Efficacy and safety of biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the ASAS-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on efficacy and safety of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) to inform the 2022 update of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ASAS-EULAR) recommendations for the management of axSpA. METHODS: Systematic literature review (2016-2021) on efficacy and safety of bDMARDs in axSpA (radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA)/non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA)). Eligible study designs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), strategy trials and observational studies (the latter only for safety and extra-musculoskeletal manifestations). All relevant efficacy/safety outcomes were included. RESULTS: In total, 148 publications were included. Efficacy of golimumab and certolizumab was confirmed. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilar-originator equivalence was demonstrated. RCT (n=15) data on efficacy of interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) demonstrated clinically relevant effects (risk ratio vs placebo to achieve ASAS40 response 1.3-15.3 (r-axSpA, n=9), 1.4-2.1 (nr-axSpA, n=2)). Efficacy of secukinumab/ixekizumab was demonstrated in TNFi-naïve and TNFi-inadequate responders. IL-23 and IL-12/23 inhibitors (risankizumab/ustekinumab) failed to show relevant benefits. Tapering of TNFi by spacing was non-inferior to standard-dose treatment. The first axSpA treat-to-target trial did not meet its primary endpoint, but showed improvements in secondary outcomes. No new risks were identified with TNFi use in observational studies (data lacking for IL-17i). Secukinumab (n=1) and etanercept (n=2) were associated with increased risk of uveitis in observational studies compared to monoclonal TNFi. CONCLUSIONS: New evidence supports the efficacy and safety of TNFi (originators/biosimilars) and IL-17i in r-axSpA and nr-axSpA, while IL-23i failed to show relevant effects. Observational studies are needed to confirm long-term IL-17i safety. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021257588.

Individual patient data meta-analysis on continued use of glucocorticoids after their initiation as bridging therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can discontinue glucocorticoids (GC) after GC 'bridging' in the initial treatment step and to identify factors that may affect this. METHODS: Data from 7 clinical trial arms (with 1653 patients) that included a GC bridging schedule, previously identified in a systematic literature search, were combined in an individual patient data meta-analysis. Outcomes were GC use (yes/no) at predefined time points (1/3/6/12/18 months after bridging had ended), cumulative GC dose and continuous (≥3 months) GC use after bridging had ended. Age, sex, ACPA status, initial GC dose, duration of bridging schedule, oral versus parenteral GC administration and initial co-treatment were univariably tested with each outcome. RESULTS: The probability of using GC 1 month after bridging therapy had ended was 0.18, decreasing to 0.07 from 6 until 18 months after bridging had ended. The probability of continuous GC use after bridging had ended was 0.18 at 1 year and 0.30 at 2 years of follow-up. In oral GC bridging studies only, the probabilities of later and continuous GC use and the cumulative GC doses were higher compared to the combined analyses with also parenteral GC bridging studies included. A higher initial dose and a longer GC bridging schedule were associated with higher cumulative GC doses and more patients on GC at 18 months after bridging had ended. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these RA clinical trial arms with an initial GC bridging schedule, the probability of subsequent ongoing GC use following bridging is low.

The added value of predictive biomarkers in treat-to-target strategies for rheumatoid arthritis patients: a conceptual modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the additional value of a hypothetical biomarker predicting response to treatment for RA regarding efficacy and costs by using a modelling design. METHODS: A Markov model was built comparing a usual care T2T strategy with a biomarker-steered strategy for RA patients starting biologic therapy. Outcome measures include time spent in remission or low disease activity (LDA) and costs. Four additional scenario analyses were performed by varying biomarker or clinical care characteristics: (i) costs of the biomarker; (ii) sensitivity and specificity of the biomarker; (iii) proportion of eligible patients tapering; and (iv) medication costs. RESULTS: In the base model, patients spent 2.9 months extra in LDA or remission in the biomarker strategy compared with usual care T2T over 48 months. Total costs were €43 301 and €42 568 for, respectively, the usual care and biomarker strategy, and treatment costs accounted for 91% of total costs in both scenarios. Cost savings were driven due to patients in the biomarker strategy experiencing remission or LDA earlier, and starting tapering sooner. Cost-effectiveness was not so much driven by costs or test characteristics of the biomarker (scenario 1/2), but rather by the level of early and proactive tapering and drug costs (scenarios 3/4). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a biomarker for prediction of response to b/tsDMARD treatment in RA can be of added value to current treat-to-target clinical care. However, gains in efficacy are modest and cost gains are depending on a combination of early proactive tapering and high medication costs.

