Factors associated with disease flare following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: results from the physician-reported EULAR Coronavirus Vaccine (COVAX) Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency and factors associated with disease flare following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in people with inflammatory/autoimmune rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (I-RMDs). METHODS: Data from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Coronavirus Vaccine physician-reported registry were used. Factors associated with flare in patients with I-RMDs were investigated using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: The study included 7336 patients with I-RMD, with 272 of 7336 (3.7%) experiencing flares and 121 of 7336 (1.6%) experiencing flares requiring starting a new medication or increasing the dosage of an existing medication. Factors independently associated with increased odds of flare were: female sex (OR=1.40, 95% CI=1.05 to 1.87), active disease at the time of vaccination (low disease activity (LDA), OR=1.45, 95% CI=1.08 to 1.94; moderate/high disease activity (M/HDA), OR=1.37, 95% CI=0.97 to 1.95; vs remission), and cessation/reduction of antirheumatic medication before or after vaccination (OR=4.76, 95% CI=3.44 to 6.58); factors associated with decreased odds of flare were: higher age (OR=0.90, 95% CI=0.83 to 0.98), non-Pfizer/AstraZeneca/Moderna vaccines (OR=0.10, 95% CI=0.01 to 0.74; vs Pfizer), and exposure to methotrexate (OR=0.57, 95% CI=0.37 to 0.90), tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (OR=0.55, 95% CI=0.36 to 0.85) or rituximab (OR=0.27, 95% CI=0.11 to 0.66), versus no antirheumatic treatment. In a multivariable model using new medication or dosage increase due to flare as the dependent variable, only the following independent associations were observed: active disease (LDA, OR=1.47, 95% CI=0.94 to 2.29; M/HDA, OR=3.08, 95% CI=1.91 to 4.97; vs remission), cessation/reduction of antirheumatic medication before or after vaccination (OR=2.24, 95% CI=1.33 to 3.78), and exposure to methotrexate (OR=0.48, 95% CI=0.26 to 0.89) or rituximab (OR=0.10, 95% CI=0.01 to 0.77), versus no antirheumatic treatment. CONCLUSION: I-RMD flares following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were uncommon. Factors associated with flares were identified, namely higher disease activity and cessation/reduction of antirheumatic medications before or after vaccination.

Patterns and determinants of response to novel therapies in juvenile and adult-onset polyarthritis.

Biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) have revolutionized the management of multiple rheumatic inflammatory conditions. Among these, polyarticular JIA (pJIA) and RA display similarities in terms of disease pathophysiology and response pattern to b/tsDMARDs. Indeed, the therapeutic efficacy of novel targeted drugs is variable among individual patients, in both RA and pJIA. The mechanisms and determinants of this heterogeneous response are diverse and complex, such that the development of true 'precision'-medicine strategies has proven highly challenging. In this review, we will discuss pathophysiological, patient-specific, drug-specific and environmental factors contributing to individual therapeutic response in pJIA in comparison with what is known in RA. Although some biomarkers have been identified that stratify with respect to the likelihood of either therapeutic response or non-response, few have proved useful in clinical practice so far, likely due to the complexity of treatment-response mechanisms. Consequently, we propose a pragmatic, patient-centred and clinically based approach, i.e. personalized instead of biomarker-based precision medicine in JIA.

Disease activity drives transcriptomic heterogeneity in early untreated rheumatoid synovitis.

OBJECTIVES: Transcriptomic profiling of synovial tissue from patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was used to explore the ability of unbiased, data-driven approaches to define clinically relevant subgroups. METHODS: RNASeq was performed on 74 samples, with disease activity data collected at inclusion. Principal components analysis (PCA) and unsupervised clustering were used to define patient clusters based on expression of the most variable genes, followed by pathway analysis and inference of relative abundance of immune cell subsets. Histological assessment and multiplex immunofluorescence (for CD45, CD68, CD206) were performed on paraffin sections. RESULTS: PCA on expression of the (n=894) most variable genes across this series did not divide samples into distinct groups, instead yielding a continuum correlated with baseline disease activity. Two patient clusters (PtC1, n=52; PtC2, n=22) were defined based on expression of these genes. PtC1, with significantly higher disease activity and probability of response to methotrexate therapy, showed upregulation of immune system genes; PtC2 showed upregulation of lipid metabolism genes, described to characterise tissue resident or M2-like macrophages. In keeping with these data, M2-like:M1-like macrophage ratios were inversely correlated with disease activity scores and were associated with lower synovial immune infiltration and the presence of thinner, M2-like macrophage-rich synovial lining layers. CONCLUSION: In this large series of early, untreated RA, we show that the synovial transcriptome closely mirrors clinical disease activity and correlates with synovial inflammation. Intriguingly, lower inflammation and disease activity are associated with higher ratios of M2:M1 macrophages, particularly striking in the synovial lining layer. This may point to a protective role for tissue resident macrophages in RA.

