation when considering the overall burden of infections. A recent cross-sectional study in RA patients reported a tripling of sepsis rates between 1993 and 2013 in the United States (1.9–6.4%) [3], consistent with other sepsis studies in the US general population [4]. This may be attributed to an aging population with more comorbidities, increased use of immunosuppressant drugs, spread of multiresistant pathogens or to better International Classification of Diseases-9 coding of sepsis over time.

TNFi therapies are known to be associated with an increased serious infection risk in comparison to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), with a time varying risk highest in the first 6–12 months of treatment [5,6]. One of the largest meta-analyses to date, reported a 31% increased risk of serious infections in standard dose biologic-treated RA patients compared to csDMARDs {odds ratio (OR) 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09, 1.58} [7]. In the clinical trial population studied, the absolute increase in number of serious infections associated with biologics was reported as six per 1000 patients treated per year for standard dose biologics. Although such reporting of absolute risk promotes informed decision-making, population estimates can be difficult to extrapolate to the individual patient. Clinicians and patients ideally need a better understanding of differences in infection risk between biologics, the influence of patient characteristics and concomitant treatments to allow better stratification of infection risk and more personalized treatment choices.

Back to Top | Article Outline

STRATIFICATION OF INFECTION RISK

Patient demographics

A number of patient factors have been evaluated in association with infection risk. Consistently, increasing age [8] and comorbidities [9] have been associated with both serious infection and opportunistic infections. In a recent retrospective single-centre study evaluating patients aged more than 65 years commencing a biologic, the most common adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation was infection [10]. Previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of infection in patients with comorbidities such as chronic obstructive airways disease, interstitial lung disease and chronic renal failure [11,12]. The accrual of comorbidities resulting in multimorbidity with consequential polypharmacy is likely to predispose such patients to a higher infection risk. Therefore, strategies to minimize infection at the outset in these patients such as advice about vaccinations and thorough education about specific risk behaviours that increase risk of infection should be carefully exercised.

Back to Top | Article Outline

COMPARATIVE RISK OF INFECTION BETWEEN BIOLOGICS

Types of infection

The most common types of serious infections overall in biologic-treated RA patients are respiratory infections [22/1000 patient-years (pyrs)], skin and soft tissue (11/1000 pyrs), genitourinary (6.2/1000 pyrs) and bone/joint infections (5.4/1000 pyrs) [13▪▪], although few studies have suggested the rates of these infections vary significantly between biologic therapies. Thirty-day mortality following serious infection remains is also high, with mortality rate of 10.4% (95% CI 9.2, 11.6%) observed within the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for RA (BSRBR-RA). Sepsis/bacteraemia was associated with the highest 30-day mortality at 45% (95% CI 33%, 61%) [13▪▪].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Between tumour necrosis factor inhibitor drugs

An infection type that appears to have a clear differential risk across available TNFi therapies is tuberculosis (TB). The rate of TB has fallen with the introduction of prescreening precautions [9], yet the continued risk of TB reactivation in TNFi-treated patients requires ongoing vigilance and investigation in any patient with symptoms suggestive of active TB regardless of their prebiologic screening results. The risk of TB reactivation appears lower in etanercept-treated patients compared with the monoclonal antibodies such as infliximab and adalimumab [14], as observed in several studies. In patients with risk factors for TB, etanercept may be the TNFi drug of choice. Risk factors may include a history of contact to a case of active TB, being born or extended living (>3 months) in TB prevalent regions (crude incidence ≥20/100 000 per year), history of living or working in prisons, homeless shelters, healthcare facilities providing care to TB patients or in patients with a history of intravenous drug use [15].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors versus non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor biologics

For the most common types of serious infections, the majority of studies do not conclude a clinically meaningful difference between classes of drugs, after adjustment for baseline differences between patients. However, interpreting the evidence with available data sources can be challenging. There are scarce head to head randomized controlled trials between biologics. The primary outcome of the few that exist focus on efficacy and lack power or long-term follow-up to detect significant differences in rare events such as serious infection. A previous large meta-analysis of biologics in RA reported a significantly higher rate of serious infection with anakinra and certolizumab pegol compared with a control population [16]. However, network meta-analysis compare heterogeneous groups of patients with differences in recruitment year, duration of disease, follow-up duration and covariates and rely on indirect comparisons between drugs that may be prone to error.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Rituximab