2019 update of EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

To update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) published in 2011. Four systematic literature reviews were performed regarding the incidence/prevalence of vaccine-preventable infections among patients with AIIRD; efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccines; effect of anti-rheumatic drugs on the response to vaccines; effect of vaccination of household of AIIRDs patients. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and expert opinion. The updated recommendations comprise six overarching principles and nine recommendations. The former address the need for an annual vaccination status assessment, shared decision-making and timing of vaccination, favouring vaccination during quiescent disease, preferably prior to the initiation of immunosuppression. Non-live vaccines can be safely provided to AIIRD patients regardless of underlying therapy, whereas live-attenuated vaccines may be considered with caution. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccination should be strongly considered for the majority of patients with AIIRD. Tetanus toxoid and human papilloma virus vaccination should be provided to AIIRD patients as recommended for the general population. Hepatitis A, hepatitis B and herpes zoster vaccination should be administered to AIIRD patients at risk. Immunocompetent household members of patients with AIIRD should receive vaccines according to national guidelines, except for the oral poliomyelitis vaccine. Live-attenuated vaccines should be avoided during the first 6 months of life in newborns of mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy. These 2019 EULAR recommendations provide an up-to-date guidance on the management of vaccinations in patients with AIIRD.

The role of biochemical markers of joint tissue remodelling to predict progression and treatment efficacy in inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

Structural damage is a hallmark in RA, spondyloarthropy (SpA) and psoriatric arthritis (PsA). Its progression is difficult to predict and current radiological or inflammatory biological markers lack sensitivity. Biochemical markers of bone, cartilage and synovial tissues provide a dynamic indication of the anabolism and catabolism of joint tissues and can be easily measured by immunoassays. Novel biochemical markers including post-translational modifications of matrix proteins and enzyme-generated neoepitopes with increased tissue and/or biological pathway specificity have been developed. Their evaluation in clinical trials of novel biologic therapies and epidemiological studies indicated that their measurements could be useful to predict progression of structural damage and treatment efficacy, independently of current clinical, radiological and biological indices of disease activity. In this paper we briefly describe the latest developments in biochemical markers and critically analyse the clinical data assessing the utility of established and novel biochemical markers in RA, SpA and PsA.

Should radiographic progression still be used as outcome in RA?

Radiographs of hands and feet are traditionally the images that are used to assess structural damage progression in drug trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, aiming at proving the disease modifying capacity of a drug. Although treatment has largely improved over the past decade and consequently radiographic progression is limited in control arms in clinical trials, recent trials are still able to show inhibition of structural progression by new drugs. The requirements for the successful use of radiographic progression as an outcome in rheumatoid arthritis trials will be discussed in this paper.

2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Since the 2007 recommendations for the management of early arthritis have been presented, considerable research has been published in the field of early arthritis, mandating an update of the 2007 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for management of early arthritis. METHODS: In accordance with the 2014 EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, the expert committee pursued an approach that was based on evidence in the literature and on expert opinion. The committee involved 20 rheumatologists, 2 patients and 1 healthcare professional representing 12 European countries. The group defined the focus of the expert committee and target population, formulated a definition of 'management' and selected the research questions. A systematic literature research (SLR) was performed by two fellows with the help of a skilled librarian. A set of draft recommendations was proposed on the basis of the research questions and the results of the SLR. For each recommendation, the categories of evidence were identified, the strength of recommendations was derived and the level of agreement was determined through a voting process. RESULTS: The updated recommendations comprise 3 overarching principles and 12 recommendations for managing early arthritis. The selected statements involve the recognition of arthritis, referral, diagnosis, prognostication, treatment (information, education, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions), monitoring and strategy. Eighteen items were identified as relevant for future research. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide rheumatologists, general practitioners, healthcare professionals, patients and other stakeholders with an updated EULAR consensus on the entire management of early arthritis.