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.

Safety and efficacy of the miR-124 upregulator ABX464 (obefazimod, 50 and 100 mg per day) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate and/or anti-TNFα therapy: a placebo-controlled phase II study.

OBJECTIVE: This phase 2a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a first-in-class drug candidate ABX464 (obefazimod, 50 mg and 100 mg per day), which upregulates the biogenesis of the mRNA inhibitor micro-RNA (miR)-124, in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in 60 patients (1:1:1 ratio) with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have inadequate response to MTX or/and to an anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) therapy. METHODS: The primary end point was the safety of ABX464; efficacy endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20/50/70 responses, disease activity scores (DAS) 28, simplified disease activity score, clinical disease activity score), European League Against Rheumatism response, DAS28 low disease activity or remission. RESULTS: ABX464 50 mg was safe and well tolerated. Two serious adverse events were reported (one on placebo group and one on ABX464 100 mg). Eleven patients were withdrawn for AEs (9 patients on 100 mg, 1 on 50 mg and 1 on placebo). Drug discontinuation was mainly due to gastrointestinal disorders. No cases of opportunistic infection, no malignancies and no death were reported. Compared with placebo, ABX464 50 mg showed significantly higher proportions of patients achieving ACR20 and ACR50 responses at week 12. DAS28-C reactive protein (CRP) and DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate decreased significantly and rates of categorical DAS28-CRP response or CDAI remission increased significantly on ABX464 at week 12. A significant upregulation of miR-124 was observed in blood for every patient dosed with ABX464. CONCLUSION: ABX464 50 mg was safe, well tolerated and showed a promising efficacy. Mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal AEs led to a high drop-out rate of patients on ABX464 100 mg, which may not be a relevant dose to use. These findings warrant exploration of ABX464 at 50 mg per day or less for treating patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NAME: Phase IIa randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group, multiple dose study on ABX464 in combination with MTX, in patients with moderate to severe active RA who have inadequate response to MTX or/and to an anti- TNFα therapy or intolerance to anti-TNFα therapy.EUDRACT number: 2018-004677-27 TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03813199.

Safety of baricitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis over a median of 4.6 and up to 9.3 years of treatment: final results from long-term extension study and integrated database.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term safety from the completed extension trial of baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Treatment-emergent adverse events are summarised from an integrated database (9 phase III/II/Ib and 1 long-term extension) of patients who received any baricitinib dose (All-bari-RA). Standardised incidence ratio (SIR) for malignancy (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC)) and standardised mortality ratio (SMR) were estimated. Additional analysis was done in a subset of patients who had ever taken 2 mg or 4 mg baricitinib. RESULTS: 3770 patients received baricitinib (14 744 patient-years of exposure (PYE)). All-bari-RA incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years at risk were 2.6, 3.0 and 0.5 for serious infections, herpes zoster and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), respectively. In patients aged ≥50 with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor, the IR for MACE was 0.77 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.04). The IR for malignancy (excluding NMSC) during the first 48 weeks was 0.6 and remained stable thereafter (IR 1.0). The SIR for malignancies excluding NMSC was 1.07 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.26) and the SMR was 0.74 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.92). All-bari-RA IRs for deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE), DVT and PE were 0.5 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.61), 0.4 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.45) and 0.3 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.35), respectively. No clear dose differences were noted for exposure-adjusted IRs (per 100 PYE) for deaths, serious infections, DVT/PE and MACE. CONCLUSIONS: In this integrated analysis including long-term data of baricitinib from 3770 patients (median 4.6 years, up to 9.3 years) with active RA, baricitinib maintained a similar safety profile to earlier analyses. No new safety signals were identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01185353, NCT00902486, NCT01469013, NCT01710358, NCT02265705, NCT01721044, NCT01721057, NCT01711359 and NCT01885078.