More recent observational studies have started to explore the comparative safety of biologics within and across class. As these data reflect real-world clinical decisions and patients are not randomly assigned to medication, such studies may be prone to channelling bias and results have been conflicting. Results from the US Brigham and Women's Hospital Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study (BRASS) registry suggest no significant differences in infection risk between TNFi and non-TNFi-treated patients [17]. Conversely, a recent study from BSRBR-RA reported a differential risk between biologics. The unadjusted results suggested a higher incidence of infection in rituximab-treated patients than etanercept; however, after adjustment using baseline characteristics, the differences were no longer significant [13▪▪]. Patients who receive rituximab in the United Kingdom, receive it second/third line and are older, with longer disease duration, more comorbidities and on multiple other medications. A sensitivity analysis which looked at subsequent line biologics only also found no difference between rituximab and etanercept, consistent with an earlier report from the same dataset restricted to second-line biologic therapy [18].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Tocilizumab and other biologics

The BSRBR-RA study also reported a statistically significant increased risk of serious infection with tocilizumab-treated RA patients compared with etanercept [hazard ratio (HR) 1.21 (95% CI 1.01, 1.79)] [13▪▪]. This may reflect unmeasured confounding as tocilizumab patients may have failed prior therapies and may be inherently different; however, the results remained significant when the analysis excluded biologic-naïve patients. In terms of efficacy, the tocilizumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (ADACTA) trial found that tocilizumab monotherapy had superior efficacy compared with adalimumab [19]. Therefore, it is a good example where the balance between efficacy and safety needs to be tailored to the individual patient requiring monotherapy depending on individual characteristics, followed by informed decision-making between the clinician and patient. An improved efficacy profile with tocilizumab monotherapy compared to a TNFi (ΔDAS28 difference at 24 weeks of −1·5, 95% CI −1·8, −1·1) balanced against a possible increased SI risk of 21% with tocilizumab compared to TNFis such as etanercept.

In the same UK observational study, the rate of serious infection for certolizumab was lower than etanercept, in contrast to a previous meta-analysis [16], but the results were not replicated in several sensitivity analyses suggesting residual confounding. As certolizumab was licensed later than other TNFis, there may be inherent differences in patients recruited to the study on the drug that may not be captured by covariate adjustment [20].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Opportunistic infections

Although etanercept may have the lowest incidence of TB within the TNFi class, a recent study showed the risk was still significantly higher compared to rituximab with an adjusted HR of 4.63 (95% CI: 1.06, 20.2) [9]. However, CIs were wide because of low numbers of events. Also, rituximab is usually given as second-line treatment, and it may be expected that the risk with first biologic may be higher (having received a TNFi drug that has not lead to TB reactivation).

For non-TB opportunistic infections, the absolute risk reassuringly is low at approximately 1/1000 pyrs [9]. Thus far, there have been no significant differences in non-TB opportunistic infections between drugs, however, analysis of newer agents in the TNFi class or the non-TNFi biologic currently lack power to fully determine comparative risk of such rare events.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCOMITANT THERAPY

Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and glucocorticoids

csDMARDs such as methotrexate are not associated with an increased infection risk in RA patients, without the use of glucocorticoids [21]. However, glucocorticoid use is likely to be one of the most important factors in terms of risk stratification of infection before starting and during biologic therapy. Dose, recency and duration of glucocorticoid prescription have been shown to be the most important factors when considering the risk of serious infection in RA patients [22]. For instance, a patient with a prescription of prednisolone of 5 mg for 3 months has a 30% increased serious infection risk but this goes up to 100% if used continuously for 3 years (in the absence of a co-prescribed biologic).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Perioperative risk

