Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Final Results from the BALANCE-EXTEND Open-Label Extension Study.

INTRODUCTION: Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, selective Janus kinase inhibitor that has demonstrated favorable efficacy with an acceptable safety profile across a global, phase 3 program in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This phase 2 open-label extension investigated the efficacy and safety of UPA through 6 years of treatment. METHODS: Patients from two phase 2b trials (BALANCE-1 and -2) enrolled in BALANCE-EXTEND (NCT02049138) and received open-label UPA 6 mg twice daily (BID). Dose increases to 12 mg BID were required for patients with < 20% improvement in swollen or tender joint counts at weeks 6 or 12 and permitted for those not achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA; CDAI 2.8 to ≤ 10). Dose reduction to UPA 6 mg BID was permitted only for safety or tolerability reasons. After January 2017, the 6/12 mg BID doses were replaced by 15/30 mg once-daily extended-release equivalents. Efficacy and safety were monitored up to 6 years of UPA treatment; outcomes included rates of achievement of LDA or remission. Data were analyzed for patients who received the lower UPA dose throughout; titrated up to the higher UPA dose from weeks 6 or 12; or titrated to the higher UPA dose and back down. RESULTS: Overall, 493 patients entered BALANCE-EXTEND ('Never titrated', n = 306; 'Titrated up', n = 149; 'Titrated up and down', n = 38), and 223 patients (45%) completed the 6-year study. Total cumulative exposure was 1863 patient-years. Rates of LDA and remission were maintained through 6 years. Overall, 87%/70%/73% of patients in the 'Never titrated'/'Titrated up'/'Titrated up and down' groups achieved CDAI LDA at week 312, while the respective rates of Disease Activity Score 28 with C-reactive protein meeting LDA and remission criteria were 85%/69%/70% and 72%/46%/63%. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes were similar among the three groups. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label extension of two phase 2 studies, UPA demonstrated sustained efficacy and an acceptable safety profile through 6 years of treatment in patients who completed the study. These data support a favorable long-term benefit-risk profile of UPA in patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: NCT02049138.

Baseline Disease Activity Predicts Achievement of cDAPSA Treatment Targets With Apremilast: Phase III Results in DMARD-naïve Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The probability of achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) treatment targets (remission [REM], low disease activity [LDA]) was evaluated following apremilast monotherapy in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) based on baseline disease activity. METHODS: This post hoc probability analysis of PALACE 4, a phase III, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study, evaluated shifting across cDAPSA categories from baseline to week 52 and included DMARD-naïve patients receiving apremilast 30 mg BID with available baseline cDAPSA data. Changes in articular/extraarticular manifestations were evaluated in patients with week 52 cDAPSA components. cDAPSA treatment target achievement was assessed in a subgroup with baseline extraarticular PsA manifestations (skin involvement, enthesitis, dactylitis). RESULTS: Of 175 apremilast-treated patients in the probability analysis, 66.3% were in high disease activity (HDA) and 31.4% in moderate disease activity (ModDA) at baseline. Approximately twice as many patients in ModDA at baseline reached REM/LDA at week 52 vs those in HDA (61.7% vs 28.2%). Achieving cDAPSA treatment targets was associated with reductions in articular (swollen/tender joints) and extraarticular (skin involvement, enthesitis, dactylitis, functional disability) disease activity. Similar treatment target achievement rates were observed in the subgroup with ≥ 1 extraarticular PsA manifestation (n = 126; ModDA: 66.7%, HDA: 32.2%). CONCLUSION: Apremilast-treated patients with baseline ModDA had higher probability of achieving cDAPSA treatment targets than patients with HDA. Resolution and/or near resolution of articular and/or extraarticular PsA manifestations was achieved by patients in REM/LDA at week 52. Consistent treatment target achievement was observed in patients with 1 or multiple extraarticular manifestations of active PsA.

Telemedicine and psoriatic arthritis: best practices and considerations for dermatologists and rheumatologists.