EULAR points to consider for minimal reporting requirements in synovial tissue research in rheumatology.

BACKGROUND: Synovial tissue research has become widely developed in several rheumatology centres, however, large discrepancies exist in the way synovial tissue is handled and, more specifically, how data pertaining to biopsy procedure, quality check and experimental results are reported in the literature. This heterogeneity hampers the progress of research in this rapidly expanding field. In that context, under the umbrella of European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, we aimed at proposing points to consider (PtC) for minimal reporting requirements in synovial tissue research. METHODS: Twenty-five members from 10 countries across Europe and USA met virtually to define the key areas needing evaluation and formulating the research questions to inform a systematic literature review (SLR). The results were presented during a second virtual meeting where PtC were formulated and agreed. RESULTS: Study design, biopsy procedures, tissue handling, tissue quality control and tissue outcomes (imaging, DNA/RNA analysis and disaggregation) were identified as important aspects for the quality of synovial tissue research. The SLR interrogated four databases, retrieved 7654 abstracts and included 26 manuscripts. Three OPs and nine PtC were formulated covering the following areas: description of biopsy procedure, overarching clinical design, patient characteristics, tissue handling and processing, quality control, histopathology, transcriptomic analyses and single-cell technologies. CONCLUSIONS: These PtC provide guidance on how research involving synovial tissue should be reported to ensure a better evaluation of results by readers, reviewers and the broader scientific community. We anticipate that these PtC will enable the field to progress in a robust and transparent manner over the coming years.

Safety of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: results from the EULAR Coronavirus Vaccine (COVAX) physician-reported registry.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the safety of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in people with inflammatory/autoimmune rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease (I-RMD). METHODS: Physician-reported registry of I-RMD and non-inflammatory RMD (NI-RMDs) patients vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. From 5 February 2021 to 27 July 2021, we collected data on demographics, vaccination, RMD diagnosis, disease activity, immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive treatments, flares, adverse events (AEs) and SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: The study included 5121 participants from 30 countries, 90% with I-RMDs (n=4604, 68% female, mean age 60.5 years) and 10% with NI-RMDs (n=517, 77% female, mean age 71.4). Inflammatory joint diseases (58%), connective tissue diseases (18%) and vasculitis (12%) were the most frequent diagnostic groups; 54% received conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), 42% biological DMARDs and 35% immunosuppressants. Most patients received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (70%), 17% AstraZeneca/Oxford and 8% Moderna. In fully vaccinated cases, breakthrough infections were reported in 0.7% of I-RMD patients and 1.1% of NI-RMD patients. I-RMD flares were reported in 4.4% of cases (0.6% severe), 1.5% resulting in medication changes. AEs were reported in 37% of cases (37% I-RMD, 40% NI-RMD), serious AEs in 0.5% (0.4% I-RMD, 1.9% NI-RMD). CONCLUSION: The safety profiles of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with I-RMD was reassuring and comparable with patients with NI-RMDs. The majority of patients tolerated their vaccination well with rare reports of I-RMD flare and very rare reports of serious AEs. These findings should provide reassurance to rheumatologists and vaccine recipients and promote confidence in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safety in I-RMD patients.

Human carbamylome description identifies carbamylated α2-macroglobulin and hemopexin as two novel autoantigens in early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Anti-carbamylated protein antibodies (anti-CarPAs) are present in RA sera and have been associated with erosive disease. The exact targets of anti-CarPAs in vivo are currently not well known; we used a proteomic approach on serum and SF of RA patients to assess the human carbamylome and to identify carbamylated autoantigens as potential biomarkers in early RA. METHODS: Mass spectrometry was performed on SF and serum from RA patients. Carbamylated proteins present in both sample types were selected as candidate autoantigens for the establishment of ELISAs. A cohort of early RA patients was tested for positivity for specific anti-CarPAs. RESULTS: Eleven novel carbamylated proteins were identified, and five were selected as potential autoantigens for detection of anti-CarPAs. Among them, antibodies against carbamylated hemopexin (anti-CaHPX) and alpha-2-macroglobulin (anti-CaA2M) showed comparable diagnostic value to the established carbamylated foetal calf serum-based ELISA. A cohort of 189 early RA patients was studied. The combination of these new biomarkers with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and RF identified 89% of early RA patients in our cohort. There was little correlation between the tested biomarkers, and each one of the tested antigens could identify a different subset of seronegative RA patients. Anti-CaA2M positivity showed clinical potential, being associated with higher disease disability. CONCLUSION: We highlight the detection of novel carbamylated autoantigens in vivo using a combined proteomics approach in the SF and serum of RA patients. Anti-CaHPX and anti-CaA2M are promising clinical biomarkers, especially in seronegative RA.

