Long-term safety and clinical outcomes of certolizumab pegol treatment in patients with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: 3-year results from the phase 3 C-axSpAnd study.

BACKGROUND: 52-week results from C-axSpAnd demonstrated the safety and efficacy of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in patients with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and objective signs of inflammation (sacroiliitis on MRI and/or elevated C-reactive protein levels). Long-term safety and clinical outcomes, including MRI assessments, are evaluated up to 3 years for CZP-treated patients with nr-axSpA. METHODS: C-axSpAnd was a phase 3 study comprising a 1-year double-blind, placebo-controlled period and 2-year open-label safety follow-up extension (SFE). At baseline, 317 patients were randomised 1:1 to placebo or CZP 200 mg every 2 weeks. Patients completing the double-blind phase who enrolled into the SFE received open-label CZP for an additional 104 weeks. Long-term safety and clinical outcomes are reported to Week 156. Continuous outcomes are presented as observed case (OC) and dichotomous outcomes as OC and with non-responder imputation. RESULTS: 243/317 (76.7%) patients entered the SFE, during which 149 (61.3%) experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 15 (3.3/100 patient-years) experienced serious TEAEs. Continuous outcome scores (including Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS]: 1.8; Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI]: 2.7) at Week 52 were maintained at Week 156 (ASDAS: 1.8; BASDAI: 2.6) for the initial CZP-randomised group. Mean SPARCC MRI sacroiliac joint inflammation scores for these patients decreased at Week 52 (baseline: 7.6; Week 52: 1.7), remaining low at Week 156 (2.4). CONCLUSIONS: CZP treatment was well tolerated up to 3 years, with no new safety signals versus previous reports. Clinical outcomes achieved after 1 year were sustained to 3 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02552212.

Reactogenicity of the Messenger RNA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Associated With Immunogenicity in Patients With Autoimmune and Inflammatory Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known regarding the reactogenicity and related SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease (CID). Our objective was to characterize the adverse event profile of CID patients following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and understand the relationship between reactogenicity and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. METHODS: CID patients and healthy controls eligible to receive messenger RNA (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines participated in 3 study visits (pre-vaccine, after dose 1, and after dose 2) in which blood and clinical data were collected. Assessment of adverse events were solicited within 7 days of receiving each dose. Serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG ± antibody titers were quantified following vaccination. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing mixed models and tobit regressions, with adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: The present study included 441 participants (322 CID patients and 119 control subjects). Compared to controls, CID patients reported greater symptom severity after dose 1 (P = 0.0001), including more myalgia and fatigue (P < 0.05). For immunogenicity, a higher symptom severity after dose 1 and a higher number of symptoms after dose 2 was associated with higher antibody titers (P ≤ 0.05). Each increase of 1 symptom was associated with a 15.1% increase in antibody titer. Symptom association was strongest with site pain after dose 1 (105%; P = 0.03) and fatigue after dose 2 (113%; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Patients with CID have a distinct reactogenicity profile following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination compared to controls. Furthermore, there is an association between increased reactogenicity and increased vaccine response. This finding may speak to the more variable immunogenicity in CID patients and may be an important indicator of vaccine response to the novel SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Secukinumab Efficacy on Enthesitis in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis: Pooled Analysis of Four Pivotal Phase III Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of secukinumab on axial and peripheral enthesitis in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) using pooled data from randomized controlled phase III studies. METHODS: In this posthoc analysis, data were pooled from patients originally randomized to secukinumab 150 mg, 300 mg, or placebo (PBO) from phase III MEASURE 1-4 studies (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01358175, NCT01649375, NCT02008916, and NCT02159053). Maastricht AS Enthesitis Score (MASES) was used for assessments of enthesitis through Week 52. Efficacy outcomes were mean change in MASES score and complete resolution (MASES = 0) of enthesitis in patients with baseline MASES > 0. RESULTS: A total of 693 (71.5%) patients had enthesitis at baseline in secukinumab 300 mg, 150 mg, and PBO groups (58 [76.3%], 355 [70.4%], and 280 [72%], respectively) out of 969 patients pooled in this analysis. At Week 16, mean changes from baseline for overall MASES and enthesitis at axial MASES sites, respectively, were as follows: -2.9 (P < 0.01) and -2.9 (P < 0.01) for secukinumab 300 mg; -2.4 (P < 0.015) and -2.3 (P < 0.05) for secukinumab 150 mg; and -1.9 and -1.8 for PBO, with improvements seen through Week 52. More than one-third of secukinumab-treated patients (300 mg: 36.2%; 150 mg: 40.8%) achieved complete resolution of enthesitis at Week 16. CONCLUSION: Secukinumab improved enthesitis at overall MASES and axial sites in patients with AS.