Telemedicine encompasses a variety of modalities that allow for the remote assessment and treatment of patients. The technologies, services, and tools available for telemedicine in the USA are increasingly becoming an integral part of the healthcare system to bridge the gaps in care that can arise from geographic and/or socioeconomic obstacles and provider shortages. Telemedicine can be applied to a spectrum of clinical areas, including rheumatic diseases. Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, inflammatory, multisystem disease with predominately skin and joint manifestations. PsA is often misdiagnosed and/or undiagnosed, which can lead to worse patient outcomes, including irreversible joint erosion and damage. The difficulties in diagnosing and managing PsA are confounded by the emergence and increased use of telemedicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine presents the opportunity to increase access to healthcare by rheumatologists and dermatologists to improve training and education regarding PsA and to decrease time attributed to office visits associated with PsA. However, challenges in diagnosing PsA without a thorough in-person physical examination by a trained rheumatologist or dermatologist exist. We provide an overview of the ways telemedicine can be incorporated into clinical care and optimized for patients with PsA; characteristic clinical features of PsA, with a focus on skin and joint signs and symptoms; screening tools to be used in routine clinical care; assessments that can be used to evaluate quality of life, functional ability, and disease activity in PsA; and resources and recommendations for the development of future telemedicine use in rheumatology and dermatology. Key Points • Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are often misdiagnosed and/or undiagnosed. • Telemedicine can improve access to healthcare by rheumatologists and dermatologists. • Telemedicine can be incorporated into clinical care and optimized for managing PsA.

Apremilast monotherapy for long-term treatment of active psoriatic arthritis in DMARD-naïve patients.

OBJECTIVES: Apremilast monotherapy was evaluated up to 5 years in PALACE 4 (fourth PsA Long-term Assessment of Clinical Efficacy study) DMARD-naïve patients with PsA. METHODS: Patients with active PsA were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 30 mg or apremilast 20 mg twice a day. Placebo patients were rerandomized to apremilast at week 16 or 24. Double-blind apremilast continued to week 52, with a 4-year open-label extension (≤260 weeks of exposure). Analyses through week 260 were based on observed data. RESULTS: A total of 527 patients were treated. Among patients randomized to apremilast 30 mg at baseline, 45.5% completed week 260. At study end, 24.8% reported conventional synthetic DMARD or steroid use for any reason. At week 260, 65.8%/39.0%/20.3% of apremilast 30 mg patients achieved ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 responses, respectively. PsA sign and symptom improvements were sustained up to week 260 with continued treatment, including reductions in swollen (84.8%) and tender (76.4%) joint counts. Among apremilast 30 mg patients with baseline enthesitis or dactylitis, 71.2% achieved a Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score of 0 and 95.1% achieved a dactylitis count of 0. Over 50% of patients achieved a HAQ Disability Index minimal clinically important difference (≥0.35). In patients with ≥3% baseline psoriasis-involved body surface area, 60.3% and 47.6% achieved ≥50% and ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores, respectively. Patients continuing apremilast 20 mg also demonstrated consistent, sustained improvements. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, nausea, headache, upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis. No new safety concerns were observed long term. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast led to sustained PsA efficacy up to 260 weeks and was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT01307423.