Inhibition of structural joint damage progression with upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis: 1-year outcomes from the SELECT phase 3 program.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the inhibition of progression of structural joint damage through week 48 in patients with moderately to severely active RA receiving upadacitinib as monotherapy or in combination with MTX. METHODS: Radiographic progression was assessed in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials. MTX-naïve patients were randomized to upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg once daily or MTX monotherapy (SELECT-EARLY, n = 945), while MTX inadequate responders (IRs) were randomized to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or adalimumab 40 mg every other week or placebo added to background MTX (SELECT-COMPARE, n = 1629). The mean changes from baseline in modified total Sharp score (mTSS), joint space narrowing and erosion scores were determined. Data were analysed both by linear extrapolation for missing data imputation and treatment switching and as observed. RESULTS: In patients naïve or with limited exposure to MTX (SELECT-EARLY), mean changes from baseline to week 48 in mTSS were 0.03 for upadacitinib 15 mg, 0.14 for upadacitinib 30 mg and 1.00 for MTX based on linear extrapolation (P < 0.001 for both upadacitinib doses vs MTX). Among patients with an inadequate response to MTX (SELECT-COMPARE), the mean change from baseline in mTSS was significantly reduced in the upadacitinib 15 mg plus MTX group vs placebo plus MTX (0.28 vs 1.73; P < 0.001). The mean change from baseline in the adalimumab plus MTX group was 0.39. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib monotherapy or in combination with background MTX was effective in inhibiting the progression of structural joint damage through week 48 in MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT02706873 and NCT02629159.

Should we use glucocorticoids in early rheumatoid arthritis? Results at 5 years from the early RA UCLouvain Brussels cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the proportion of patients with early RA (ERA) who had or had not initiated glucocorticoids, to analyse the baseline characteristics, and to assess the clinical benefit and side effects of glucocorticoids during 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: We included patients with ERA from the UCLouvain Brussels cohort who met the ACR/EULAR 2010 classification criteria and were naïve to conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs). We retrospectively collected patient characteristics prior to the introduction of cDMARDs with or without glucocorticoids. Efficiency and serious adverse events were analysed at 6, 12, 36 and 60 months. RESULTS: Data from 474 eligible ERA patients were collected; 180 patients initiated glucocorticoids compared with 294 who did not. At baseline, the increased CRP was the main factor that favoured the initiation of glucocorticoids followed by smoking, absence of ACPA, prescription of MTX as a monotherapy and age. Five years' follow-up of DAS28-CRP, HAQ or visual analog score (VAS) pain values did not differ between the two groups. We also analysed a subgroup of 139 patients who received >1 g of prednisolone during the 5-year period. We confirmed the same baseline differences and observed in addition more men and higher DAS-28CRP values. During the 5 years' follow-up, DAS-28CRP, VAS pain and HAQ remained significantly higher in this subgroup. More severe infections were also reported. CONCLUSION: In our ERA cohort, the initiation of glucocorticoid treatment did not bring additional benefit for the short- and long-term control of the disease. Glucocorticoid was more prescribed in seronegative RA patients with a higher level of inflammation.

Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes vs placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-COMPARE.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of upadacitinib vs placebo and adalimumab treatment, on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in SELECT-COMPARE in an active RA population with inadequate responses to MTX (MTX-IR). METHODS: PROs in patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg QD), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg EOW) while on background MTX were evaluated over 48 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) and pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), the HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), morning (AM) stiffness duration and severity, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and work instability. Least squares mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values were evaluated. RESULTS: Upadacitinib and adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline vs placebo across all PROs (P < 0.05) at week 12, and pain and AM stiffness severity (P < 0.05) at week 2. More upadacitinib- vs placebo-treated (P < 0.05) and similar percentages of upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID across all PROs at week 12. Upadacitinib vs adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, stiffness severity, FACIT-F, and the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (all P < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS (P < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients maintained clinically meaningful improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and AM stiffness through 48 weeks. CONCLUSION: In MTX-IR patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs equivalent to or greater than with adalimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02629159.

