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.

Unmet need in rheumatology: reports from the Advances in Targeted Therapies meeting, 2023.

The Advances in Targeted Therapies meets annually, convening experts in the field of rheumatology to both provide scientific updates and identify existing scientific gaps within the field. To review the major unmet scientific needs in rheumatology. The 23rd annual Advances in Targeted Therapies meeting convened with more than 100 international basic scientists and clinical researchers in rheumatology, immunology, infectious diseases, epidemiology, molecular biology and other specialties relating to all aspects of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. We held breakout sessions in five rheumatological disease-specific groups including: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpa), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc) and vasculitis, and osteoarthritis (OA). In each group, experts were asked to identify and prioritise current unmet needs in clinical and translational research. An overarching theme across all disease states is the continued need for clinical trial design innovation with regard to therapeutics, endpoint and disease endotypes. Within RA, unmet needs comprise molecular classification of disease pathogenesis and activity, pre-/early RA strategies, more refined pain profiling and innovative trials designs to deliver on precision medicine. Continued scientific questions within PsA include evaluating the genetic, immunophenotypic, clinical signatures that predict development of PsA in patients with psoriasis, and the evaluation of combination therapies for difficult-to-treat disease. For axSpA, there continues to be the need to understand the role of interleukin-23 (IL-23) in pathogenesis and the genetic relationship of the IL-23-receptor polymorphism with other related systemic inflammatory diseases (eg, inflammatory bowel disease). A major unmet need in the OA field remains the need to develop the ability to reliably phenotype and stratify patients for inclusion in clinical trials. SLE experts identified a number of unmet needs within clinical trial design including the need for allowing endpoints that reflect pharmacodynamic/functional outcomes (eg, inhibition of type I interferon pathway activation; changes in urine biomarkers). Lastly, within SSc and vasculitis, there is a lack of biomarkers that predict response or disease progression, and that allow patients to be stratified for therapies. There remains a strong need to innovate clinical trial design, to identify systemic and tissue-level biomarkers that predict progression or response to therapy, endotype disease, and to continue developing therapies and therapeutic strategies for those with treatment-refractory disease. This document, based on expert consensus, should provide a roadmap for prioritising scientific endeavour in the field of rheumatology.

Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with or without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a post hoc analysis from ORAL Surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with or without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in ORAL Surveillance. METHODS: Patients with RA aged ≥50 years with ≥1 additional CV risk factor received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg two times per day or TNFi. Hazard rations (HRs) were evaluated for the overall population and by history of ASCVD (exploratory analysis). RESULTS: Risk of MACE, myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death were increased with tofacitinib versus TNFi in ORAL Surveillance. In patients with history of ASCVD (14.7%; 640/4362), MACE incidence was higher with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day (8.3%; 17/204) and 10 mg two times per day (7.7%; 17/222) versus TNFi (4.2%; 9/214). HR (combined tofacitinib doses vs TNFi) was 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 4.14; interaction p values: 0.196 (for HR)/0.059 (for incidence rate difference)). In patients without history of ASCVD, MACE HRs for tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day (2.4%; 30/1251) and 10 mg two times per day (2.8%; 34/1234) versus TNFi (2.3%; 28/1237) were, respectively, 1.03 (0.62 to 1.73) and 1.25 (0.76 to 2.07). CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis observed higher MACE risk with tofacitinib versus TNFi in patients with RA and history of ASCVD. Among patients without history of ASCVD, all with prevalent CV risk factors, MACE risk did not appear different with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day versus TNFi. Due to the exploratory nature of this analysis and low statistical power, we cannot exclude differential MACE risk for tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day versus TNFi among patients without history of ASCVD, but any absolute risk excess is likely low. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02092467.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. METHODS: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. RESULTS: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.