A Molecular Signature Response Classifier to Predict Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitors: The NETWORK-004 Prospective Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Timely matching of patients to beneficial targeted therapy is an unmet need in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) that predicts which patients with RA are unlikely to respond to tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) therapy would have wide clinical utility. METHODS: The protein-protein interaction map specific to the rheumatoid arthritis pathophysiology and gene expression data in blood patient samples was used to discover a molecular signature of non-response to TNFi therapy. Inadequate response predictions were validated in blood samples from the CERTAIN cohort and a multicenter blinded prospective observational clinical study (NETWORK-004) among 391 targeted therapy-naïve and 113 TNFi-exposed patient samples. The primary endpoint evaluated the ability of the MSRC to identify patients who inadequately responded to TNFi therapy at 6 months according to ACR50. Additional endpoints evaluated the prediction of inadequate response at 3 and 6 months by ACR70, DAS28-CRP, and CDAI. RESULTS: The 23-feature molecular signature considers pathways upstream and downstream of TNFα involvement in RA pathophysiology. Predictive performance was consistent between the CERTAIN cohort and NETWORK-004 study. The NETWORK-004 study met primary and secondary endpoints. A molecular signature of non-response was detected in 45% of targeted therapy-naïve patients. The MSRC had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.64 and patients were unlikely to adequately respond to TNFi therapy according to ACR50 at 6 months with an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% confidence interval 2.0-8.3, p value 0.0001). Odds ratios (3.4-8.8) were significant (p value < 0.01) for additional endpoints at 3 and 6 months, with AUC values up to 0.74. Among TNFi-exposed patients, the MSRC had an AUC of up to 0.83 and was associated with significant odds ratios of 3.3-26.6 by ACR, DAS28-CRP, and CDAI metrics. CONCLUSION: The MSRC stratifies patients according to likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapy and provides patient-specific data to guide therapy choice in RA for targeted therapy-naïve and TNFi-exposed patients.

A blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) integrating next-generation RNA sequencing data with clinical features predicts the likelihood that a patient with rheumatoid arthritis will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapy. Treatment selection guided by test results, with likely inadequate responders appropriately redirected to a different therapy, could improve response rates to TNFi therapies, generate healthcare cost savings, and increase rheumatologists' confidence in prescribing decisions and altered treatment choices. The MSRC described in this study predicts the likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapies among targeted therapy-naïve and TNFi-exposed patients in a multicenter, 24-week blinded prospective clinical study: NETWORK-004. Patients with a molecular signature of non-response are less likely to have an adequate response to TNFi therapies than those patients lacking the signature according to ACR50, ACR70, CDAI, and DAS28-CRP with significant odds ratios of 3.4­8.8 for targeted therapy-naïve patients and 3.3­26.6 for TNFi-exposed patients. This MSRC provides a solution to the long-standing need for precision medicine tools to predict drug response in rheumatoid arthritis­a heterogeneous and progressive disease with an abundance of therapeutic options. These data validate the performance of the MSRC in a blinded prospective clinical study of targeted therapy-naïve and TNFi therapy-exposed patients.

Efficacy of Long-Term Treatment with Once-Daily Baricitinib 2 mg in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: Post Hoc Analysis of Two 24-Week, Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Studies and One Long-Term Extension Study.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate long-term efficacy of once-daily baricitinib 2 mg in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response (IR) to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) or biologic DMARDs (bDMARD). METHODS: Data from patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg daily in two 24-week, phase III studies, RA-BUILD (csDMARD-IR; NCT01721057) and RA-BEACON (bDMARD-IR; NCT01721044), and one long-term extension study (RA-BEYOND; NCT01885078), were analyzed (120 weeks). The main outcomes were achievement of low-disease activity (LDA; Simple Disease Activity Index [SDAI] ≤ 11), clinical remission (SDAI ≤ 3.3), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) ≤ 0.5 and improvement from baseline of ≥ 0.22, and safety. Analysis populations included (1) all patients and (2) never-rescued patients. Completer and non-responder imputation (NRI) analyses were conducted on each population. RESULTS: In RA-BUILD, 684 were randomized (229 to baricitinib 2 mg, 180 of whom completed RA-BUILD and entered RA-BEYOND). In RA-BEACON, 527 were randomized (174 to baricitinib 2 mg, 117 of whom completed RA-BEACON and entered RA-BEYOND). In RA-BUILD-BEYOND, 85.1% (63/74, completer) and 27.5% (63/229, NRI) of csDMARD-IR patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg achieved SDAI LDA; 40.5% (30/74, completer) and 13.1% (30/229, NRI) were in SDAI remission; 62.2% (46/74, completer) and 20.1% (46/229, NRI) had HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5 and 81.1% (60/74, completer); and 26.2% (60/229, NRI) achieved ≥ 0.22 change from baseline at week 120. In RA-BEACON-BEYOND, 86.5% (32/37, completer) and 18.4% (32/174, NRI) of bDMARD-IR patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg achieved SDAI LDA; 24.3% (9/37, completer) and 5.2% (9/174, NRI) were in SDAI remission; 50.0% (19/38, completer) and 10.9% (19/174, NRI) had HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5; and 73.7% (28/38, completer) and 16.1% (28/174, NRI) achieved ≥ 0.22 change from baseline at week 120. Rates of adverse events of special interest were consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with baricitinib 2 mg demonstrated efficacy for up to 120 weeks and was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01721057, NCT01721044, and NCT01885078.

