BUSINESS MANAGEMENT GREAT WORK, ON TIME, NO PLAGARISM,

Review began 02/17/2025 Review ended 03/13/2025 Published 03/15/2025

© Copyright 2025 Isa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.80634

Infection Risk in Biological Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs Mourushi Isa , Ma. Rosario Rufina Ramos , Shahed Kamal

1. General Medicine, Northern Health, Melbourne, AUS 2. Medicine, Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health, Pasig, PHL

Corresponding author: Mourushi Isa, [email protected]

Abstract Rheumatology patients on biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have been proposed to be at a higher risk of infections. Our review summarizes the current evidence behind this theory as well as explores which factors predispose patients to various infections, which agents are more likely to cause infections, and which infections are common in these patients. We also aim to explore updated guidelines on infection prevention in patients on bDMARDs.

Categories: Pharmacology, Rheumatology Keywords: bdmards, biologics, immunization, infection, vaccination

Introduction And Background The landscape of treatment for different autoimmune conditions has changed significantly over the last few decades. In recent times, it incorporates several treatment options, including disease-modifying anti- rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) be it conventional, synthetic, or biological [1]. Although these treatment options may help control the disease, there has been concern about increased infection risk associated with the use of such medications. While several studies have found that they increase the risk of severe infections [2], others have not [3]. As a result, there remains ongoing controversy regarding the infection risk in patients on biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) [3-5]. In our descriptive review, our aim is to explore the infection risk with the use of bDMARDs. Additionally, we aim to explore current guidelines to help reduce the risk of infection while initiating bDMARDs in rheumatology patients.

Review What are the different biological agents available for rheumatology patients? In 1999, Maini et al. demonstrated the effectiveness of the biological agent infliximab, a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). The study showed that treatment with methotrexate plus infliximab was more effective in decreasing disease severity as compared to methotrexate monotherapy in the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis, who were not responding to methotrexate in the past [2].

Since then, several different bDMARDs have been approved for the management of different rheumatologic conditions. In contrast to conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) which broadly suppress the immune system, bDMARDs target specific points in the inflammatory pathway, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF), Janus kinase (JAK), B cells, and different interleukins (e.g., IL-1 and IL-6). Examples of these bDMARDs are listed in Table 1 [1].

1 2 1

Open Access Review Article

How to cite this article Isa M, Ramos M, Kamal S (March 15, 2025) Infection Risk in Biological Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs. Cureus 17(3): e80634. DOI 10.7759/cureus.80634

Drug class Mechanism of action Examples

TNFi These inhibit tumor necrosis factor by directly binding to it or by binding to its receptor

Infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab

Janus kinase inhibitors

Inhibition of Janus kinases leads to inhibition of various cytokines, thereby decreasing inflammation

Tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib

B-cell inhibitors These drugs bind to the CD20 receptor on B cells, thus preventing their activation

Rituximab

Interleukin inhibitors

These drugs target different interleukins involved in the inflammatory process

Tocilizumab (inhibits IL-6 receptors) and anakinra (inhibits IL-1 receptor)

T-cell activation inhibitors

These drugs interfere with synergistic signals that are essential for the activation of T-cells

Abatacept

TABLE 1: Different classes of biological agents used in the treatment of autoimmune conditions TNFi: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors

In addition to those previously mentioned, newer drugs are being investigated and approved for the management of different rheumatological conditions. Most recently, results from phase 1b studies of rezpegaldesleukin, an IL-2 receptor agonist that enhances the activity of regulatory T cells (Tregs), showed improved disease outcomes in patients with rheumatologic skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis [6].

With the introduction of these new agents, rheumatologists have to be aware of the potential side effects and risk profiles of these drugs, in order to minimize harm and provide the best care to their patients. One key issue with bDMARD therapy in rheumatology patients is the increased infection risk, especially for those who are already exposed to prednisolone and cDMARDs [3,4].

What is the infection risk in bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs? In the past years, there has been increasing evidence demonstrating increased risk of infection related to the use of biological agents. Several approaches have been made to quantify this risk; however, it remains to be a topic of controversy that requires further study.