2016 update of the ASAS-EULAR management recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis.

To update and integrate the recommendations for ankylosing spondylitis and the recommendations for the use of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) into one set applicable to the full spectrum of patients with axSpA. Following the latest version of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Standardised Operating Procedures, two systematic literature reviews first collected the evidence regarding all treatment options (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) that were published since 2009. After a discussion of the results in the steering group and presentation to the task force, overarching principles and recommendations were formulated, and consensus was obtained by informal voting. A total of 5 overarching principles and 13 recommendations were agreed on. The first three recommendations deal with personalised medicine including treatment target and monitoring. Recommendation 4 covers non-pharmacological management. Recommendation 5 describes the central role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-choice drug treatment. Recommendations 6-8 define the rather modest role of analgesics, and disprove glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for axSpA patents with predominant axial involvement. Recommendation 9 refers to biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) including TNFi and IL-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) for patients with high disease activity despite the use (or intolerance/contraindication) of at least two NSAIDs. In addition, they should either have an elevated C reactive protein and/or definite inflammation on MRI and/or radiographic evidence of sacroiliitis. Current practice is to start with a TNFi. Switching to another TNFi or an IL-17i is recommended in case TNFi fails (recommendation 10). Tapering, but not stopping a bDMARD, can be considered in patients in sustained remission (recommendation 11). The final two recommendations (12, 13) deal with surgery and spinal fractures. The 2016 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA.

Pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review for the 2015 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions in PsA: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoid, synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs) either conventional or targeted, biologicals (bDMARDs), placebo or any combination. Main outcomes were American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20-50, Psoriasis Area Severity Index 75, radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs). Multiple studies of the same intervention were meta-analysed using random effects. RESULTS: In total, 25 papers and 12 abstracts were included. The efficacy of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (including the recently added golimumab and certolizumab pegol) was confirmed and 16 articles/abstracts focused on 3 drugs with new modes of action: ustekinumab (UST), secukinumab (SEC) and apremilast (APR). All were placebo-compared trials and met their primary end point, ACR20. In 2 studies with UST ACR20 was met by 50% and 44% of patients with UST 90 mg, 42% and 44% with UST 45 mg vs 23% and 20% with placebo, respectively. In two studies with SEC ACR20 ranged 54% (SEC 300 mg), 50-51% (SEC 150 mg), 29-51% (SEC 75 mg) and 15-17% (placebo). In four studies with APR, ACR20 ranged 32-43% (APR 30 mg), 29-38% (APR 20 mg) and 17-20% (placebo). For all three drugs, no more withdrawals due to AEs than placebo were seen and, in general, safety appeared satisfactory. A strategy trial, TIght COntrol of Psoriatic Arthritis (TICOPA), showed better ACR responses with treatment adaptations upon tight control compared with standard care. CONCLUSIONS: UST, SEC and APR are new drugs with efficacy demonstrated for the treatment of PsA. No major safety signals arise, but long-term studies are needed. This review informed about the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for management of PsA.

Development of an ASAS-endorsed recommendation for the early referral of patients with a suspicion of axial spondyloarthritis.