Immunogenicity of Sarilumab Monotherapy in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Were Inadequate Responders or Intolerant to Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs.

INTRODUCTION: This open-label study evaluated the immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of sarilumab monotherapy in patients with active, moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response or intolerance to prior conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. METHODS: Adults with RA (n = 132) were randomized to receive subcutaneous sarilumab (150 [n = 65] or 200 mg [n = 67]) every 2 weeks (q2w) for 24 weeks. Endpoints included incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) at week 24, safety, and efficacy. RESULTS: Persistent ADAs occurred in eight patients (12.3%) receiving sarilumab 150 mg q2w, seven of whom (10.8%) had neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), and in four patients (6.1%) receiving sarilumab 200 mg q2w, two of whom (3.0%) had NAbs; all exhibited low antibody titers. Infections and neutropenia were the most common adverse events (AEs). There were three serious AEs, no reports of anaphylaxis, and few hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash) with no notable differences in hypersensitivity reactions in ADA-positive patients relative to ADA-negative patients. Changes in absolute neutrophil count, alanine aminotransferase level, and platelet count were consistent with interleukin-6 signaling blockade and in agreement with previous observations. At week 24, overall American College of Rheumatology 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria responses were 73.8%/53.8%/29.2%, respectively, with sarilumab 150 mg q2w and 71.6%/50.7%/29.9% with sarilumab 200 mg q2w. No patients with an ADA-positive response showed loss of efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: ADA titers were low and persistent ADAs and NAbs occurred relatively infrequently in both sarilumab dose groups. ADA did not meaningfully impact the safety or efficacy of either dose of sarilumab over 24 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02121210. FUNDING: Sanofi Genzyme and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Plain language summary available for this article.

Baricitinib in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and an Inadequate Response to Conventional Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in United States and Rest of World: A Subset Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This article evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib 4 mg versus placebo in United States including Puerto Rico (US) and rest of the world (ROW) subpopulations using data pooled from RA-BEAM and RA-BUILD, which enrolled patients with moderate-to-severe adult-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In RA-BEAM, patients with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate, at least one X-ray erosion, and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) ≥ 6 mg/L were randomized to placebo or orally administered baricitinib 4 mg daily or subcutaneously administered adalimumab 40 mg every other week. In RA-BUILD, patients with an IR to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) and with hsCRP ≥ 3.6 mg/L were randomized to placebo or baricitinib 2 or 4 mg daily. Patients in both trials were biologic naive. In this post hoc analysis, data from both studies were pooled (714 baricitinib 4 mg-treated, 716 placebo-treated patients). RESULTS: Overall, 188 US and 1242 ROW patients were included. Subgroups differed in baseline characteristics including race, weight, age, time since RA diagnosis, current corticosteroid use, and previous csDMARD use. At weeks 12 and 24, baricitinib-treated patients had larger responses compared to placebo-treated patients for multiple efficacy outcomes: American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response, low disease activity, remission, Disease Activity Score 28-C-reactive protein, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index. Overall, similar efficacy was observed in US and ROW subgroups with no notable safety differences between subgroups at weeks 12 or 24. CONCLUSION: Baricitinib 4 mg was efficacious compared to placebo in US and ROW subpopulations. Safety was similar between subgroups. FUNDING: Eli Lilly & Company and Incyte Corporation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT01721057; NCT01710358.