Most of the research has been focused on the use of biologics in the treatment of refractory rheumatoid arthritis. A meta-analysis demonstrated a twofold increased risk of serious infection requiring anti- microbial and/or hospitalization with TNFi compared to placebo [5]. Another meta-analysis published by Leombruno et al. in 2009 that extrapolated data from 18 randomized controlled trials showed no increase in the risk of infection with recommended doses of anti-TNF therapy [3]. Of note, this study had an overall limited follow-up period of less than one year. On the contrary, another meta-analysis published by Singh et al. in 2015 showed that standard doses of biological agents are associated with an increased risk of serious infections as compared to cDMARDs [4]. The study by Singh et al. included a significantly larger patient population of 42,000 subjects, compared to Leombruno et al., which had approximately 8000 subjects. In the study by Singh et al., the increased risk of infection was statistically significant only in the group that had been exposed to methotrexate in the past, compared to methotrexate-naive patients [4]. However, this is by far the largest study performed investigating the infectious risk in biological agents. Despite the difference in findings, both meta-analyses concluded that high-dose bDMARD therapy is associated with an increased risk of serious infections. The meta-analysis by Singh et al. [4] showed that compared to cDMARDs, standard-dose biological agents increased the risk of serious infection by 30% and high-dose biological agents increased the risk of infection by 90%. This demonstrates a dose-dependent increased risk of infections with higher doses of biological agents and a reduced risk with low-dose biologics. Increased risk of infections with biologics is further seen in a study by Chiu and Chen in 2020 which demonstrated that although both cDMARDs and bDMARDs increase the risk of bacterial infection, the associated risk with bDMARDs is significantly higher [7]. This study also showed that not all bDMARDs have equal risks of infection, with TNFi showing the highest increased risk of infection.

Aside from those involving rheumatoid arthritis, studies involving bDMARDs versus cDMARDs in treating other rheumatologic diseases have also exhibited an increase in infection risks overall. A systematic review of clinical trials showed a moderate increase in global infections in patients with spondyloarthritis [8], while another review revealed an 18% increase in the risk of overall infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis [9] with the use of biological agents.

2025 Isa et al. Cureus 17(3): e80634. DOI 10.7759/cureus.80634 2 of 8

What other factors determine overall infection risk? There are a number of factors that contribute to the overall risk of infection in patients receiving bDMARD therapy. Evidence from previous studies have shown that the following factors contribute to overall infection risk: age, dosage, concomitant use, and time. There is limited data regarding the relative significance of each factor. The individual risk for each patient will be different, and each of these factors needs to be taken into consideration while assessing a patient's infection risk.

Age

In comparison to younger patients, the older population is more susceptible to infectious diseases due to a number of pathophysiologic and clinical factors such as immunosenescence and malnutrition [10].

Díaz-Lagares et al. in 2011 found that older age is an independent and significant predictive factor for serious infection, increasing the risk by 2.6% with the addition of biological agents [11]. However, this study did not adjust for the use of concomitant immunosuppressive agents, which may increase the risk of infection such as prednisolone. A study published in 2015 in a cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) compared complications and cessation rates between younger and older patients (>60 years) on TNFi. A higher proportion of older patients had infectious complications in this study. They also demonstrated a higher discontinuation rate in this group compared to the younger patients [12]. In 2011, Galloway et al. published a study that investigated age as a risk factor for serious infection. Although this study did not demonstrate a significantly elevated relative risk of serious infection in the elderly, after adjusting for the use of concomitant immunosuppression (steroids and methotrexate), the absolute risk of infection remains higher in this group [13]. This may highlight the difference in clinical practice when treating elderly patients, with a tendency to use steroids in the management of their inflammatory arthritis rather than steroid-sparing agents, which in turn increases their infection risk.

Dosage

Multiple studies have demonstrated a dose-dependent relationship between biological agents and infection risk, with a significantly higher risk with high doses of the medication. As previously mentioned, the meta- analysis by Singh et al. in 2015 showed a dose-dependent increase in infection risk, with higher doses demonstrating increased risk of infections and lower doses exhibiting reduced risk [4]. Meanwhile, Leombruno et al. analyzed 18 randomized trials and found that patients receiving high doses (around 2-3 times the recommended dose) of anti-TNF therapy had a twofold increased risk of serious infections [3]. Results from a study also showed that infection risk is especially high in patients receiving three or more courses of rituximab [11]. The dose-dependent association with infection risk appears to be relatively well established. Hence, for patients requiring the addition of a biological agent, the minimally effective dose should be maintained if possible.