Rituximab versus tocilizumab in anti-TNF inadequate responder patients with rheumatoid arthritis (R4RA): 16-week outcomes of a stratified, biopsy-driven, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although targeted biological treatments have transformed the outlook for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 40% of patients show poor clinical response, which is mechanistically still unexplained. Because more than 50% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis have low or absent CD20 B cells-the target for rituximab-in the main disease tissue (joint synovium), we hypothesised that, in these patients, the IL-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab would be more effective. The aim of this trial was to compare the effect of tocilizumab with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) stratified for synovial B-cell status. METHODS: This study was a 48-week, biopsy-driven, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 randomised controlled trial (rituximab vs tocilizumab in anti-TNF inadequate responder patients with rheumatoid arthritis; R4RA) done in 19 centres across five European countries (the UK, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Spain). Patients aged 18 years or older who fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and were eligible for treatment with rituximab therapy according to UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines were eligible for inclusion in the trial. To inform balanced stratification, following a baseline synovial biopsy, patients were classified histologically as B-cell poor or rich. Patients were then randomly assigned (1:1) centrally in block sizes of six and four to receive two 1000 mg rituximab infusions at an interval of 2 weeks (rituximab group) or 8 mg/kg tocilizumab infusions at 4-week intervals (tocilizumab group). To enhance the accuracy of the stratification of B-cell poor and B-cell rich patients, baseline synovial biopsies from all participants were subjected to RNA sequencing and reclassified by B-cell molecular signature. The study was powered to test the superiority of tocilizumab over rituximab in the B-cell poor population at 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was defined as a 50% improvement in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI50%) from baseline. The trial is registered on the ISRCTN database, ISRCTN97443826, and EudraCT, 2012-002535-28. FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2013, and Jan 17, 2019, 164 patients were classified histologically and were randomly assigned to the rituximab group (83 [51%]) or the tocilizumab group (81 [49%]). In patients histologically classified as B-cell poor, there was no statistically significant difference in CDAI50% between the rituximab group (17 [45%] of 38 patients) and the tocilizumab group (23 [56%] of 41 patients; difference 11% [95% CI -11 to 33], p=0·31). However, in the synovial biopsies classified as B-cell poor with RNA sequencing the tocilizumab group had a significantly higher response rate compared with the rituximab group for CDAI50% (rituximab group 12 [36%] of 33 patients vs tocilizumab group 20 [63%] of 32 patients; difference 26% [2 to 50], p=0·035). Occurrence of adverse events (rituximab group 76 [70%] of 108 patients vs tocilizumab group 94 [80%] of 117 patients; difference 10% [-1 to 21) and serious adverse events (rituximab group 8 [7%] of 108 vs tocilizumab group 12 [10%] of 117; difference 3% [-5 to 10]) were not significantly different between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that RNA sequencing-based stratification of rheumatoid arthritis synovial tissue showed stronger associations with clinical responses compared with histopathological classification. Additionally, for patients with low or absent B-cell lineage expression signature in synovial tissue tocilizumab is more effective than rituximab. Replication of the results and validation of the RNA sequencing-based classification in independent cohorts is required before making treatment recommendations for clinical practice. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme from the UK National Institute for Health Research.

EULAR points to consider for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtCs) for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA). METHODS: An EULAR Task Force was established comprising 34 individuals: 26 rheumatologists, patient partners and rheumatology experienced health professionals. Two systematic literature reviews addressed clinical questions around diagnostic challenges, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in D2T RA. PtCs were formulated based on the identified evidence and expert opinion. Strength of recommendations (SoR, scale A-D: A typically consistent level 1 studies and D level 5 evidence or inconsistent studies) and level of agreement (LoA, scale 0-10: 0 completely disagree and 10 completely agree) of the PtCs were determined by the Task Force members. RESULTS: Two overarching principles and 11 PtCs were defined concerning diagnostic confirmation of RA, evaluation of inflammatory disease activity, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, treatment adherence, functional disability, pain, fatigue, goal setting and self-efficacy and the impact of comorbidities. The SoR varied from level C to level D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and PtCs was generally high (8.4-9.6). CONCLUSIONS: These PtCs for D2T RA can serve as a clinical roadmap to support healthcare professionals and patients to deliver holistic management and more personalised pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies. High-quality evidence was scarce. A research agenda was created to guide future research.