Apremilast monotherapy in DMARD-naive psoriatic arthritis patients: results of the randomized, placebo-controlled PALACE 4 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The PALACE 4 trial evaluated apremilast monotherapy in patients with active PsA who were DMARD-naive. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice a day or apremilast 30 mg twice a day. At week 16 or 24, placebo patients were rerandomized to apremilast. Double-blind apremilast treatment continued to week 52, with extension up to 4 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ⩾20% improvement in ACR response criteria (ACR20) at week 16; secondary endpoints included the mean change in the HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score at week 16. RESULTS: A total of 527 patients with mean disease duration of 3.4 years and high disease activity were randomized and received treatment. More apremilast patients achieved ACR20 response at week 16 [placebo, 15.9%; 20 mg, 28.0% (P = 0.0062); 30 mg, 30.7% (P = 0.0010)]. The mean HAQ-DI improvements were -0.17 (20 mg; P = 0.0008) and -0.21 (30 mg; P < 0.0001) vs 0.03 (placebo). Both apremilast doses showed significant ACR50 responses vs placebo at week 16 and improvements in secondary efficacy measures (swollen/tender joint counts) and psoriasis assessments, with sustained improvements through week 52. Common adverse events (AEs) over 52 weeks were diarrhoea, nausea, headache and upper respiratory tract infection; most events were mild or moderate. Serious AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were comparable between groups. Laboratory abnormalities were infrequent and transient. CONCLUSIONS: In DMARD-naive patients, apremilast monotherapy improved PsA signs/symptoms over 52 weeks and was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT01307423.

Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis of Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha Experienced Rheumatoid Arthritis.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compile all available evidence regarding the efficacy of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) inhibitors, non-TNF biologics, and tofacitinib for TNF-experienced patients who have rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A systematic literature review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and rheumatology conference abstracts was performed to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting American College of Rheumatology response rates (ACR 20/50/70) for adult patients with RA who switched from at least 1 TNF to another TNF or a non-TNF therapy. A direct random effects meta-analysis was performed to evaluate ACR 20/50/70 response rates for TNF and non-TNF therapies. Separate analyses were conducted among 3-, 6-, and 12-month observational studies and for 6-month RCTs. FINDINGS: A total of 18 observational studies and 6 RCTs were selected. Among 3-month observational studies, the percentages of ACR20/50/70 responders switching to another TNF were similar to those switching to a non-TNF biologic (ACR20, 54.5% vs 58.6%; ACR50, 33.3% vs 33.3%; and ACR70, 13.0% vs 14.6%, respectively). Among 6-month observational studies, the percentages of TNF ACR20/50/70 responders were higher than those of non-TNF responders (ACR20, 67.7% vs 50.4%; ACR50, 50.4% vs 26.6%; and ACR70, 24.9% vs 11.6%). Among 6-month RCTs, the percentages of non-TNF biologic ACR20/50/70 responders were similar to those in the 6-month non-TNF observational studies (ACR20, 50.7% vs 50.4%; ACR50, 27.5% vs 26.6%; and ACR70, 11.9% vs 11.6%). For 12-month observational studies, TNF biologic ACR20/50/70 percentages were higher than those of non-TNF therapies (ACR20, 72.2% vs 57.0%; ACR50, 42.1% vs 28.9%; and ACR70, 22.9% vs 10.0%). IMPLICATIONS: For TNF-experienced patients with RA, subsequent TNF therapy and non-TNF biologic therapy have comparable efficacy.

An assessment of the current treatment landscape for rheumatology patients in Qatar: Recognising unmet needs and moving towards solutions.

Objective This study assessed the mode of application (oral, intravenous or subcutaneous (SC)) currently employed in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients from Qatar in comparison with patients' individual preferences for the mode of application of their treatment. Methods This study included 294 RA patients visiting three clinics at the main referral hospital in Qatar who were interviewed using a standard questionnaire to determine their preference of mode of application for their disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment in relation to their currently employed mode of application. Results The majority of patients were female (76%), and 93% of male patients and 61% of female patients in the study clinics were of a nationality other than Qatari. The highest patient preference recorded was for an oral therapy (69%), compared with injection (23%) and intravenous (8%) therapy. In total, 85% of patients expressed a preference to remain on oral therapy compared with 63% and 58% of intravenous and SC injection patients indicating a preference to remain on their current method of administration. Conclusions This high preference for oral therapies highlights the considerable need for incorporation of new oral targeted synthetic DMARD therapies into clinical practice within the region.