The latest American College of Rheumatology/American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons guidelines 2017 now recommend utilizing the dosing interval of biologics rather than their half-life in determining the withholding interval pre-surgery, whilst timing surgery at the nadir of the drug effect at the end of the dosing interval [23▪▪]. The evidence around the use of biologics in the perioperative period remains limited. In a US Medicare-based study, RA patients receiving infliximab within 4 weeks of elective hip or knee arthroplasty were not at a higher risk of postoperative infection within 30 days compared with patients withholding therapy for 8-12 weeks before surgery. More importantly, glucocorticoid use, especially more than 10 mg/day, was linked with an increased 30-day postoperative infection risk [OR 2.11 (95% CI 1.30–3.40)] and prosthetic joint infection risk within 1 year [HR 2.70 (95% CI 1.30–5.60)] [24▪]. Hence, tapering steroids as soon as possible, when disease activity is well controlled, is an essential strategy to reduce infections for all patients regardless of their infection risk otherwise.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Opioids

Opioids are frequently administered in musculoskeletal conditions with 40% of RA patients using prescription opioids daily in a US study [25]. One emerging concern with opioids is the risk of infection. Certain opioids affect lymphocyte and phagocyte proliferation, reduce innate immune cell activity and inhibit cytokine expression and antibody production in animal studies [26]. A previous epidemiological study concluded an increased risk of serious infection in RA patients on opioids, using a self-controlled case series design to allow within-person comparisons when the patient was either on or off drug [27]. Risk of serious infection was higher with use of long-acting opioids, immunosuppressive opioids (codeine, morphine, transdermal fentanyl) and those with a daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) dose of at least 60 mg. Most recently, opioids were found to be an independent risk factor of invasive pneumococcal disease, which include serious infection such as bacteraemia, meningitis and invasive pneumonia [28]. In that study, as well as the above risk factors, the risk of infection was increased with higher daily dosages [50–90 MME/day: OR, 1.71 (CI 1.22, 2.39]; ≥90 MME/day: OR, 1.75 (CI, 1.33,2.29)] [29▪]. Whether this risk increases further when combined with biologic therapies remains unknown. Therefore, although large biologic cohorts remain one of the best study designs to investigate risk of infection, one limitation among many is the lack of accurate exposure information on time-varying steroid and opioid use/dose that are likely to be co-prescribed in a large proportion of patients.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Denosumab

Chronic uncontrolled inflammation in RA is a recognized risk factor for osteoporosis, as are glucocorticoids with dose, duration and recency associated with first osteoporotic fracture [30]. Given such risk of bone loss, patients are often co-prescribed therapies for osteoporosis. Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to receptor activator of nuclear factor-κ-B ligand to inhibit osteoclast formation and bone resorption. Receptor activator of nuclear factor-κ-B ligand is also expressed on activated B and T lymphocytes and in lymph nodes; therefore, inhibition of this pathway may theoretically increase infection risk, especially in patients already on biologics.

There has been a concern about the added risk of infection among patients with RA receiving more than one biologic simultaneously and is therefore contraindicated [31]. However, analysis have not confirmed that this risk extends to the combination of biologic used for RA and denosumab. There is a low absolute risk of serious infection while on denosumab [32] and a recent small retrospective study reported a low risk of serious infection and opportunistic infection in patients receiving both a RA biologic and denosumab [33]. In RA patients treated with a biologic, the risk of serious infection with denosumab appears no higher than being on zoledronic acid [34]. Thus, the risk of infection with concomitant use of a biologic and denosumab with evidence to date appear reassuring.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Treatment stratification for individual patients

As summarized above, there continues to be a wealth of new information generated assessing risk of infection on a population level, in different subgroups of patients and more recently between biologics, although the strength of association between drugs and infection risk remains debatable. Quantification of benefit and harms with accurate estimates of absolute and relative risk is ideally needed to inform decisions about the optimal therapeutic strategy. The reason for this is, in general, clinicians overestimate the benefits and underestimate harms of medications: indeed, a recent systematic review suggested these are only estimated accurately 11 and 13% of the time, respectively [35]. Current understanding of this balance and subsequent prescribing is often based on factors such as clinician intuition, cost of medications and generic guidelines.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Risk prediction scores