Sarilumab monotherapy vs sarilumab and methotrexate combination therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Sarilumab, as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs, such as MTX, has demonstrated improvement in clinical outcomes in patients with RA. The primary objective of this post hoc analysis was to compare the efficacy of sarilumab (200 mg every 2 weeks) monotherapy (MONARCH study) with that of sarilumab and MTX combination therapy (MOBILITY study) at week 24. METHODS: The endpoints assessed were mean change from baseline in the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), 28-joint Disease Activity using CRP (DAS28-CRP), CRP, haemoglobin (Hb), pain visual analogue scale (VAS) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue. Least square (LS) mean change from baseline (95% CI) at week 24 for all endpoints was compared between the treatment arms for adjusted comparisons. RESULTS: This analysis included 184 patients on sarilumab monotherapy and 399 patients on sarilumab plus MTX. Differences (P < 0.05) were observed in ethnicity, region, body mass index group, rheumatoid factor, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, swollen joint count, CRP, CDAI and oral glucocorticoid use between these treatment groups. After adjusting for these differences in a mixed-effect model repeated measure, LS mean change from baseline for all assessments was similar between the treatment groups with overlapping CIs: CDAI, -28.79 vs -26.21; DAS28-CRP, -2.95 vs -2.81; CRP, -18.31 vs -16.46; Hb, 6.59 vs 8.09; Pain VAS, -33.62 vs -31.66; FACIT-Fatigue, 9.90 vs 10.24. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrated that the efficacy of sarilumab monotherapy was similar to that of sarilumab and MTX combination therapy.

First pilot study of extracellular volume MRI measurement in peripheral muscle of systemic sclerosis patients suggests diffuse fibrosis.

OBJECTIVES: Peripheral muscle involvement in SSc may comprise myositis or a non-inflammatory myopathy. There is little understanding of the nature of SSc myopathy. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the presence of diffuse fibrosis in the peripheral muscle of patients with SSc by determining extracellular volume (ECV) MRI measurement. METHODS: SSc patients, with either suspected myopathy or no muscle involvement, and healthy controls (HCs) had native T1 and ECV MRI quantification of the thigh and creatine-kinase (CK) measured. Suspected myopathy was defined as current / history of minimally raised CK (>320; <600 IU/l) ± presence of clinical signs/symptoms (including proximal lower-limb muscle weakness and/or myalgia) ± a Manual Muscle Testing (MMT) 8 score of <5 in the thighs. RESULTS: Twelve SSc patients and 10 HCs were recruited. Of the 12 patients, 9 had limited cutaneous SSc, 4 had interstitial lung disease, and 7 had suspected myopathy. The higher skeletal muscle ECV was recorded for SSc patients compared with HCs [mean (s.d.) 23 (11)%, vs 11 (4)%, P = 0.04]. Peripheral muscle ECV was associated with CK (rho = 0.554, P = 0.061) and was higher in SSc patients with myopathy than in those with no myopathy [mean (s.d.) 28 (10) vs 15 (5), P = 0.023]. It was determined that an ECV of 22% best identified myopathy (with a sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 80%). CONCLUSION: This hypothesis-generating study showed higher ECV in SSc patients compared with HCs, as well as association of ECV with suspected myopathy, suggesting the presence of diffuse fibrosis in the peripheral muscle of SSc patients. Further studies are needed to understand the nature of SSc myopathy.

Domains and outcome measures for the assessment of limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis: an international collaborative scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to comprehensively identify instruments within relevant domains employed to assess lcSSc since the endorsement of its consensus definition in 1988. The overall objective is to inform the creation of a Combined Response Index for Scleroderma Trials Assessing lcSSc (CRISTAL). METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched using terms selected to comprehensively retrieve titles and abstracts mentioning both lcSSc and dcSSc, along with those only mentioning lcSSc, SSc sine scleroderma, limited SSc and/or CREST/CRST. Because our initial assessment of the literature revealed that very few studies included only lcSSc subjects, we also assessed literature that included both cutaneous subsets. A total of 3964 titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers, and 270 articles were selected for data extraction. RESULTS: We identified 27 domains encompassing 459 instruments. Instruments from 'Skin involvement', 'Pulmonary involvement' and 'Health-related quality of life and general functioning' were the most frequently retrieved. Among the 15 most represented instruments announced as primary end points in efficacy or effectiveness studies, 7 were clinician-reported outcomes (ROs), 7 were patient ROs, and one was a performance outcome (6 min-walk test). The mean proportion of lcSSc patients in studies of lcSSc, including studies that mention both lcSSc and dcSSc, was 56.4%, demonstrating that this subset is underrepresented in the literature, given that the prevalence of lcSSc ranges from 60% to 80% in national registries and international cohorts. CONCLUSION: This scoping literature review provides a comprehensive identification of domains and outcomes used to assess lcSSc. Our results also highlight that lcSSc is underrepresented in the literature.