Concomitant Use and Previous Treatment

Concomitant and previous use of conventional DMARDs have been demonstrated to increase the risk of infection in patients on bDMARDs [4]. Combining two or more bDMARDs increases the overall risk of serious infection, with an almost threefold increase as demonstrated by a meta-analysis published in 2018 [14]. In terms of infection risk when combining a bDMARD with a cDMARD, Singh et al. showed an increased risk with combination therapy [4], although results from a meta-analysis were not consistent with such finding as it showed no increased risk of infection with methotrexate and bDMARD combination compared with monotherapy with bDMARD only [15]. The overall infection risk is definitely higher if two or more bDMARDs are combined. It appears to be relatively safe to combine a cDMARD with a bDMARD in terms of infective risk, although caution should be exercised if patients are on concomitant steroids [16].

Time

Time remains a significant factor in the development of infections. Reviews done regarding the risk of infection related to TNFi treatment in rheumatoid arthritis have revealed an initial increased risk of infections, with the risk decreasing over time [17]. Askling and Dixon in 2008 concluded that shortly after treatment initiation, there is an observed increase in infection risk [18]. Askling et al. in 2007 found that in the first year of treatment, there was a 1.43 relative risk of infection, during the second year, the relative risk decreased to 1.15, and after the second year, the relative risk further decreased to 0.8213 [17]. Infection risk has been observed to be the highest during the first six months of treatment initiation [11,13]. It is hypothesized that this observed increase and then decrease in infection risk over time are likely due to a healthy user effect, wherein individuals with serious infections will stop treatment with biological agents, thus depleting the number of susceptible individuals [5]. Meanwhile, the initial increase in infection risk seen in most meta-analyses is likely because randomized trials focus primarily on the early phases of treatment initiation, especially in the first six months. Hence, clinicals need to be vigilant regarding infections during the initiation phase of bDMARDs more than the continuation phase.

2025 Isa et al. Cureus 17(3): e80634. DOI 10.7759/cureus.80634 3 of 8

Which agents are more likely to cause infection? Despite the overall evidence of increased infection risk, different biological agents seem to exhibit varying degrees of associated risk. It was observed that the risk of infection was increased by treatment with anti- TNF agents [5,19]. A research done on the off-label use of biological agents on systemic autoimmune diseases showed that rates of infection were dependent on which biological agent was used [11]. This study included rituximab, adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab. Among those used in the study, the highest risk was seen with the use of infliximab, while etanercept exhibited the lowest risk of infection [11]. Another study that included etanercept, tocilizumab, and certolizumab found that when compared to etanercept and tocilizumab, certolizumab showed the lowest risk for serious infections in patients being treated for rheumatoid arthritis [20]. This study is comparable to another review of the German Biologics Register which found that there is a higher relative risk of infection with tocilizumab use as compared to those being treated with anti-TNF therapy [21]. A possible connection can be made as in the ADACTA trials, it was found that tocilizumab had superior efficacy compared to adalimumab [22]. This raises the possibility that tocilizumab may be a more potent drug, thus also leading to higher infection rates with increased suppression of the immune system.

Due to ethical considerations, there are limited randomized controlled trials performing direct comparisons between different biological agents. Real-world data shows a mild difference in the overall infection risk with these agents [11,20]; however, as discussed in the following section, certain agents predispose patients to certain infections.

Which infections are more likely in patients on bDMARDs? Studies have shown that the most common infections associated with bDMARD use are respiratory tract infections [11,20]. Other common sites of infection identified are skin and soft tissue infections, bacteremia/sepsis, urinary tract infections, and gastrointestinal infections. A variety of bacterial and viral infections have been found to be associated with DMARD therapy, and most commonly reported are those on tuberculosis (TB), hepatitis B, and herpes zoster reactivation [23]. Death from serious infections is also seen to be higher for these patients in comparison to the general public, with a 10% 30-day mortality seen in a large cohort study of about 20,000 patients using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSrBr-rA) [20]. The most common pathogens associated with the use of bDMARDs are listed in Table 2.

Bacterial infections Viral infections

Streptococcus pneumoniae Hepatitis B

Staphylococcus aureus Herpes zoster

Listeria spp.

Salmonella spp.

