Stefan Böhringer

Objective To investigate the efficacy of bDMARDs in patients with RA with RF/ACPA compared with patients without these autoantibodies. Methods Previous systematic literature reviews performed by EULAR RA management task forces were searched for qualifying RCTs. RCTs investigating the efficacy of bDMARDs and including both autoantibody-positive (≤80% of total population) and -negative RA patients were eligible. For trials comparing bDMARD+csDMARD vs csDMARD, relative risks (RR) comparing two groups (RF+ vs RF-, ACPA+ vs ACPA-) were calculated for efficacy outcomes for each arm. Subsequently, relative risk ratios (RRRs) were computed, as the ratio of RR of the bDMARD-arm and the RR from the non-bDMARD-arm. Pooled effects were obtained with random effect meta-analyses. Results Data from 28 eligible RCTs were analysed, pooling 23 studies in three subgroups: six including csDMARD-naive patients, 14 csDMARD-IR and three TNFi-IR patients. In csDMARD-naive and csDMARD-IR patients, seropositivity was not associated with a better response to bDMARDs: pooled 6-month ACR20 RRRs 1.02 (0.88–1.18) and 1.09 (0.90–1.32), respectively. Other outcomes showed no difference between groups either. In TNFi-IR patients, based on three trials, the 6-month ACR20 RRR was 2.28 (1.31–3.95), favoring efficacy in seropositive patients. Other outcomes mostly showed no significant difference between the groups. Based on the mode of action, efficacy was comparable between RF-positive and RF-negative patients for both TNFi and non-TNFi treatment and also for the individual bDMARDs. Conclusion The effect of bDMARDs is generally comparable in patients with and without RF/ACPA, regardless of the patient population, the mechanism of action or individual drug used.