Glycosylation deficiency of lipopolysaccharide-binding protein and corticosteroid-binding globulin associated with activity and response to treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Serum protein glycosylation is an area of investigation in inflammatory arthritic disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Indeed, some studies highlighted abnormalities of protein glycosylation in RA. Considering the numerous types of enzymes, monosaccharides and glycosidic linkages, glycosylation is one of the most complex post translational modifications. By this work, we started with a preliminary screening of glycoproteins in serum from RA patients and controls. METHODS: In order to isolate glycoproteins from serum, lectin wheat germ agglutinin was used and quantitative differences between patients and controls were investigated by LC-MS/MS. Consequently, we focused our attention on two glycoproteins found in this explorative phase: corticosteroid-binding globulin (CBG) and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP). The subsequent validation with immunoassays was widened to a larger number of early RA (ERA) patients (n = 90) and well-matched healthy controls (n = 90). RESULTS: We observed a significant reduction of CBG and LBP glycosylation in ERA patients compared with healthy controls. Further, after 12 months of treatment, glycosylated CBG and LBP levels increased both to values comparable to those of controls. In addition, these changes were correlated with clinical parameters. CONCLUSIONS: This study enables to observe that glycosylation changes of CBG and LBP are related to RA disease activity and its response to treatment.

Evolving the comprehensive management of rheumatoid arthritis: identification of unmet needs and development of practical and educational tools.

OBJECTIVES: Despite availability of efficacious treatments, unmet needs still exist, preventing optimal and comprehensive management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Evolving the management of RA (eRA) is a European-wide educational initiative aiming to support improved patient care through practical and educational tools addressing specific unmet needs. METHODS: A multidisciplinary Steering Committee (17 members, 12 countries) identified unmet needs within the management of RA and prioritised those with the greatest impact on patient outcomes. Practical educational tools addressing priority needs were then developed for dissemination and implementation by the rheumatology community across Europe. RESULTS: Five areas of priority need were identified: increasing early recognition of RA and treatment initiation; treating RA to target; optimal, holistic approach to selection of treatment strategy, including shared decision-making; improving identification and management of comorbidities; and non-pharmacological patient management. A suite of 14 eRA tools included educational slides, best-practice guidance, self­assessment questionnaires, clinical checklists, a multidisciplinary team training exercise, an interactive patient infographic, and case scenarios. By April 2020, rheumatology professionals in 17 countries had been actively engaged in the eRA programme; in 11 countries, eRA tools were selected by national leaders in rheumatology and translated for local dissemination. A web platform, with country-specific pages, was developed to support access to the translated tools (https://www.evolvingthemanagementofra.com/). CONCLUSIONS: The eRA programme supports comprehensive management of RA across Europe through development and dissemination of practical educational tools. The eRA tools address priority needs and are available free of charge to the rheumatology community.

Safety and effectiveness of upadacitinib or adalimumab plus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over 48 weeks with switch to alternate therapy in patients with insufficient response.

BACKGROUND: In SELECT-COMPARE, a randomised double-blind study, upadacitinib 15 mg once daily was superior to placebo or adalimumab on background methotrexate (MTX) for treating rheumatoid arthritis signs and symptoms and inhibited radiographical progression versus placebo at 26 weeks. Here we report 48-week safety and efficacy in patients who continued their original medication or were rescued to the alternative medication for insufficient response. METHODS: Patients on MTX received upadacitinib 15 mg, placebo or adalimumab for 48 weeks. Rescue without washout, from placebo or adalimumab to upadacitinib or upadacitinib to adalimumab occurred if patients had <20% improvement in tender joint count (TJC) or swollen joint count (SJC) (weeks 14/18/22) or Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 (week 26); remaining placebo patients were switched to upadacitinib at week 26. Efficacy was analysed by randomised group (non-responder imputation), as well as separately for rescued patients (as observed). Treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient-years were summarised. RESULTS: Consistent with responses through week 26, from weeks 26 to 48, responses by randomised group including low disease activity, clinical remission and improvements in pain and function remained superior for upadacitinib versus adalimumab; radiographical progression remained lower for upadacitinib versus placebo (linear extrapolation). Although both switch groups responded, a higher proportion of patients rescued to upadacitinib from adalimumab achieved CDAI ≤10 at 6 months postswitch versus patients rescued from upadacitinib to adalimumab. Safety at week 48 was comparable to week 26. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib+MTX demonstrated superior clinical and functional responses versus adalimumab+MTX and maintained inhibition of structural damage versus placebo+MTX through week 48. Patients with an insufficient response to adalimumab or upadacitinib safely achieved clinically meaningful responses after switching to the alternative medication without washout.