Mycobacterium tuberculosis

TABLE 2: Common infections observed in patients on bDMARDs bDMARDs: biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

Bacterial Infections

Pathogens commonly implicated in bacterial infections in bDMARD patients were Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus [11]. These pathogens are known to cause respiratory infections. Additionally, intracellular bacterial species such as Listeria, Salmonella, and most specifically Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections were observed to occur more frequently in anti-TNF cohorts [24,25]. The risk of latent TB infection was also found to be higher in anti-TNF agents compared to IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors [26]. This increased risk of latent TB reactivation may be explained by the role of TNF-alpha in maintaining granulomas which wall off the infection. This risk has also been recognized by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after 12 cases of TB reactivation within 20 months between 2002 and 2003 were recorded [27]. Comparably, a study involving Swedish patients also exhibited a fourfold risk of latent TB reactivation in patients receiving anti-TNF therapy [28]. Reactivation of latent TB cases has been reported with different anti-TNF agents including infliximab [29], etanercept [28,30], and adalimumab [30].

Viral Infections

2025 Isa et al. Cureus 17(3): e80634. DOI 10.7759/cureus.80634 4 of 8

Biological agents, particularly TNFi, also increase the risk of reactivation of viral infections such as hepatitis B. Lee and colleagues found that TNFi present a significant risk of hepatitis B reactivation, particularly in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive patients [31]. In this study, the researchers also observed hepatitis B reactivation in hepatitis B occult carriers (patients who are HBsAg negative but hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) positive). However, the risk of hepatitis B reactivation appears to be lower in patients receiving antiviral therapy [32]. This increased risk of reactivation with TNFi use may be explained by the role of TNF in the proliferation of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-specific T cells that suppress HBV replication [33].

Another infection found to have an increased risk of reactivation associated with the use of bDMARDs is herpes zoster [34]. In 2009, Strangfeld et al. concluded that treatment with anti-TNF-alpha antibodies may be associated with an increased risk of herpes zoster [35] when compared to cDMARDs. The risk of herpes zoster was also observed to be significantly higher in patients on bDMARD therapy, particularly patients on JAK inhibitors such as tofacitinib [36-38]. Similarly, a large cohort study involving 34,000 patients in the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database showed a significant increase in herpes zoster risk [39]. The risk of incident and recurrent herpes zoster was higher after tofacitinib treatment than other bDMARDs [39]. This increased risk of herpes zoster associated with JAK inhibitor use may be explained by the downregulation of antiviral immunity in keratinocytes and the reduction of T-cell activation seen after exposure to JAK inhibitors [40].

What are the recommended measures to reduce the risk of infection in patients on bDMARDs? Due to the increased risk of infections, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommends individualized shared decision-making with regard to immunization in patients on bDMARDs [41]. The 2021 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends the addition of cDMARDs as an additional therapy rather than bDMARD in patients with moderate to high disease activity if they have had a serious infection within the last 12 months to reduce the infection risk [42].

There are a few considerations prior to commencing therapy for each patient.

First is a pre-biologic screen. An infection screen prior to commencing therapy, referred to as a pre-biologic screen, will help determine susceptibility to certain infections. This refers to performing serologies for each patient prior to commencing biological agents. There are no certain guidelines regarding which serologies to perform at this stage. Clinicians should consider screening for TB, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), viral hepatitis, varicella zoster virus (VZV), and/or Strongyloides; however, the decision needs to be individualized based on certain risk profiles such as recent travel, country of origin/birth, and/or exposure history. The 2022 update from EULAR recommended latent TB infection screening in patients initiating bDMARD therapy [43]. Various studies have also recommended screening for latent TB before beginning treatment [44-46]. Screening can be done via the tuberculin skin test or QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT) test, and standards can differ depending on the region.

Second is vaccination. The 2019 EULAR update recommends vaccination against certain infections (e.g., influenza, pneumococcal, tetanus, hepatitis A and B, and herpes zoster) in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) [41]. Meanwhile, yellow fever vaccination is recommended to be generally avoided by AIIRD patients [41].

Third is prophylaxis. Patients who are non-immune to VZV should receive advice regarding post-exposure prophylaxis if they are exposed to the virus [43]. Prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) should be considered in patients who are on bDMARDs with high-dose glucocorticoids [43].

Increased risk of malignancy Current evidence suggests a possible association between the use of bDMARDs and the risk of malignancy in rheumatology patients, especially in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

TNFi has been found to increase the likelihood of malignancy in multiple studies. In 2006, Bongartz et al. demonstrated that the use of TNFi (infliximab and adalimumab) increases the risk of malignancy in rheumatology patients with an odds ratio of 3.3 [5]. This study also demonstrated a dose-dependent increase in malignancy risk on anti-TNF therapy. With regard to non-TNFi bDMARDs, abatacept exposure has been observed to increase cancer risk as compared to cDMARDs [47].

