Second and third TNF inhibitors in European patients with axial spondyloarthritis: Effectiveness and impact of the reason for switching.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate real-world effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and the association with 1) treatment line (second and third TNFi-series) and 2) reason for withdrawal from the preceding TNFi (lack of efficacy (LOE) versus adverse events (AE)). METHODS: Prospectively collected routine care data from 12 European registries were pooled. Rates for 12-month drug retention and 6-month remission (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score C-reactive protein inactive disease (ASDAS-ID)) were assessed in second and third TNFi-series and stratified by withdrawal reason. RESULTS: We included 8254 s and 2939 third TNFi-series; 12-month drug retention rates were similar (71%). Six-month ASDAS-ID rates were higher for the second (23%) than third TNFi (16%). Twelve-month drug retention rates for patients withdrawing from the preceding TNFi due to AE versus LOE were similar for the second (68% and 67%) and third TNFi (both 68%), while for the second TNFi, rates were lower in primary than secondary non-responders (LOE < 26 versus ≥26 weeks) (58% versus 71%, p< 0.001). Six-month ASDAS-ID rates for the second TNFi were higher if the withdrawal reason was AE (27%) versus LOE (17%), p< 0.001, while similar for the third TNFi (19% versus 13%, p= 0.20). CONCLUSION: A similar proportion of axSpA patients remained on a second and third TNFi after one year, but with low remission rates for the third TNFi. Remission rates on the second TNFi (but not the third) were higher if the withdrawal reason from the preceding TNFi was AE versus LOE.

Differences and similarities between the EULAR/ASAS-EULAR and national recommendations for treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis across Europe.

This is the first report comparing EULAR and national treatment recommendations for PsA patients across Europe, and the first this decade to compare ASAS-EULAR and national treatment recommendations in axSpA patients. An electronic survey was completed from October 2021-April 2022 by rheumatologists in 15 European countries. One and four countries followed all EULAR and ASAS-EULAR recommendations, respectively. Five countries had no national treatment recommendations for PsA and/or axSpA, but followed other regulations. In several countries, national treatment recommendations predated the most recent EULAR/ASAS-EULAR recommendations. Entry criteria for starting biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs varied considerably. In several countries, for PsA patients with significant skin involvement, interleukin-17 inhibitors were not given preference. The positioning of Janus Kinase inhibitors differed and Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors were not in use/reimbursed in most countries. This study may motivate European countries to update their national treatment recommendations, to align them better with the latest international recommendations.

Uptake and effectiveness of newer biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in psoriatic arthritis: results from five Nordic biologics registries.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe the uptake of newer biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the Nordic countries and to compare their retention and effectiveness. METHODS: Patients with PsA starting a b/tsDMARD in 2012-2020 in five Nordic rheumatology registers were included. Uptake and patient characteristics were described, with comorbidities identified from linkages to national patient registries. One-year retention and 6-month effectiveness (proportions achieving low disease activity (LDA) on the Disease Activity Index for PSoriatic Arthritis based on 28-joint evaluation) for the newer b/tsDMARDs (abatacept/apremilast/ixekizumab/secukinumab/tofacitinib/ustekinumab) were compared with adalimumab through adjusted regression models stratified by treatment course (first, second/third, and fourth or more). RESULTS: In total, 5659 treatment courses with adalimumab (56% biologic-naïve) and 4767 courses with a newer b/tsDMARD (21% biologic-naïve) were included. The uptake of newer b/tsDMARDs increased from 2014 and plateaued in 2018. Patient characteristics appeared similar across treatments at treatment start. Adalimumab was more often used as the first course and newer b/tsDMARDs more often in biologic-experienced patients. Used as a second/third b/tsDMARD, the retention rate and the proportion achieving LDA were significantly better for adalimumab (rate 65%, proportion 59%) compared with abatacept (45%, 37%), apremilast (43%, 35%), ixekizumab (LDA only, 40%) and ustekinumab (LDA only, 40%), but not significantly different from other b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSION: Uptake of newer b/tsDMARDs occurred mainly in biologic-experienced patients. Regardless of mode of action, only a minority of patients starting a second or later b/tsDMARD course remained on drug and achieved LDA. Superior outcomes for adalimumab indicate that the positioning of newer b/tsDMARDs in the PsA treatment algorithm remains to be established.

EULAR Points to Consider (PtC) for designing, analysing and reporting of studies with work participation as an outcome domain in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies with work participation (WP) as an outcome domain pose particular methodological challenges that hamper interpretation, comparison between studies and meta-analyses. OBJECTIVES: To develop Points to Consider (PtC) for design, analysis and reporting of studies of patients with inflammatory arthritis that include WP as a primary or secondary outcome domain. METHODS: The EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures were followed. A multidisciplinary taskforce with 22 experts including patients with rheumatic diseases, from 10 EULAR countries and Canada, identified methodologic areas of concern. Two systematic literature reviews (SLR) appraised the methodology across these areas. In parallel, two surveys among professional societies and experts outside the taskforce sought for additional methodological areas or existing conducting/reporting recommendations. The taskforce formulated the PtC after presentation of the SLRs and survey results, and discussion. Consensus was obtained through informal voting, with levels of agreement obtained anonymously. RESULTS: Two overarching principles and nine PtC were formulated. The taskforce recommends to align the work-related study objective to the design, duration, and outcome domains/measurement instruments of the study (PtC: 1-3); to identify contextual factors upfront and account for them in analyses (PtC: 4); to account for interdependence of different work outcome domains and for changes in work status over time (PtC: 5-7); to present results as means as well as proportions of patients reaching predefined meaningful categories (PtC: 8) and to explicitly report volumes of productivity loss when costs are an outcome (PtC:9). CONCLUSION: Adherence to these EULAR PtC will improve the methodological quality of studies evaluating WP.