Effects of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on the radiographic progression of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) on radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A systematic review of electronic databases and conference proceedings was conducted through January 2015, to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that assessed the impact of bDMARDs [± conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), mainly methotrexate (MTX)], versus csDMARDs alone, on radiographic progression in patients with RA. RESULTS: Following screening of >5000 records, 104 publications covering 63 studies were included. Of 34 RCTs in patients with early, active (n=13) or established RA (n=21) [abatacept (1, 2); adalimumab (4, 2); certolizumab pegol (1, 4); etanercept (3, 3); golimumab (1, 4); infliximab (1, 1); rituximab (1, 1); tocilizumab (1, 5)], combination therapy with a bDMARD and MTX had a significantly greater effect than placebo or MTX alone, in inhibiting radiographic progression. This included patients previously unresponsive, or who responded incompletely, to MTX treatment alone, and was supported by data from observational studies. Findings from a smaller subset of these and other RCTs supported superiority of combination therapy over bDMARD monotherapy, and bDMARD monotherapy over MTX, in slowing radiographic progression. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence from RCTs with a range of bDMARDs that improvement in radiographic outcomes for patients with early or established RA, when used in combination with MTX and to a lesser extent as monotherapy, are significantly greater than MTX alone. There was no evidence of a difference between bDMARDs on inhibition of radiographic progression.

Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force.

BACKGROUND: Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion. METHODS: A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. RESULTS: The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10). CONCLUSIONS: The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

Association of HLA-DRB1 alleles with clinical responses to the anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody secukinumab in active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether preliminary findings of associations between the HLA-DRB1*04 and HLA-DRB1* shared epitope (SE) allelic groups and response to the anti-IL-17A mAb secukinumab in RA were reproducible in an independent RA cohort. METHODS: Biologic-naïve subjects (n = 100) with RA by 2010 criteria with tender/swollen joint counts (each ≥6) and high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) >10 mg/l were randomized 2:1 to secukinumab 10 mg/kg i.v. or placebo every 2 weeks until week 10. Potential associations with treatment response to secukinumab at week 12 (DAS28-CRP change from baseline by analysis of covariance, ACR20 response rate by logistic regression) were assessed for HLA-DRB1*04 (primary end point), HLA-DRB1*SE and HLA-DRB1 position 11 V/L (HLA-DRB1*pos11 V/L) allelic groups, and baseline levels of hsCRP, RF and anti-CCP. RESULTS: Secukinumab was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing DAS28-CRP (-2.41 vs -0.71; P < 0.0001) and producing ACR20 responses (87.1% vs 25.0%; P < 0.0001) at week 12. The HLA-DRB1*04 allelic group was not significantly related to secukinumab response vs placebo. For change from baseline in DAS28-CRP, HLA-DRB1*SE (P = 0.003) and HLA-DRB1*pos11 V/L (P = 0.002) allelic groups were associated with positive treatment response. Higher RF levels, but not anti-CCP positivity, were significantly associated with DAS28-CRP reductions (P = 0.015) and ACR20 (P = 0.008) responses. Secukinumab was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Secukinumab significantly reduced signs and symptoms of RA vs placebo. As the HLA-DRB1*SE and HLA-DRB1*pos11 V/L results were driven by lack of placebo response in carriers, the hypothesis of clinical utility for HLA-DRB1* allelic groups in RA anti-IL-17A short-term response prediction could not be corroborated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; https://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT01426789.

Prediction of remission and low disease activity in disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with golimumab.