However, rituximab or tocilizumab showed no significant increase in cancer risk compared to cDMARDs and TNFi [47]. On the other hand, JAK inhibitors have been shown to increase malignancy risk when compared to TNFi [48]. In 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) published results from initial safety trials of a JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib, which contained warnings on cardiovascular risk and malignancy risk of tofacitinib in contrast to TNFi [49]. Findings of the clinical trials were published the following year [38]. With increasing evidence of malignancy risk associated with bDMARDs, especially the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, the EULAR has updated its recommendations in 2022 [43]. This update included the consideration of

2025 Isa et al. Cureus 17(3): e80634. DOI 10.7759/cureus.80634 5 of 8

pertinent risk factors before the addition and initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy. This recommendation takes into account the cardiovascular risk and increased rates of malignancy associated with tofacitinib as opposed to other biological agents. A more recent study that aims to further elucidate the association of JAK inhibitors and cancer risk has reported evidence of an increase in the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer in individuals initiating JAK inhibitor therapy [50].

Conclusions The benefits of bDMARD therapy should be weighed against the risk of adverse events, especially the risk of infection and malignancy. Specific patient factors such as age, concomitant immunosuppression, and dose of the biological agent need to be considered, especially for patients on TNFi. To reduce the risk of subsequent infection, we recommend performing a pre-biologic screen and organizing appropriate vaccinations prior to commencing bDMARDs.

As newer biological and targeted treatments are further developed, challenges with increased infection risk will continue. The expanding pool of evidence and studies should ultimately lead to the creation of personalized estimates of risk versus benefit analyses for each biological agent with the aim of providing the best care for each patient.

Additional Information Author Contributions All authors have reviewed the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Concept and design: Mourushi Isa, Ma. Rosario Rufina Ramos, Shahed Kamal

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Mourushi Isa, Ma. Rosario Rufina Ramos

Drafting of the manuscript: Mourushi Isa, Ma. Rosario Rufina Ramos, Shahed Kamal

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Mourushi Isa, Shahed Kamal

Supervision: Shahed Kamal

Disclosures Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

References 1. Burke RA, White ND: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs . Book 2 (Chronic Illnesses):

Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program. American College of Clinical Pharmacy, Lenexa (KS); 2014. 9- 31.

2. Maini R, St Clair EW, Breedveld F, et al.: Infliximab (chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor α monoclonal antibody) versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving concomitant methotrexate: a randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 1999, 354:1932-9. 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)05246-0

3. Leombruno JP, Einarson TR, Keystone EC: The safety of anti-tumour necrosis factor treatments in rheumatoid arthritis: meta and exposure-adjusted pooled analyses of serious adverse events. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009, 68:1136-45. 10.1136/ard.2008.091025

4. 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, 386:258-65. 10.1016/S0140- 6736(14)61704-9

5. Bongartz T, Sutton AJ, Sweeting MJ, Buchan I, Matteson EL, Montori V: Anti-TNF antibody therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of serious infections and malignancies: systematic review and meta- analysis of rare harmful effects in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006, 295:2275-85. 10.1001/jama.295.19.2275

6. Silverberg JI, Rosmarin D, Chovatiya R, et al.: The regulatory T cell-selective interleukin-2 receptor agonist rezpegaldesleukin in the treatment of inflammatory skin diseases: two randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled phase 1b trials. Nat Commun. 2024, 15:9230. 10.1038/s41467-024-53384-1

7. Chiu YM, Chen DY: Infection risk in patients undergoing treatment for inflammatory arthritis: non- biologics versus biologics. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2020, 16:207-28. 10.1080/1744666X.2019.1705785

8. Séauve M, Auréal M, Laplane S, Lega JC, Cabrera N, Coury F: Risk of infections in psoriatic arthritis or axial spondyloarthritis patients treated with targeted therapies: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Joint Bone Spine. 2024, 91:105673. 10.1016/j.jbspin.2023.105673

2025 Isa et al. Cureus 17(3): e80634. DOI 10.7759/cureus.80634 6 of 8

9. Dommasch ED, Abuabara K, Shin DB, Nguyen J, Troxel AB, Gelfand JM: The risk of infection and malignancy with tumor necrosis factor antagonists in adults with psoriatic disease: a systematic review and meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011, 64:1035-50. 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.09.734