The aim of this work was to develop a consensual recommendation under the auspices of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) for early referral of patients with a suspicion of axial spondyloarthritis by non-rheumatologists. The development of a referral recommendation consisted of four phases: (1) systematic literature review, (2) the first Delphi round aiming at identification of unmet needs and development of a candidate list of referral parameters, (3) the second Delphi round aiming at identification of the most useful combination of referral parameters and (4) final discussion and formal endorsement by ASAS membership. The following consensus on a referral recommendation was achieved as a result of the Delphi processes and final voting: "Patients with chronic back pain (duration ≥3 months) and back pain onset before 45 years of age should be referred to a rheumatologist if at least one of the following parameters is present: Inflammatory back pain; human leucocyte antigen-B27; Sacroiliitis on imaging if available (X-rays or magnetic resonance imaging); Peripheral manifestations (arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis); Extra-articular manifestations (psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, uveitis); Positive family history for spondyloarthritis; Good response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; Elevated acute phase reactant." A consensual ASAS-endorsed referral recommendation for patients suspected of having axial spondyloarthritis was developed as a flexible and universal strategy to be used in clinical practice by primary care physicians or non-rheumatology specialists. The practical value of this strategy applied in different settings should be determined in future studies.

Treatment of gout patients with impairment of renal function: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of gout-specific medications in gout patients with a comorbidity and/or comedication. METHODS: A systematic literature search for gout, its medication, and the most common comorbidities and comedications, using serum uric acid (SUA) levels as the primary, and adverse events as the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Eight trials met inclusion criteria. Trials covered treatment with allopurinol, benzbromarone, rasburicase, or febuxostat in a gout population with mild or moderate renal insufficiency. High risk of bias (5/8 trials) and heterogeneity precluded formal metaanalysis. The trials showed the following hierarchy in efficacy (lowering the SUA below 6.0 mg/dl): febuxostat 80 mg (44%-71%) > febuxostat 40 mg (43%-52%) > allopurinol 100 mg or 200 mg (0-46%) after 6 months of therapy; rasburicase (46%) > allopurinol 300 mg (16%) after 7 days of therapy; benzbromarone 100-200 mg (93%) > allopurinol 100-200 mg (63%) after 9-24 months of therapy. The combination of allopurinol and benzbromarone seemed to be effective, with a significant reduction in the SUA from 7.8 to 5.7 mg/dl (p < 0.05) after 1 month. One study showed that 89% achieved the target SUA using higher doses of allopurinol than usually recommended for patients with renal impairment without an apparent increase in adverse events. In addition, allopurinol and benzbromarone significantly improved renal function. CONCLUSION: In gout patients with renal insufficiency febuxostat, rasburicase, benzbromarone, and allopurinol + benzbromarone seemed to be effective and safe; allopurinol may be cautiously titrated until the target uric acid level has been reached, and may improve renal function.

The efficacy and safety of treatments for acute gout: results from a series of systematic literature reviews including Cochrane reviews on intraarticular glucocorticoids, colchicine, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and interleukin-1 inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids (GC), colchicine, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), interleukin-1 (IL-1) inhibitors, and paracetamol to treat acute gout. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to September 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) or quasi-RCT in adults with acute gout that compared GC, colchicine, NSAID, IL-1 inhibitors, and paracetamol to no treatment, placebo, another intervention, or combination therapy were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary endpoints were pain and adverse events. Data were pooled where appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty-six trials evaluating GC (N = 5), NSAID (N = 21), colchicine (N = 2), and canakinumab (N = 1) were included. No RCT assessed paracetamol or intraarticular (IA) GC. No RCT compared systemic GC with placebo. Moderate quality evidence (3 trials) concluded that systemic GC were as effective as NSAID but safer. Low quality evidence (1 trial) showed that both high- and low-dose colchicine were more effective than placebo, and low-dose colchicine was no different to placebo with respect to safety but safer than high-dose colchicine. Low quality evidence (1 trial) showed no difference between NSAID and placebo with regard to pain or inflammation. No NSAID was superior to another. Moderate quality evidence (1 trial) found that 150 mg canakinumab was more effective than a single dose of intramuscular GC (40 mg triamcinolone) and equally safe. CONCLUSION: GC, NSAID, low-dose colchicine, and canakinumab all effectively treat acute gout. There was insufficient evidence to rank them. Systemic GC appeared safer than NSAID and lower-dose colchicine was safer than higher-dose colchicine.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in inflammatory arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA). METHODS: A total of 453 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 2010 3e (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative. Using a formal voting process, 89 rheumatologists representing all 17 countries selected 10 clinical questions regarding the use of pain medications in IA. Bibliographic fellows undertook a systematic literature review for each question, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and 2008-09 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR abstracts. Relevant studies were retrieved for data extraction and quality assessment. Rheumatologists from each country used this evidence to develop a set of national recommendations. Multinational recommendations were then formulated and assessed for agreement and the potential impact on clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 49,242 references were identified, from which 167 studies were included in the systematic reviews. One clinical question regarding different comorbidities was divided into two separate reviews, resulting in 11 recommendations in total. Oxford levels of evidence were applied to each recommendation. The recommendations related to the efficacy and safety of various analgesic medications, pain measurement scales and pain management in the pre-conception period, pregnancy and lactation. Finally, an algorithm for the pharmacological management of pain in IA was developed. Twenty per cent of rheumatologists reported that the algorithm would change their practice, and 75% felt the algorithm was in accordance with their current practice. CONCLUSIONS: Eleven evidence-based recommendations on the management of pain by pharmacotherapy in IA were developed. They are supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 17 countries, thus enhancing their utility in clinical practice.

