Search

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 analyzed, pooling 23 studies in three subgroups: 6 including csDMARD-naïve patients, 14 csDMARD-IR, and 3 TNFi-IR patients. In csDMARD-naïve 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 3 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., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)