Context Short-term data on the immunogenicity of monoclonal antibodies showed associations between the development of antidrug antibodies and diminished serum drug levels, and a diminished treatment response. Little is known about the clinical relevance of antidrug antibodies against these drugs during long-term follow-up. Objective To examine the course of antidrug antibody formation against fully human monoclonal antibody adalimumab and its clinical relevance during long-term (3year) follow-up of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Design, Setting, and Patients Prospective cohort study February 2004-September 2008; end of follow-up was September 2010. All 272 patients were diagnosed with RA and started treatment with adalimumab in an outpatient clinic. Main Outcome Measures Disease activity was monitored and trough serum samples were obtained at baseline and 8 time points to 156 weeks. Serum adalimumab concentrations and antiadalimumab antibody titers were determined after follow-up. Treatment discontinuation, minimal disease activity, and clinical remission were compared for patients with and without antiadalimumab antibodies.

Background: A substantial proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond, or lose initial response, to adalimumab treatment. One explanation for non-response is that patients develop antiadalimumab antibodies. Objectives: To evaluate the incidence of formation of antibody against adalimumab and the association with serum adalimumab concentrations and clinical response. Methods: In a cohort of 121 consecutive patients with RA treated with adalimumab, serum adalimumab concentrations and antibodies against adalimumab were measured together with clinical response variables before and up to 28 weeks after the start of treatment. Results: Anti-adalimumab antibodies were detected in 21 patients (17%) during 28 weeks of treatment. EULAR non-responders had antibodies significantly more often than good responders (34% vs 5%; p = 0.032). Patients with antibodies showed less improvement in disease activity (mean (SD) delta DAS28 0.65 (1.35)) than patients without antibodies (mean delta DAS28 1.70 (1.35)) (p = 0.001). Patients with antibodies during follow-up had lower serum adalimumab concentrations at 28 weeks than patients without antibodies (median 1.2 mg/l, range 0.0-5.6 vs median 11.0 mg/l, range 2.0-33.0, respectively; p,0.001). Good responders had higher serum adalimumab concentrations than moderate responders (p = 0.021) and non-responders (p = 0.001). Concomitant methotrexate use was lower in the group with antiadalimumab antibodies (52%) than in the group without antibodies (84%) (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Serum antibodies against adalimumab are associated with lower serum adalimumab concentrations and non-response to adalimumab treatment.

Switchers with anti-infliximab antibodies more often develop antibodies against adalimumab than anti-TNF naive patients. Response to adalimumab was limited in switchers without anti-infliximab antibodies, which raises the question whether a second anti-TNF treatment should be offered to patients with RA for whom an initial treatment with an anti-TNF blocker fails, in the absence of anti-biological antibodies.

Patients with RA with an immunogenic response against a first TNF-blocking agent had a better clinical response to a subsequent TNF blocker compared to patients with RA without anti-drug antibodies. Hence, determining immunogenicity can be helpful in deciding in which patient switching could be beneficial and can be part of a personalised treatment regimen.

No abstract