How do gastrointestinal or liver comorbidities influence the choice of pain treatment in inflammatory arthritis? A Cochrane systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and safety of pharmacological pain treatment in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and gastrointestinal (GI) or liver comorbidities. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Trial Register up to June 2010, as well as American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism meeting abstracts (2007-2010). The population investigated was defined as patients with IA and existing or prior reported GI or liver disease treated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), opioids or opioid-like drugs, paracetamol, antidepressants, neuromodulators, or muscle relaxants. Outcomes of interest were defined as efficacy evaluated by common pain measures and safety evaluated by withdrawals due to adverse events, worsening of comorbidity, and mortality. RESULTS: Out of 2869 identified studies only a single open-arm trial fulfilled inclusion criteria assessing the safety and efficacy of naproxen in 58 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and GI comorbidities. The presence of fecal occult blood was reported in 1/58 participants tested between Weeks 1 to 26 and 2/32 participants tested between Weeks 27 to 52. Over the course of the study, 7 participants (12.1%) withdrew due to adverse events; no serious adverse events were reported. Among the 14 studies excluded due to inclusion of a mixed population (osteoarthritis or other rheumatic conditions) or an intervention that was already withdrawn, 5 trials reported a higher risk of developing GI events in patients with prior GI events when treated with NSAID. CONCLUSION: Very little evidence regarding safety and efficacy of pain treatment in patients with IA and GI or hepatic comorbidities was found. In patients with a history of GI events, extrapolating from other studies, NSAID should be used cautiously since there is evidence that these patients are at a higher risk of developing adverse events.

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.

2010 Update of the international ASAS recommendations for the use of anti-TNF agents in patients with axial spondyloarthritis.

This paper presents the second update of the Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) consensus statement on the use of anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). A major change from the previous recommendations is that patients fulfilling the ASAS axial SpA criteria, which also include patients fulfilling the modified New York criteria for ankylosing spondylitis, can be treated with anti-TNF agents. This makes an earlier start in the disease process possible. A second major change is the mandatory pretreatment before anti-TNF agents can be started. All patients should have tried a minimum of two non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for a minimum of 4 weeks in total. This is significantly shorter than the previous requirement of 3 months. As previously, patients with axial symptoms require no further pretreatment. Patients with symptomatic peripheral symptoms should normally have had an adequate therapeutic trial of a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, preferably sulfasalazine. Sulfasalazine is no longer mandatory in this group of patients. Finally, efficacy should be evaluated after at least 12 weeks. The remaining recommendations stayed largely unchanged.