EULAR definition of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Despite treatment according to the current management recommendations, a significant proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remain symptomatic. These patients can be considered to have 'difficult-to-treat RA'. However, uniform terminology and an appropriate definition are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The Task Force in charge of the "Development of EULAR recommendations for the comprehensive management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis" aims to create recommendations for this underserved patient group. Herein, we present the definition of difficult-to-treat RA, as the first step. METHODS: The Steering Committee drafted a definition with suggested terminology based on an international survey among rheumatologists. This was discussed and amended by the Task Force, including rheumatologists, nurses, health professionals and patients, at a face-to-face meeting until sufficient agreement was reached (assessed through voting). RESULTS: The following three criteria were agreed by all Task Force members as mandatory elements of the definition of difficult-to-treat RA: (1) Treatment according to European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendation and failure of ≥2 biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)/targeted synthetic DMARDs (with different mechanisms of action) after failing conventional synthetic DMARD therapy (unless contraindicated); (2) presence of at least one of the following: at least moderate disease activity; signs and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease; inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment; rapid radiographic progression; RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life; and (3) the management of signs and/or symptoms is perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist and/or the patient. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed EULAR definition for difficult-to-treat RA can be used in clinical practice, clinical trials and can form a basis for future research.

Real-world single centre use of JAK inhibitors across the rheumatoid arthritis pathway.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate real-world efficacy of approved JAK inhibitors (JAKi) tofacitinib and baricitinib in a large, single-centre cohort of RA patients across the treatment pathway, including those refractory to multiple biologic drugs. METHODS: All RA patients, treated with tofacitinib (from time of compassionate access scheme) or baricitinib since approval in 2017 had DAS28-CRP scores and components recorded at baseline, 3 and 6 months (with retrospective data for compassionate access scheme). Efficacy was evaluated in the total cohort, each treatment group, and subgroups of number of prior biologic classes failed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen patients were treated with a JAKi (tofacitinib 54, baricitinib 69, 8 both); 76.4% female; mean (s.d.) age 57.3 (14.3) years. On average patients had received three previous bDMARDs; 11 (9.6%) were bDMARD naïve. Combined group baseline DAS28-CRP (s.d.) 5.62(1.14) improved by 1.49(1.44) and 1.67(1.61) at 3 and 6 months, respectively, comparable in individual JAKi groups; with 24% in at least low disease activity at 3 months. The biggest improvement was observed in the biologic-naïve group (mean DAS28-CRP improved from 5.16-2.14 after 6 months); while those with prior exposure to minimum three bDMARD classes had DAS28-CRP improvement of >1.2. Five out of 8 patients treated with both JAKi sequentially responded. Twelve patients previously unresponsive to IL-6 blockade responded to JAKi. No unexpected safety events were recorded. Two cases of venous thromboembolism were observed. CONCLUSION: JAK inhibition is effective in a real-world population of RA patients, including in a subset of patients refractory to multiple previous bDMARDs.

Changes in the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis over two decades.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether modern management of RA has reduced the prescription of oral corticosteroids and NSAIDs and to evaluate use of pharmacological prophylaxis strategies. METHODS: Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we explored long-term (≥3/12 months; ≥6/12 in sub-analyses) DMARD, corticosteroid and NSAID prescribing (annually, in the year post-diagnosis and across the patient's life course to 15 years post-diagnosis), annual proportion with co-prescribing for prophylaxis of associated bone (corticosteroids, women only) and gastrointestinal (NSAIDs) comorbidity. RESULTS: Reported incidence of RA was 5.98 (0.37) per 10 000 person-years and prevalence was 0.91% (0.014) in 2017. In 71 411 RA patients, long-term DMARD prescribing initially rose post-diagnosis from 41.6% in 1998 to 67.9% in 2009. Corticosteroid prescribing changed little, overall [22.2% in 1998, 19.1% in 2016; incident risk ratio (IRR) 0.92, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.03] and across the life course from the first to fifteenth year (22.2% to 16.9%). NSAID prescribing declined from 57.7% in 1998, and significantly so from 2008, to 27.1% in 2016 (IRR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.56). This continued across the life course (41.2% to 28.4%). Bone prophylaxis increased to 68.1% in 2008 before declining to 56.4% in 2017; gastrointestinal prophylaxis increased from 11.5% in 1998 to 62.6% in 2017. Sub-analyses showed consistent patterns. CONCLUSION: Despite modern treatment strategies, corticosteroid prescribing in RA patients remains substantial and persists beyond 6 months once initiated. Rheumatologists need to determine causes and develop strategies to reduce corticosteroid use to minimize adverse event occurrence.