Estimating the risk of infection before treatment and during the course of therapy would considerably aid in personalized decision-making. For instance, healthier patients may be channelled to restart biologics after serious infection [36], however, the decision to restart after serious infection maybe much more challenging in the absence of quantifiable risk in older multimorbid patients. A number of risk scores have been developed for this purpose in different populations, with similar variables of increasing age, glucocorticoid use, comorbidities such as chronic lung disease/renal disease and previous serious infection [37–39], however, none have been validated in external data sources (Table 1). More recently, age-adjusted comorbidity indices have been developed to predict the risk of serious infection in RA-treated certolizumab pegol patients using baseline characteristics [40]. The Rheumatoid Arthritis Observation of Biologic Therapy (RABBIT) risk score has an online calculator that can be a useful tool for stratifying risk and can include time-varying components such as glucocorticoid dose; however, a few limitations exist. The risk score has been replicated in a contemporary cohort within the same healthcare setting, but not in other international populations. It clearly states that it should not to be used as an indicator for the appropriateness of treatment decisions. A probability of serious infection over 1 year is generated; however, how this translates to absolute risk that is easily understandable for patients is unclear. Additionally, although these tools are clearly a huge advance in helping informed decisions, whether use improves patient outcomes long-term has not been assessed.

Table 1

Table 1

A major limitation of using baseline characteristics to inform risk scores is that in the majority of patients most risk factors are non-modifiable. For instance, a 75-year-old man with a serious infection in the last 12 months, known chronic obstructive airways disease, on 15 mg of prednisolone starting etanercept 50 mg/week has a risk of 33.7% of serious infection during the next 12 months [42]. However, apart from the decision not to treat at all or reducing glucocorticoid dose, there are a few factors that either the clinician or patient can influence to attenuate risk. Thus far, there have been no implementable biomarkers that can either predict or help modify risk of serious infection. One possible pharmacological biomarker is biologic drug levels that have been previously shown to be associated with long-term treatment response and adherence to biologic treatments [43–45]. Recent emerging evidence from the United Kingdom suggests biologic drug levels could be associated with infection risk over 12 months [46]. Therefore, in the future guided by evidence, biologic therapeutic drug monitoring could be used to maintain therapeutic drug levels to preserve efficacy to the drug, help guide tapering [47], improve adherence strategies, whereas reducing infection risk in patients.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSION

The last decade has seen tremendous advances in our understanding of biologic safety and the majority of evidence has provided reassurance to patients and prescribers. In the last year, some advances have been made in our understanding of comparative safety, specific clinical scenarios such as perioperative risk, as well as consideration of potential effect modifiers such as opioids that may themselves increase infection risk. As we embark on a new era of precision medicine, it will become increasingly pertinent to include not only patient demographic factors, but also available biomarkers, lifestyle factors, concomitant treatments including analgesia, environmental factors, patient behaviours and preferences to fully personalize treatment for individuals. Strides toward this goal need to be underpinned by robust scientific evidence and likely incorporate a range of data sources and novel linkages to good quality drug exposure data. Although such an approach may appear ambitious, improved quantification of personalized risk and benefits would allow better-informed decisions, reduction of morbidity as well as reductions in direct and indirect costs associated with these drugs.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

M.J.'s work is supported by an NIHR academic clinical lectureship. We acknowledge the support of Arthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology (grant reference 21755), the Arthritis Research UK Centre for Genetics and Genomics (grant reference 21754) and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Financial support and sponsorship

None.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflicts of interest

M.J. and A.B. declare no relevant COIs. K.H: Research grants from Pfizer, BMS and UCB; consultancy fees from Abbvie (all paid to host institution).