Secukinumab in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: subgroup analysis based on key baseline characteristics from a randomized phase III study, PREVENT.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the efficacy of secukinumab in patients with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) grouped by disease activity as assessed by C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scores, human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B27 status, and sex. METHODS: The phase III PREVENT study randomized (1:1:1) 555 patients to receive subcutaneous secukinumab 150 mg with (LD) or without (NL) loading dose or placebo weekly, followed by every 4 weeks starting at week 4. Here, we report the results of a post hoc analysis reporting the efficacy outcomes (pooled secukinumab) to 16 weeks by CRP, MRI, HLA-B27, and sex. RESULTS: Efficacy differences between the secukinumab and the placebo groups were highest in the CRP+, MRI+, HLA-B27+, and male subgroups, particularly for Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score-CRP inactive disease and Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) partial remission outcomes. ASAS40 response rates in the CRP+/MRI+ subgroup was 52.3% (secukinumab) versus 21.8% (placebo; P < 0.0001) at week 16. ASAS40 response rates (secukinumab versus placebo) were 43.9% versus 32.6% in HLA-B27+, 32.7% versus 16.4% in HLA-B27- subgroups, 51.2% versus 30.8% in male, and 31.7% versus 25.3% in female patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Secukinumab improved the signs and symptoms of nr-axSpA across patients grouped by CRP (+/-) and/or MRI (+/-) status, HLA-B27 (+/-) status, and sex. The highest treatment differences between secukinumab and placebo were observed in patients with both elevated CRP and evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI. Treatment difference was minimal between HLA-B27 (+) and (-) subgroups. Male patients had higher relative responses than female patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02696031 . Registered on 02 March 2016.

American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network 2015 Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: A core group led the development of the recommendations, starting with the treatment questions. A literature review group conducted systematic literature reviews of studies that addressed 57 specific treatment questions, based on searches conducted in OVID Medline (1946-2014), PubMed (1966-2014), and the Cochrane Library. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. A separate voting group reviewed the evidence and voted on recommendations for each question using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: In patients with active AS, the strong recommendations included use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) when activity persists despite NSAID treatment, not to use systemic glucocorticoids, use of physical therapy, and use of hip arthroplasty for patients with advanced hip arthritis. Among the conditional recommendations was that no particular TNFi was preferred except in patients with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease or recurrent iritis, in whom TNFi monoclonal antibodies should be used. In patients with active nonradiographic axial SpA despite treatment with NSAIDs, we conditionally recommend treatment with TNFi. Other recommendations for patients with nonradiographic axial SpA were based on indirect evidence and were the same as for patients with AS. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide guidance for the management of common clinical questions in AS and nonradiographic axial SpA. Additional research on optimal medication management over time, disease monitoring, and preventive care is needed to help establish best practices in these areas.

American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network 2015 Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: A core group led the development of the recommendations, starting with the treatment questions. A literature review group conducted systematic literature reviews of studies that addressed 57 specific treatment questions, based on searches conducted in OVID Medline (1946-2014), PubMed (1966-2014), and the Cochrane Library. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. A separate voting group reviewed the evidence and voted on recommendations for each question using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: In patients with active AS, the strong recommendations included use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) when activity persists despite NSAID treatment, not to use systemic glucocorticoids, use of physical therapy, and use of hip arthroplasty for patients with advanced hip arthritis. Among the conditional recommendations was that no particular TNFi was preferred except in patients with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease or recurrent iritis, in whom TNFi monoclonal antibodies should be used. In patients with active nonradiographic axial SpA despite treatment with NSAIDs, we conditionally recommend treatment with TNFi. Other recommendations for patients with nonradiographic axial SpA were based on indirect evidence and were the same as for patients with AS. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide guidance for the management of common clinical questions in AS and nonradiographic axial SpA. Additional research on optimal medication management over time, disease monitoring, and preventive care is needed to help establish best practices in these areas.

Axial spondyloarthritis: the heart of the matter.

A variety of cardiovascular clinical manifestations have been described in patients with spondyloarthritis, especially in well-established ankylosing spondylitis. These include both structural heart disease, conduction defects and ischemic heart disease. The true prevalence of cardiovascular involvement in patients with axial spondyloarthritis, including non-radiographic disease needs to be further defined.