Muscle deterioration due to rheumatoid arthritis: assessment by quantitative MRI and strength testing.

OBJECTIVES: RA patients often present with low muscle mass and decreased strength. Quantitative MRI offers a non-invasive measurement of muscle status. This study assessed whether MRI-based measurements of T2, fat fraction, diffusion tensor imaging and muscle volume can detect differences between the thigh muscles of RA patients and healthy controls, and assessed the muscle phenotype of different disease stages. METHODS: Thirty-nine RA patients (13 'new RA'-newly diagnosed, treatment naïve, 13 'active RA'-persistent DAS28 >3.2 for >1 year, 13 'remission RA'-persistent DAS28 <2.6 for >1 year) and 13 age and gender directly matched healthy controls had an MRI scan of their dominant thigh. All participants had knee extension and flexion torque and grip strength measured. RESULTS: MRI T2 and fat fraction were higher in the three groups of RA patients compared with healthy controls in the thigh muscles. There were no clinically meaningful differences in the mean diffusivity. The muscle volume, handgrip strength, knee extension and flexion were lower in all three groups of RA patients compared with healthy controls. CONCLUSION: Quantitative MRI and muscle strength measurements can potentially detect differences within the muscles between RA patients and healthy controls. These differences may be seen in RA patients who are yet to start treatment, those with persistent active disease, and those who were in clinical remission. This suggests that the muscles in RA patients are affected in the early stages of the disease and that signs of muscle pathology and muscle weakness are still observed in clinical remission.

Upadacitinib monotherapy improves patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of upadacitinib (UPA) monotherapy vs MTX on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who were MTX-naïve or who had an inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR). METHODS: PROs from the SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY randomized controlled trials were evaluated at Weeks 2 and 12/14. Patients were ≥18 years of age with RA symptoms for ≥6 weeks (SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve) or diagnosed RA for ≥3 months (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, MTX-IR) and received UPA monotherapy (15 or 30 mg) or MTX. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain visual analogue scale, HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration/severity, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (SELECT-EARLY), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) by the 36-iem Short Form Health Survey and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI; SELECT-EARLY). Least square mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and normative values were determined. RESULTS: In 945 MTX-naïve and 648 MTX-IR patients, UPA monotherapy (15 mg, 30 mg) vs MTX resulted in greater reported LSM changes from baseline at Weeks 12/14 in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness duration/severity, FACIT-F (SELECT-EARLY), HRQOL and WPAI (SELECT-EARLY). These changes were statistically significant with both doses of UPA vs MTX at Weeks 12/14 in both RCTs. Improvements were reported as early as week 2. Compared with MTX, more UPA-treated MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to normative values. CONCLUSION: Among MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients with active RA, UPA monotherapy at 15 or 30 mg for 12/14 weeks resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain, physical function, morning stiffness, HRQOL and WPAI compared with MTX alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: SELECT-EARLY (NCT02706873) and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY (NCT02706951) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.