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READING

Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • ▪ of special interest
  • ▪▪ of outstanding interest
Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Hazlewood GS, Bombardier C, Tomlinson G, et al. Treatment preferences of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete-choice experiment. Rheumatology 2016; 55:1959–1968.
2. Subesinghe S, Rutherford AI, Ibrahim F, et al. A large two-centre study in to rates of influenza and pneumococcal vaccination and infection burden in rheumatoid arthritis in the UK. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17:322.
3. Jinno S, Lu N, Jafarzadeh SR, et al. Trends in hospitalizations for serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the US between 1993 and 2013. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2018; 70:652–658.
4. Walkey AJ, Lagu T, Lindenauer PK. Trends in sepsis and infection sources in the United States. A population-based study. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2015; 12:216–220.
5. Askling J, Dixon W. The safety of antitumour necrosis factor therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2008; 20:138–144.
6. Galloway JB, Hyrich KL, Mercer LK, et al. Anti-TNF therapy is associated with an increased risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis especially in the first 6 months of treatment: updated results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register with special EMPH. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2011; 50:124–131.
7. Singh JA, Cameron C, Noorbaloochi S, et al. Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2015; 386:258–265.
8. Sharma C, Keen H. Ten-year retrospective review of the incidence of serious infections in patients on biologic disease modifying agents for rheumatoid arthritis in three tertiary hospitals in Western Australia. Intern Med J 2018; doi: 10.1111/imj.14109. [Epub ahead of print].
9. Rutherford AI, Patarata E, Subesinghe S, et al. Opportunistic infections in rheumatoid arthritis patients exposed to biologic therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis. Rheumatology 2018; 57:997–1001.
10. Leon L, Gomez A, Vadillo C, et al. Severe adverse drug reactions to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2018; 36:29–35.
11. Cobo-Ibáñez T, Descalzo MÁ, Loza-Santamaría E, et al. Serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other immune-mediated connective tissue diseases exposed to anti-TNF or rituximab: data from the Spanish registry BIOBADASER 2.0. Rheumatol Int 2014; 34:953–961.
12. Jani M, Hirani N, Matteson EL, et al. The safety of biologic therapies in RA-associated interstitial lung disease. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2014; 10:284–294.
13▪▪. Rutherford AI, Subesinghe S, Hyrich KL, et al. Serious infection across biologic-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2018; 77:905–910.

An updated analysis using one of the largest biologic registries, assessing the comparative risk between biologics.

14. Dixon WG, Hyrich KL, Watson KD, et al. Drug-specific risk of tuberculosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-TNF therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR). Ann Rheum Dis 2010; 69:522–528.
15. Winthrop KL, Weinblatt ME, Daley CL. You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes (with two tests–TST and IGRA–for tuberculosis) you get what you need. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71:1757–1760.
16. Singh JA, Wells GA, Christensen R, et al. Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 2:CD008794.
17. Solomon DH, Shadick NA, Weinblatt ME, et al. Drug safety analyses in a rheumatoid arthritis registry: application of different approaches regarding timing of exposure and confounder measurement. Arthritis Res Ther 2017; 19:130.
18. Silva-Fernández L, De Cock D, Lunt M, et al. Serious infection risk after 1 year between patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with rituximab or with a second TNFi after initial TNFi failure: results from The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis. Rheumatology 2018; 57:1533–1540.
19. Gabay C, Emery P, van Vollenhoven R, et al. Tocilizumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (ADACTA): a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 4 trial. Lancet (London, England) 2013; 381:1541–1550.
20. Jani M, Dixon WG, Kearsley-Fleet L, et al. Drug-specific risk and characteristics of lupus and vasculitis-like events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with TNFi: results from BSRBR-RA. RMD Open 2017; 3:e000314.
21. Lacaille D, Guh DP, Abrahamowicz M, et al. Use of nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and risk of infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59:1074–1081.
22. Dixon WG, Abrahamowicz M, Beauchamp ME, et al. Immediate and delayed impact of oral glucocorticoid therapy on risk of serious infection in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a nested case-control analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71:1128–1133.
23▪▪. Goodman SM, Springer B, Guyatt G, et al. 2017 American College of Rheumatology/American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Guideline for the Perioperative Management of Antirheumatic Medication in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases Undergoing Elective Total Hip or Total Knee Arthroplasty. Arthritis Care Res 2017; 69:1111–1124.

Up to date guidelines with clear advice regarding when to stop each biologic before surgery (based mainly on consensus expert opinion).