Changes in Ultrasonographic Vascularity Upon Initiation of Adalimumab Combination Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients With an Inadequate Response to Methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE: To assess joint disease activity by ultrasound (US) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating treatment with adalimumab (ADA) plus methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: Data for this post hoc analysis originated from the MUSICA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01185288), which evaluated the efficacy of initiating ADA (40 mg every other week) plus 7.5 or 20 mg/week MTX in 309 patients with RA with an inadequate response to MTX. Synovial vascularization over 24 weeks was assessed bilaterally at metacarpophalangeal joint 2 (MCP2), MCP3, MCP5, metatarsophalangeal joint 5, and the wrists by power Doppler US (PDUS). A semiquantitative 4-grade scale was used. Disease activity was assessed using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI). The correlation between continuous variables was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: After 24 weeks of treatment with ADA plus MTX, rapid improvements in the mean synovial vascularity score were observed; the greatest improvements were in MCP2 (-0.5), MCP3 (-0.4), and the wrist (-0.4). At week 24, patients with the lowest DAS28-CRP (<2.6) had the lowest mean 5-joint and 3-joint composite synovial vascularity scores. The 5-joint and 3-joint scores were strongly correlated (ρ > 0.9). Synovial vascularity scores correlated poorly with DAS28, swollen joint count in 66 joints (SJC66), SJC28, tender joint count in 68 joints (TJC68), TJC28, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), SDAI, physician's global assessment, patient's global assessment of pain, and disease duration (ρ < 0.2). Thirty-two (70%) of 46 patients with a DAS28-CRP of <2.6, and 11 (58%) of 19 patients with an SDAI indicating remission had at least 1 joint with a synovial vascularity score of ≥1. CONCLUSION: PDUS detects changes in synovial vascularity in RA patients treated with ADA plus MTX, and residual synovial vascularity in patients in whom clinical disease control has been achieved.

Benefits and risks of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment in the patient with rheumatoid arthritis.

Glucocorticosteroids (GCs) have been employed extensively for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other autoimmune and systemic inflammatory disorders. Their use is supported by extensive literature and their utility is reflected in their incorporation into current treatment guidelines for RA and other conditions. Nevertheless, there is still some concern regarding the long-term use of GCs because of their potential for clinically important adverse events, particularly with an extended duration of treatment and the use of high doses. This article systematically reviews the efficacy for radiological and clinical outcomes for low-dose GCs (defined as ≤10 mg/day prednisone equivalent) in the treatment of RA. Results reviewed indicated that low-dose GCs, usually administered in combination with synthetic DMARDs, most often MTX, significantly improve structural outcomes and decrease symptom severity in patients with RA. Safety data indicate that GC-associated adverse events are dose related, but still occur in patients receiving low doses of these agents. Concerns about side effects associated with GCs have prompted the development of new strategies aimed at improving safety without compromising efficacy. These include altering the structure of existing GCs and the development of delayed-release GC formulations so that drug delivery is timed to match greatest symptom severity. Optimal use of low-dose GCs has the potential to improve long-term outcomes for patients with RA.

A critical evaluation of the role of subcutaneous abatacept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: patient considerations.