Real-world experience of effectiveness of non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of non-medical switch from rituximab originator (RTX-O) to biosimilar (RTX-B) in patients with RA. METHODS: Between October 2017 and October 2019, all patients on RTX-O in our centre requiring re-treatment were switched to RTX-B unless declined by the patient or specified by the treating clinician. Switch strategy effectiveness was assessed retrospectively using DAS28-CRP(3) and RTX retention, with patients remaining on RTX-O as a comparator group. RESULTS: The number of patients switching to RTX-B was 255/337 (75.7%) while 82 (24.3%) remained on RTX-O. There was no difference in DAS28-CRP(3) 4 months post-RTX-B switch vs the same time point post-RTX-O previous cycle (paired data available in 60%). Eighteen-month retention estimates were 75.6% (95% CI: 69.4, 80.7%) for RTX-B group and 82.3% (95% CI: 70.4, 89.8%) for RTX-O [adjusted hazard ratio 1.52 (95% CI: 0.85, 2.73)]. The number of patients who discontinued RTX-B for loss of effectiveness (LOE) was 42/255 (16.5%), five (2.0%) for adverse effects (AEs). Risk of RTX-B discontinuation was associated with comorbidities and ≥2 previous biologic DMARDs. Risk of adverse outcome RTX cessation was associated with comorbidities, and reduced risk with number of previous RTX-O cycles and pre-switch cycle B cell depletion. The number of patients who switched back to RTX-O was 34/255 (13.3%) (LOE: 30, AEs: 4), while 13/255 (5.1%) started other biologic/targeted synthetic DMARDs. Of patients who switched back for LOE, 28/30 remained on RTX-O at a mean 7.7 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: Non-medical switch to RTX-B was largely effective. Factors associated with RTX-B discontinuation, including comorbidities, previous biologic DMARDs, and RTX-O treatment history, may inform switch decisions. Most patients who switched back to RTX-O for LOE remained on treatment at short-term follow-up.

Predictors of subclinical systemic sclerosis primary heart involvement characterised by microvasculopathy and myocardial fibrosis.

OBJECTIVES: SSc primary heart involvement (SSc-pHI) is a significant cause of mortality. We aimed to characterize and identify predictors of subclinical SSc-pHI using cardiovascular MRI. METHODS: A total of 83 SSc patients with no history of cardiovascular disease or pulmonary arterial hypertension and 44 healthy controls (HCs) underwent 3 Tesla contrast-enhanced cardiovascular MRI, including T1 mapping and quantitative stress perfusion. High-sensitivity troponin I and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide were also measured. RESULTS: Cardiovascular MRI revealed a lower myocardial perfusion reserve in the SSc patients compared with HCs {median (interquartile range (IQR)] 1.9 (1.6-2.4) vs 3 (2-3.6), P < 0.001}. Late gadolinium enhancement, indicating focal fibrosis, was observed in 17/83 patients but in none of the HCs, with significantly higher extracellular volume (ECV), suggestive of diffuse fibrosis, in SSc vs HC [mean (s.d.) 31 (4) vs 25 (2), P < 0.001]. Presence of late gadolinium enhancement and higher ECV was associated with skin score [odds ratio (OR) = 1.115, P = 0.048; R2 = 0.353, P = 0.004], and ECV and myocardial perfusion reserve was associated with the presence of digital ulcers at multivariate analysis (R2 = 0.353, P < 0.001; R2 = 0.238, P = 0.011). High-sensitivity troponin I was significantly higher in patients with late gadolinium enhancement, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide was associated with ECV (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Subclinical SSc-pHI is characterized by myocardial microvasculopathy, diffuse and focal myocardial fibrosis but preserved myocardial contractile function. This subclinical phenotype of SSc-pHI was associated with high-sensitivity troponin I, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, SSc disease severity and complicated peripheral vasculopathy. These data provide information regarding the underlying pathophysiological processes and provide a basis for identifying individuals at risk of SSc-pHI.

Muscle Damage in Systemic Sclerosis and CXCL10: The Potential Therapeutic Role of PDE5 Inhibition.

Skeletal muscle damage is a common clinical manifestation of systemic sclerosis (SSc). C-X-C chemokine ligand 10 (CXCL10) is involved in myopathy and cardiomyopathy development and is associated with a more severe SSc prognosis. Interestingly, the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) sildenafil reduces CXCL10 sera levels of patients with diabetic cardiomyopathy and in cardiomyocytes. Here, we analyzed the levels of CXCL10 in the sera of 116 SSc vs. 35 healthy subjects and explored differences in 17 SSc patients on stable treatment with sildenafil. CXCL10 sera levels were three-fold higher in SSc vs. healthy controls, independent of subset and antibody positivity. Sildenafil treatment was associated with lower CXCL10 sera levels. Serum CXCL10 strongly correlated with the clinical severity of muscle involvement and with creatine kinase (CK) serum concentration, suggesting a potential involvement in muscle damage in SSc. In vitro, sildenafil dose-dependently reduced CXCL10 release by activated myocytes and impaired cytokine-induced Signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1), Nuclear factor-κB (NFκB) and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) phosphorylation. This was also seen in cardiomyocytes. Sildenafil-induced CXCL10 inhibition at the systemic and human muscle cell level supports the hypothesis that PDE5i could be a potential therapeutic therapy to prevent and treat muscle damage in SSc.