10. El Chakhtoura NG, Bonomo RA, Jump RL: Influence of aging and environment on presentation of infection in older adults. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2017, 31:593-608. 10.1016/j.idc.2017.07.017

11. Díaz-Lagares C, Pérez-Alvarez R, García-Hernández FJ, et al.: Rates of, and risk factors for, severe infections in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases receiving biological agents off-label. Arthritis Res Ther. 2011, 13:R112. 10.1186/ar3397

12. Desai A, Zator ZA, de Silva P, Nguyen DD, Korzenik J, Yajnik V, Ananthakrishnan AN: Older age is associated with higher rate of discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013, 19:309-15. 10.1002/ibd.23026

13. 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 emphasis on risks in the elderly. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011, 50:124-31. 10.1093/rheumatology/keq242

14. Boleto G, Kanagaratnam L, Dramé M, Salmon JH: Safety of combination therapy with two bDMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019, 49:35-42. 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2018.12.003

15. Baradat C, Degboé Y, Constantin A, Cantagrel A, Ruyssen-Witrand A: No impact of concomitant methotrexate use on serious adverse event and serious infection risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with bDMARDs: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. RMD Open. 2017, 3:e000352. 10.1136/rmdopen-2016-000352

16. Youssef J, Novosad SA, Winthrop KL: Infection risk and safety of corticosteroid use . Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2016, 42:157-76, ix-x. 10.1016/j.rdc.2015.08.004

17. Askling J, Fored CM, Brandt L, et al.: Time-dependent increase in risk of hospitalisation with infection among Swedish RA patients treated with TNF antagonists. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007, 66:1339-44. 10.1136/ard.2006.062760

18. Askling J, Dixon W: The safety of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy in rheumatoid arthritis . Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2008, 20:138-44. 10.1097/BOR.0b013e3282f4b392

19. Listing J, Strangfeld A, Kary S, et al.: Infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic agents. Arthritis Rheum. 2005, 52:3403-12. 10.1002/art.21386

20. Rutherford AI, Subesinghe S, Hyrich KL, Galloway JB: 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, 77:905-10. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212825

21. Zink A, Manger B, Kaufmann J, Eisterhues C, Krause A, Listing J, Strangfeld A: Evaluation of the RABBIT Risk Score for serious infections. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014, 73:1673-6. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203341

22. 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. 2013, 381:1541-50. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60250-0

23. Winthrop KL: Infections and biologic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: our changing understanding of risk and prevention. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2012, 38:727-45. 10.1016/j.rdc.2012.08.019

24. Dixon WG, Watson K, Lunt M, Hyrich KL, Silman AJ, Symmons DP: Rates of serious infection, including site-specific and bacterial intracellular infection, in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Arthritis Rheum. 2006, 54:2368-76. 10.1002/art.21978

25. Dixon WG, Hyrich KL, Watson KD, Lunt M, Galloway J, Ustianowski A, Symmons DP: 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, 69:522-8. 10.1136/ard.2009.118935

26. Zhu X, Pan X, Da M, Wang F, Dong Z: Risk for latent tuberculosis infection reactivation among patients with psoriasis on biologics treatment: a meta-analysis. J Infect. 2024, 89:106226. 10.1016/j.jinf.2024.106226

27. Tuberculosis associated with blocking agents against tumor necrosis factor-alpha--California, 2002-2003 . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004, 53:683-6.

28. Askling J, Fored CM, Brandt L, et al.: Risk and case characteristics of tuberculosis in rheumatoid arthritis associated with tumor necrosis factor antagonists in Sweden. Arthritis Rheum. 2005, 52:1986-92. 10.1002/art.21137

29. Keane J, Gershon S, Wise RP, et al.: Tuberculosis associated with infliximab, a tumor necrosis factor α- neutralizing agent. N Engl J Med. 2001, 345:1098-104. 10.1056/NEJMoa011110

30. Nankani R, Olefson S, Kumar A, Rezaizadeh H: Adalimumab-inducing reactivation of tuberculosis with previously negative QuantiFERON test: 2412. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017, 112:S1315-6.

31. Lee YH, Bae SC, Song GG: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in rheumatic patients with hepatitis core antigen (HBV occult carriers) undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2013, 31:118-21.