There are now more therapeutic options for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than ever before, involving a range of mechanisms of action and different routes of administration. The T-cell costimulation modulator abatacept is the first biologic therapy for RA to be available in both subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) formulations. This review evaluates the utility of SC abatacept, with a particular focus on patient-reported outcomes, including physical function, pain, fatigue, and quality of life. Practical questions relating to the clinical use of SC abatacept are also addressed, including the relevance of abatacept's mechanism of action; whether IV and SC abatacept are comparable; if patients can easily switch from IV to SC abatacept; whether an IV loading dose is needed; and if temporary treatment interruptions or lack of concomitant methotrexate can affect efficacy or safety. Topics that are of particular concern to patients when using SC biologics, such as injection-site reactions, are also discussed. Observational data from registries and meta-analyses of clinical studies suggest comparable clinical efficacy between biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; however, such analyses rarely focus on key determinants of patient quality of life such as pain, fatigue, and physical function. The head-to-head AMPLE study is one of the first studies powered to directly compare two biologics in patients with RA. Patient-reported outcomes from year 1 of the ongoing study are evaluated, demonstrating comparable improvements in physical function, pain, fatigue, Short Form-36 Health Survey, and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 scores between SC abatacept and SC adalimumab when administered with concomitant methotrexate. In summary, the data presented herein show that the SC formulation of abatacept provides a valuable addition to the range of available therapy options for patients with RA, capable of significantly improving key patient considerations such as pain, disability, loss of function, fatigue, and quality of life.

Integrating health information technology and electronic health records into the management of fibromyalgia.

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a widespread chronic pain condition that represents a significant economic burden for patients and health care systems. Effective treatment of FM requires a multidisciplinary management strategy that incorporates pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapy. Steps such as reducing the time to diagnosis and improving treatment decisions can result in significant cost savings and improved patient outcomes. An FM management framework, based on patient education and goal setting, has emphasized the need for ongoing care of patients with FM. In this article, we discuss how this framework could be further improved through the use of health information technology, including electronic health records. Health information technology/electronic health records can be incorporated at every stage of patient care, from initial presentation to diagnosis, through to making treatment decisions and maintaining ongoing patient management. This can lead to a number of potential benefits for patients with FM (by improving their level of care), primary care providers (by creating greater efficiencies), and the health care system (by reducing costs). Ultimately, the treatment and care of patients with FM need be no more burdensome to primary care providers than any other chronic illness. Through the greater efficiencies and optimized treatment approaches facilitated by health information technology/electronic health records, it should be possible to drive best-practice care for patients with FM and improve patient outcomes.

Proceedings of the 2013 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposia.

Advances in rheumatology occur at a rapid pace and staying abreast of important changes is a challenge for all. Both novel drug development and enhanced understanding of conventional or historic therapies have molded current day rheumatologic practice. Rheumatology has led the way in the use of outcome measures and imaging modalities in common disorders like rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and gout. The expertise of the rheumatologist has widened such that knowledge of economics, legal issues, related disorders and extraarticular disease is essential. In February 2013, the 6th annual Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium was held. At this meeting, faculty and participants held discussions and exchanged knowledge about new scientific data and how it may impact the care of rheumatology patients. Excerpts from some of the lectures from the Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium 2013 are included in this review. These and other presentations can be viewed in their entirety at http://www.r-w-c-s.com.

Proceedings of the 2012 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposia.

Recent years have witnessed important developments in rheumatology. Novel diagnostic methods, stratification approaches, and treatment paradigms have been brought into the clinic for a number of rheumatologic and autoimmune diseases. In addition, there have been developments in related medical disciplines that are relevant to the care of patients with rheumatic diseases. Keeping pace with these many developments is a challenge, and clinical rheumatologists have used various methods to educate themselves about these advances. In January 2012, the 5th annual Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium was held. At this meeting, faculty and participants held discussions and exchanged knowledge about new scientific data and how it may impact the care of rheumatology patients. Excerpts from some of the lectures from the Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium 2012 are included in this review. These and other presentations can be viewed in their entirety at http://www.r-w-c-s.com.

African American patients with gout: efficacy and safety of febuxostat vs allopurinol.