Cardiovascular effects of biological versus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy in treatment-naïve, early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) have cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is modifiable with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy, comparing first-line etanercept (ETN) + methotrexate (MTX) with MTX strategy. METHODS: Patients from a phase IV ERA trial randomised to ETN+MTX or MTX strategy±month 6 escalation to ETN+MTX, and with no CVD and maximum one traditional risk factor underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) at baseline, years 1 and 2. Thirty matched controls underwent CMR. Primary outcome measure was aortic distensibility (AD) between controls and ERA, and baseline to year 1 AD change in ERA. Secondary analyses between and within ERA groups performed. Additional outcome measures included left ventricular (LV) mass and myocardial extracellular volume (ECV). RESULTS: Eighty-one patients recruited. In ERA versus controls, respectively, baseline (geometric mean, 95% CI) AD was significantly lower (3.0×10-3 mm Hg-1 (2.7-3.3) vs 4.4×10-3 mm Hg-1 (3.7-5.2), p<0.001); LV mass significantly lower (78.2 g (74.0-82.7), n=81 vs 92.9 g (84.8-101.7), n=30, p<0.01); and ECV increased (27.1% (26.4-27.9), n=78 vs 24.9% (23.8-26.1), n=30, p<0.01). Across all patients, AD improved significantly from baseline to year 1 (3.0×10-3 mm Hg-1 (2.7-3.4) to 3.6×10-3 mm Hg-1 (3.1-4.1), respectively, p<0.01), maintained at year 2. The improvement in AD did not differ between the two treatment arms and disease activity state (Disease Activity Score with 28 joint count)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate-defined responders versus non-responders. CONCLUSION: We report the first evidence of vascular and myocardial abnormalities in an ERA randomised controlled trial cohort and show improvement with DMARD therapy. The type of DMARD (first-line tumour necrosis factor-inhibitors or MTX) and clinical response to therapy did not affect CVD markers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: ISRCTN89222125; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01295151.

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of very early etanercept and MTX versus MTX with delayed etanercept in RA: the VEDERA trial.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to confirm in very early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) a much greater superiority (30%) of first-line etanercept+methotrexate (ETN+MTX) over treat-to-target MTX (MTX-TT) than previously reported in ERA (14%); and explore whether ETN following initial MTX secures a comparable response to first-line ETN+MTX. METHODS: Pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial of treatment-naïve ERA (≤12 months symptom), Disease Activity Score 28 joint (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) ≥3.2, rheumatoid factor (RF)+/-anticitrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) positive or ultrasound power Doppler (PD) if RF and ACPA negative. Subjects were randomised 1:1 to ETN+MTX; or MTX-TT, escalated to ETN if week 24 DAS28-ESR ≥2.6 and intramuscular corticosteroid at protocolised time points. Primary endpoint of week 48 DAS28ESR remission with clinical and imaging secondary endpoints. RESULTS: We randomised 120 patients, 60 to each arm (71% female, 73% RF/84% ACPA positive, median (IQR) symptom duration 20.3 (13.1, 30.8) weeks; mean (SD) DAS28 5.1 (1.1)). Remission rates with ETN+MTX and MTX-TT, respectively, were 38% vs 33% at week 24; 52% vs 38% at week 48 (ORs 1.6, 95% CI 0.8 to 3.5, p=0.211). Greater, sustained DAS28-ESR remission observed with ETN+MTX versus MTX-TT (42% and 27%, respectively; p=0.035). PD was fully suppressed by week 48 in over 90% in each arm. Planned exploratory analysis revealed OR 2.84, 95% CI 0.8 to 9.6) of achieving remission after 24 weeks of ETN administered first line compared with administered post-MTX. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with remission rates typically reported with first-line tumour necrosis factor inhabitor+MTX versus MTX-TT, we did not demonstrate a larger effect in very ERA. Neither strategy conferred remission in the majority of patients although ultrasound confirmed local inflammation suppression. Poorer ETN response following failure of MTX-TT is also suggested. Trial registration number NCT02433184.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field. METHODS: An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items. RESULTS: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high. CONCLUSIONS: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.