24▪. George MD, Baker JF, Hsu JY, et al. Perioperative timing of infliximab and the risk of serious infection after elective hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2017; 69:1845–1854.

One of the few studies assessing optimal perioperative timing of infliximab and risk of infection.

25. Curtis JR, Xie F, Smith C, et al. Changing trends in opioid use among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States. Arthritis Rheumatol 2017; 25:553–559.
26. Plein LM, Rittner HL. Opioids and the immune system: friend or foe. Br J Pharmacol 2018; 175:2717–2725.
27. Wiese AD, Griffin MR, Stein CM, et al. Opioid analgesics and the risk of serious infections among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a self-controlled case series study. Arthritis Rheum 2016; 68:323–331.
28. Dublin S, Von Korff M. Prescription opioids and infection risk: research and caution needed. Ann Intern Med 2018; 168:444.
29▪. Wiese AD, Griffin MR, Schaffner W, et al. Opioid analgesic use and risk for invasive pneumococcal diseases. Ann Intern Med 2018; 168:396.

Recent study with using robust methods to assess the association between opioids and invasive pneumococcal disease.

30. Robinson DE, van Staa TP, Dennison EM, et al. The limitations of using simple definitions of glucocorticoid exposure to predict fracture risk: a cohort study. Bone 2018; 117:83–90.
31. Genovese MC, Cohen S, Moreland L, et al. Combination therapy with etanercept and anakinra in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have been treated unsuccessfully with methotrexate. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:1412–1419.
32. Cummings SR, Martin JS, McClung MR, et al. Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:756–765.
33. Lau AN, Wong-Pack M, Rodjanapiches R, et al. Occurrence of serious infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologics and denosumab observed in a clinical setting. J Rheumatol 2018; 45:170–176.
34. Curtis JR, Xie F, Yun H, et al. Risk of hospitalized infection among rheumatoid arthritis patients concurrently treated with a biologic agent and denosumab. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015; 67:1456–1464.
35. Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Clinicians’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177:407.
36. Subesinghe S, Rutherford AI, Byng-Maddick R, et al. Biologic prescribing decisions following serious infection: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis. Rheumatology 2018; 57:2096–2100.
37. Crowson CS, Hoganson DD, Fitz-Gibbon PD, et al. Development and validation of a risk score for serious infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64:2847–2855.
38. Curtis JR, Xie F, Chen L, et al. Use of a disease risk score to compare serious infections associated with antitumor necrosis factor therapy among high- versus lower-risk rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012; 64:1480–1489.
39. Strangfeld A, Eveslage M, Schneider M, et al. Treatment benefit or survival of the fittest: what drives the time-dependent decrease in serious infection rates under TNF inhibition and what does this imply for the individual patient? Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70:1914–1920.
40. Curtis JR, Winthrop K, O’Brien C, et al. Use of a baseline risk score to identify the risk of serious infectious events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during certolizumab pegol treatment. Arthritis Res Ther 2017; 19:276.
41. Zink A, Manger B, Kaufmann J, et al. Evaluation of the RABBIT Risk Score for serious infections. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73:1673–1676.
    42. RABBIT risk score calculator. http://www.biologika-register.de/en/home/risk-score/. [Accessed 5 December 2018]
    43. Jani M, Chinoy H, Warren RB, et al. Clinical utility of random anti-TNF drug level testing and measurement of antidrug antibodies on long-term treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015; 67:2011–2019.
    44. Jani M, Isaacs JD, Morgan AW, 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.
    45. Vogelzang EH, Hebing RC, Nurmohamed MT, et al. Adherence to etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients during 3 years of follow-up. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0205125.
    46. Jani M, Dixon WG, Lunt M, et al. The association of biologic drug-levels with infection risk: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2018; 77:A163.
    47. L’ami MJ, Krieckaert CLM, Nurmohamed MT, et al. Successful reduction of overexposure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with high serum adalimumab concentrations: An open-label, noninferiority, randomised clinical trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2018; 77:484–487.
    Keywords:

    anti-tumour necrosis factor; biologics; infection; rheumatoid arthritis; stratification

    Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.