BACKGROUND: African Americans are twice as likely as Caucasians to develop gout, but they are less likely to be treated with urate-lowering therapy (ULT). Furthermore, African Americans typically present with more comorbidities associated with gout, such as hypertension, obesity, and renal impairment. We determined the efficacy and safety of ULT with febuxostat or allopurinol in African American subjects with gout and associated comorbidities and in comparison to Caucasian gout subjects. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the 6-month Phase 3 CONFIRMS trial. Eligible gouty subjects with baseline serum urate (sUA) ≥ 8.0 mg/dL were randomized 1:1:1 to receive febuxostat 40 mg, febuxostat 80 mg, or allopurinol (300 mg or 200 mg depending on renal function) daily. All subjects received gout flare prophylaxis. Primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects in each treatment group with sUA < 6.0 mg/dL at the final visit. Additional endpoints included the proportion of subjects with mild or with moderate renal impairment who achieved a target sUA < 6.0 mg/dL at final visit. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study. RESULTS: Of the 2,269 subjects enrolled, 10.0% were African American and 82.1% were Caucasian. African American subjects were mostly male (89.5%), obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2; 67.1%), with mean baseline sUA of 9.8 mg/dL and mean duration of gout of 10.4 years. The proportions of African American subjects with a baseline history of diabetes, renal impairment, or cardiovascular disease were significantly higher compared to Caucasians (p < 0.001). ULT with febuxostat 80 mg was superior to both febuxostat 40 mg (p < 0.001) and allopurinol (p = 0.004). Febuxostat 40 mg was comparable in efficacy to allopurinol. Significantly more African American subjects with mild or moderate renal impairment achieved sUA < 6.0 mg/dL in the febuxostat 80 group than in either the febuxostat 40 mg or allopurinol group (p < 0.05). Efficacy rates in all treatment groups regardless of renal function were comparable between African American and Caucasian subjects, as were AE rates. CONCLUSIONS: In African American subjects with significant comorbidities, febuxostat 80 mg is significantly more efficacious than either febuxostat 40 mg or allopurinol 200/300 mg. Febuxostat was well tolerated in this African American population.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/15.

Abatacept plus methotrexate provides incremental clinical benefits versus methotrexate alone in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis who achieve radiographic nonprogression.

OBJECTIVE: This article reports 1-year clinical outcomes in the subgroup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the Abatacept study to Gauge Remission and joint damage progression in methotrexate-naive patients with Early Erosive rheumatoid arthritis (AGREE) who achieved radiographic nonprogression at the end of the double-blind phase. METHODS: Patients who achieved radiographic nonprogression (change from baseline in total Sharp score ≤ 0 at 12 months) with abatacept plus methotrexate (MTX) or MTX alone were eligible for this analysis. Clinical outcomes were remission, defined by 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) using C-reactive protein (CRP), low Disease Activity Score (LDAS), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores, physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire), and tender and swollen joint counts. Safety was assessed at each visit. RESULTS: Patients in the abatacept plus MTX and MTX monotherapy groups had similar baseline characteristics and were similar to the overall study population. The proportion of patients who achieved DAS28 (CRP) remission or LDAS was greater with abatacept plus MTX vs MTX alone [43.2% vs 22.7% (p < 0.001) and 57.4% vs 40.6% (p = 0.008), respectively]. More patients receiving abatacept plus MTX achieved key ACR responses, including major clinical response (27.3% vs 11.9%; p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: More MTX-naive patients with early RA who achieved radiographic nonprogression taking abatacept plus MTX also achieved DAS28 (CRP)-defined remission and LDAS compared with patients who received MTX alone, supporting the use of abatacept as a first-line biologic in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Emerging role of ultrasonography in rheumatoid arthritis: optimizing diagnosis, measuring disease activity and identifying prognostic factors.

Ultrasonography is a sensitive imaging modality that provides valuable information regarding early inflammatory changes that are not detected by clinical examination or X-rays, such as subclinical synovitis and erosions. This information may improve the management of rheumatoid arthritis by providing a more timely and accurate diagnosis, identifying poor prognostic factors, more accurately monitoring response to therapeutic intervention, improving treatment decisions and more accurately assessing remission. Ultrasonography could play a critical role in minimizing disease activity through strict monitoring and aggressive therapeutic adjustment, which has emerged as an approach to improve long-term outcomes for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.