Abatacept in individuals at high risk of rheumatoid arthritis (APIPPRA): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. In the arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept (APIPPRA) trial, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of treating high risk individuals with the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept. METHODS: The APIPPRA study was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial done in 28 hospital-based early arthritis clinics in the UK and three in the Netherlands. Participants (aged ≥18 years) at risk of rheumatoid arthritis positive for ACPA and rheumatoid factor with inflammatory joint pain were recruited. Exclusion criteria included previous episodes of clinical synovitis and previous use of corticosteroids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) stratified by sex, smoking, and country, to 125 mg abatacept subcutaneous injections weekly or placebo for 12 months, and then followed up for 12 months. Masking was achieved by providing four kits (identical in appearance and packaging) with pre-filled syringes with coded labels of abatacept or placebo every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the time to development of clinical synovitis in three or more joints or rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2010 criteria, whichever was met first. Synovitis was confirmed by ultrasonography. Follow-up was completed on Jan 13, 2021. All participants meeting the intention-to-treat principle were included in the analysis. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2013-003413-18). FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2014, and Jan 14, 2019, 280 individuals were evaluated for eligibility and, of 213 participants, 110 were randomly assigned to abatacept and 103 to placebo. During the treatment period, seven (6%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group and 30 (29%) of 103 participants in the placebo group met the primary endpoint. At 24 months, 27 (25%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group had progressed to rheumatoid arthritis, compared with 38 (37%) of 103 in the placebo group. The estimated proportion of participants remaining arthritis-free at 12 months was 92·8% (SE 2·6) in the abatacept group and 69·2% (4·7) in the placebo group. Kaplan-Meier arthritis-free survival plots over 24 months favoured abatacept (log-rank test p=0·044). The difference in restricted mean survival time between groups was 53 days (95% CI 28-78; p<0·0001) at 12 months and 99 days (95% CI 38-161; p=0·0016) at 24 months in favour of abatacept. During treatment, abatacept was associated with improvements in pain scores, functional wellbeing, and quality-of-life measurements, as well as low scores of subclinical synovitis by ultrasonography, compared with placebo. However, the effects were not sustained at 24 months. Seven serious adverse events occurred in the abatacept group and 11 in the placebo group, including one death in each group deemed unrelated to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Therapeutic intervention during the at-risk phase of rheumatoid arthritis is feasible, with acceptable safety profiles. T-cell co-stimulation modulation with abatacept for 12 months reduces progression to rheumatoid arthritis, with evidence of sustained efficacy beyond the treatment period, and with no new safety signals. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Relapsing polychondritis - A single Centre study in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Relapsing Polychondritis (RP) is a rare immune mediated inflammatory disorder that may result in damage and destruction of cartilaginous tissues. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed patients with a clinical diagnosis of RP. Patients were investigated using pulmonary function tests, dynamic high-resolution CT scans, bronchoscopy, laryngoscopy and/or PET-CT scans along with autoimmune serology. Patients had other specialist reviews when indicated. RESULTS: We identified 68 patients with a diagnosis of RP, 55 (81%) were Caucasian, 8 (12%) Afro Caribbean, 4 (6%) Asian and 1 patient had Mixed Ethnicity. Twenty-nine (43%) had pulmonary involvement and in 16, pulmonary involvement was the initial presentation. The mean age at onset was 44 years (range 17-74). There was a mean diagnostic delay of 55 weeks. Sixty-six (97%) patients received a combination of oral Prednisolone and disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Twelve of 19 (63%) received biologics, with an initial good response, and 10 remain on treatment. Eleven patients with respiratory collapse required CPAP to maintain airway patency. Twelve (18%) patients died due to RP and 9 had respiratory complications. Two patients developed myelodysplasia and one had lung carcinoma. In a multivariate regression analysis, the prognostic variables were ethnicity, nasal chondritis, laryngotracheal stricture and elevated serum creatinine. CONCLUSION: RP is a rare autoimmune condition often associated with significant delays in diagnosis and initiation of treatment. Pulmonary involvement in RP may cause significant morbidity and mortality due to organ damage. Disease modifying anti rheumatic drugs and biologics should be considered early in the disease course to minimise adverse effects of long-term corticosteroid therapy and organ damage.

Incidence and management of inflammatory arthritis in England before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-level cohort study using OpenSAFELY.

Background: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence and management of inflammatory arthritis is not understood. Routinely captured data in secure platforms, such as OpenSAFELY, offer unique opportunities to understand how care for patients with inflammatory arthritis was impacted upon by the pandemic. Our objective was to use OpenSAFELY to assess the effects of the pandemic on diagnostic incidence and care delivery for inflammatory arthritis in England and to replicate key metrics from the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit. Methods: In this population-level cohort study, we used primary care and hospital data for 17·7 million adults registered with general practices using TPP health record software, to explore the following outcomes between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2022: (1) incidence of inflammatory arthritis diagnoses (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis) recorded in primary care; (2) time to first rheumatology assessment; (3) time to first prescription of a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in primary care; and (4) choice of first DMARD. Findings: Among 17 683 500 adults, there were 31 280 incident inflammatory arthritis diagnoses recorded between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2022. The mean age of diagnosed patients was 55·4 years (SD 16·6), 18 615 (59·5%) were female, 12 665 (40·5%) were male, and 22 925 (88·3%) of 25 960 with available ethnicity data were White. New inflammatory arthritis diagnoses decreased by 20·3% in the year commencing April, 2020, relative to the preceding year (5·1 vs 6·4 diagnoses per 10 000 adults). The median time to first rheumatology assessment was shorter during the pandemic (18 days; IQR 8-35) than before (21 days; 9-41). The proportion of patients prescribed DMARDs in primary care was similar before and during the pandemic; however, during the pandemic, fewer people were prescribed methotrexate or leflunomide, and more were prescribed sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine. Interpretation: Inflammatory arthritis diagnoses decreased markedly during the early phase of the pandemic. The impact on rheumatology assessment times and DMARD prescribing in primary care was less marked than might have been anticipated. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using routinely captured, near real-time data in the secure OpenSAFELY platform to benchmark care quality on a national scale, without the need for manual data collection. Funding: None.

Venous Thromboembolism Risk With JAK Inhibitors: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: JAK inhibitor therapies are effective treatment options for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), but their use has been limited by venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk warnings from licensing authorities. We undertook this study to evaluate the VTE risk of JAK inhibitors in patients with IMIDs. METHODS: Systematic searches of Medline and Embase databases from inception to September 30, 2020 were conducted. Phase II and phase III double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of JAK inhibitors at licensed doses were included in our analyses. RCTs with no placebo arm, long-term extension studies, post hoc analyses, and pooled analyses were excluded. Three researchers independently extracted data on exposure to JAK inhibitors or placebo and VTE events (e.g., pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]) and assessed study quality. RESULTS: A total of 42 studies were included, from an initial search that yielded 619. There were 6,542 JAK inhibitor patient exposure years (PEYs) compared to 1,578 placebo PEYs. There were 15 VTE events in the JAK inhibitor group and 4 in the placebo group. The pooled incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of VTE, PE, and DVT in patients receiving JAK inhibitors were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.36-1.29), 0.44 (95% CI 0.28-0.70), and 0.59 (95% CI 0.31-1.15), respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of RCT data defines the VTE risk with JAK inhibitors as a class in IMID patients. The pooled IRRs do not provide evidence that support the current warnings of VTE risk for JAK inhibitors. These findings will aid continued development of clinical guidelines for the use of JAK inhibitors in IMIDs.