OBJECTIVE: To create a tool to predict probability of remission and low disease activity (LDA) in patients with RA being considered for anti-TNF treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: We analysed data from GO-MORE, an open-label, multinational, prospective study in biologic-naïve patients with active RA (DAS28-ESR ⩾3.2) despite DMARD therapy. Patients received 50 mg s.c. golimumab (GLM) once monthly for 6 months. In secondary analyses, regression models were used to determine the best set of baseline factors to predict remission (DAS28-ESR <2.6) at month 6 and LDA (DAS28-ESR ⩽3.2) at month 1. RESULTS: In 3280 efficacy-evaluable patients, of 12 factors included in initial regression models predicting remission or LDA, six were retained in final multivariable models. Greater likelihood of LDA and remission was associated with being male; younger age; lower HAQ, ESR (or CRP) and tender joint count (or swollen joint count) scores; and absence of comorbidities. In models predicting 1-, 3- and 6-month LDA or remission, area under the receiver operating curve was 0.648-0.809 (R(2) = 0.0397-0.1078). The models also predicted 6-month HAQ and EuroQoL-5-dimension scores. A series of matrices were developed to easily show predicted rates of remission and LDA. CONCLUSION: A matrix tool was developed to show predicted GLM treatment outcomes in patients with RA, based on a combination of six baseline characteristics. The tool could help provide practical guidance in selection of candidates for anti-TNF therapy.

Adjustment of therapy in rheumatoid arthritis on the basis of achievement of stable low disease activity with adalimumab plus methotrexate or methotrexate alone: the randomised controlled OPTIMA trial.

BACKGROUND: Biological agents offer good control of rheumatoid arthritis, but the long-term benefits of achieving low disease activity with a biological agent plus methotrexate or methotrexate alone are unclear. The OPTIMA trial assessed different treatment adjustment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis attaining (or not) stable low disease activity with adalimumab plus methotrexate or methotrexate monotherapy. METHODS: This trial was done at 161 sites worldwide. Patients with early (<1 year duration) rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate were randomly allocated (by interactive voice response system, in a 1:1 ratio, block size four) to adalimumab (40 mg every other week) plus methotrexate (initiated at 7·5 mg/week, increased by 2·5 mg every 1-2 weeks to a maximum weekly dose of 20 mg by week 8) or placebo plus methotrexate for 26 weeks (period 1). Patients in the adalimumab plus methotrexate group who completed period 1 and achieved the stable low disease activity target (28-joint disease activity score with C-reactive protein [DAS28]<3·2 at weeks 22 and 26) were randomised to adalimumab-continuation or adalimumab-withdrawal for an additional 52 weeks (period 2). Patients achieving the target with initial methotrexate continued methotrexate-monotherapy. Inadequate responders were offered adalimumab plus methotrexate. All patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation in period 1. During period 2, treatment reallocation of patients who achieved the target was masked to patients and investigators; patients who did not achieve the target remained masked to original randomisation, but were aware of the subsequent assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite measure of DAS28 of less than 3·2 at week 78 and radiographic non-progression from baseline to week 78, compared between adalimumab-continuation and methotrexate-monotherapy. Adverse events were monitored throughout period 2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00420927. FINDINGS: The study was done between Dec 28, 2006, and Aug 3, 2010. 1636 patients were assessed and 1032 were randomised in period 1 (515 to adalimumab plus methotrexate; 517 to placebo plus methotrexate). 466 patients in the adalimumab plus methotrexate group completed period 1; 207 achieved the stable low disease activity target, of whom 105 were rerandomised to adalimumab-continuation. 460 patients in the placebo plus methotrexate group completed period 1; 112 achieved the stable low disease activity target and continued methotrexate-monotherapy. 73 of 105 (70%) patients in the adalimumab-continuation group and 61 of 112 (54%) patients in the methotrexate-monotherapy group achieved the primary endpoint at week 78 (mean difference 15% [95% CI 2-28%], p=0·0225). Patients achieving the stable low disease activity target on adalimumab plus methotrexate who withdrew adalimumab mostly maintained their good responses. Overall, 706 of 926 patients in period 2 had an adverse event, of which 82 were deemed serious; however, distribution of adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment to a stable low disease activity target resulted in improved clinical, functional, and structural outcomes, with both adalimumab-continuation and methotrexate-monotherapy. However, a higher proportion of patients treated with initial adalimumab plus methotrexate achieved the low disease activity target compared with those initially treated with methotrexate alone. Outcomes were much the same whether adalimumab was continued or withdrawn in patients who initially responded to adalimumab plus methotrexate. FUNDING: AbbVie.