32. Pauly MP, Tucker LY, Szpakowski JL, Ready JB, Baer D, Hwang J, Lok AS: Incidence of hepatitis B virus reactivation and hepatotoxicity in patients receiving long-term treatment with tumor necrosis factor antagonists. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018, 16:1964-73.e1. 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.033

33. Xia Y, Stadler D, Lucifora J, et al.: Interferon-γ and tumor necrosis factor-α produced by T cells reduce the HBV persistence form, cccDNA, without cytolysis. Gastroenterology. 2016, 150:194-205. 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.09.026

34. Qian J, Lassere MN, Heywood AE, Liu B: Use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and the subsequent risk of herpes zoster in older adults. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021, 60:5042-51. 10.1093/rheumatology/keab538

35. Strangfeld A, Listing J, Herzer P, Liebhaber A, Rockwitz K, Richter C, Zink A: Risk of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-TNF-α agents. JAMA. 2009, 301:737-44.

2025 Isa et al. Cureus 17(3): e80634. DOI 10.7759/cureus.80634 7 of 8

10.1001/jama.2009.146 36. Redeker I, Albrecht K, Kekow J, et al.: Risk of herpes zoster (shingles) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

under biologic, targeted synthetic and conventional synthetic DMARD treatment: data from the German RABBIT register. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022, 81:41-7. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220651

37. Zhang Z, Deng W, Wu Q, Sun L: Tuberculosis, hepatitis B and herpes zoster in tofacitinib-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Immunotherapy. 2019, 11:321-33. 10.2217/imt-2018-0113

38. Ytterberg SR, Bhatt DL, Mikuls TR, et al.: Cardiovascular and cancer risk with tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2022, 386:316-26. 10.1056/NEJMoa2109927

39. Jeong S, Choi S, Park SM, Kim J, Ghang B, Lee EY: Incident and recurrent herpes zoster for first-line bDMARD and tsDMARD users in seropositive rheumatoid arthritis patients: a nationwide cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022, 24:180. 10.1186/s13075-022-02871-1

40. Hawerkamp HC, Domdey A, Radau L, Sewerin P, Oláh P, Homey B, Meller S: Tofacitinib downregulates antiviral immune defence in keratinocytes and reduces T cell activation. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021, 23:144. 10.1186/s13075-021-02509-8

41. Furer V, Rondaan C, Heijstek MW, et al.: 2019 update of EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020, 79:39-52. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882

42. Fraenkel L, Bathon JM, England BR, et al.: 2021 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021, 73:924-39. 10.1002/acr.24596

43. Smolen JS, Landewé RB, Bergstra SA, et al.: EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023, 82:3-18. 10.1136/ard-2022-223356

44. Sellami M, Fazaa A, Cheikh M, et al.: Screening for latent tuberculosis infection prior to biologic therapy in patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID): interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) versus tuberculin skin test (TST). Egypt Rheumatol. 2018, 41:225-30. 10.1016/j.ejr.2018.11.003

45. Cantini F, Nannini C, Niccoli L, et al.: Guidance for the management of patients with latent tuberculosis infection requiring biologic therapy in rheumatology and dermatology clinical practice. Autoimmun Rev. 2015, 14:503-9. 10.1016/j.autrev.2015.01.011

46. Screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and its management in inflammatory arthritis patients. Australian Rheumatology Association, New Farm, Australia; 2022. https://rheumatology.org.au/Portals/2/Documents/Public/Professionals/221221_Screening_LTBI_Dec22_FINAL.pdf.

47. Xie W, Yang X, Huang H, Gao D, Ji L, Zhang Z: Risk of malignancy with non-TNFi biologic or tofacitinib therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020, 50:930-7. 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.08.007

48. Bezzio C, Vernero M, Ribaldone DG, Alimenti E, Manes G, Saibeni S: Cancer risk in patients treated with the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib: systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2023, 15:2197. 10.3390/cancers15082197

49. Initial safety trial results find increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer with arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR (tofacitinib). (2021). Accessed: December 30, 2024: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/fda-drug-safety-podcasts/initial-safety-trial-results-find-increased-risk-serious- heart-rel....

50. Huss V, Bower H, Hellgren K, Frisell T, Askling J: Cancer risks with JAKi and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis: a national real-world cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023, 82:911-9. 10.1136/ard-2022-223636

2025 Isa et al. Cureus 17(3): e80634. DOI 10.7759/cureus.80634 8 of 8

Copyright © 2025, Isa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which

permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance

with the terms of the License.