Publisher Correction: The immune cell landscape in kidneys of patients with lupus nephritis.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

The immune cell landscape in kidneys of patients with lupus nephritis.

Lupus nephritis is a potentially fatal autoimmune disease for which the current treatment is ineffective and often toxic. To develop mechanistic hypotheses of disease, we analyzed kidney samples from patients with lupus nephritis and from healthy control subjects using single-cell RNA sequencing. Our analysis revealed 21 subsets of leukocytes active in disease, including multiple populations of myeloid cells, T cells, natural killer cells and B cells that demonstrated both pro-inflammatory responses and inflammation-resolving responses. We found evidence of local activation of B cells correlated with an age-associated B-cell signature and evidence of progressive stages of monocyte differentiation within the kidney. A clear interferon response was observed in most cells. Two chemokine receptors, CXCR4 and CX3CR1, were broadly expressed, implying a potentially central role in cell trafficking. Gene expression of immune cells in urine and kidney was highly correlated, which would suggest that urine might serve as a surrogate for kidney biopsies.

Baricitinib for systemic lupus erythematosus: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (SLE-BRAVE-II).

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 and 2 approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, and alopecia areata. In a 24-week phase 2 study in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), baricitinib 4 mg significantly improved SLE disease activity compared with placebo. In this Article, we report the evaluation of efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with SLE in a 52-week phase 3 study. METHODS: In this phase 3 double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study, SLE-BRAVE-II, patients (aged ≥18 years) with active SLE receiving stable background therapy were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo once daily for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an SLE Responder Index (SRI)-4 response at week 52 in the baricitinib 4 mg treatment group compared with placebo. Glucocorticoid tapering was encouraged but not required per protocol. The primary endpoint was assessed by logistic regression analysis with baseline disease activity, baseline corticosteroid dose, region, and treatment group in the model. Efficacy analyses were done on an intention-to-treat population, comprising all participants who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of investigational product and who did not discontinue from the study for the reason of lost to follow-up at the first post-baseline visit. Safety analyses were done on all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of investigational product and who did not discontinue. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03616964, and is complete. FINDINGS: A total of 775 patients were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of baricitinib 4 mg (n=258), baricitinib 2 mg (n=261), or placebo (n=256). There was no difference in the primary efficacy outcome of the proportion of SRI-4 responders at week 52 between participants who received baricitinib 4mg (121 [47%]; odds ratio 1·07 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·53]; difference with placebo 1·5 [95% CI -7·1 to 10·2]), 2 mg (120 [46%]; 1·05 [0·73 to 1·50]; 0·8 [-7·9 to 9·4]) and placebo (116 [46%]). None of the major secondary endpoints, including glucocorticoid tapering and time to first severe flare, were met. Serious adverse events were observed in 29 (11%) participants in the baricitinib 4 mg group, 35 (13%) in the baricitinib 2 mg group, and 22 (9%) in the placebo group. The safety profile of baricitinib in patients with SLE was consistent with the known baricitinib safety profile. INTERPRETATION: Although phase 2 data suggested baricitinib as a potential treatment for patients with SLE, which was supported in SLE-BRAVE-I, this result was not replicated in SLE-BRAVE-II. No new safety signals were observed. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Remission and low disease activity are associated with lower healthcare costs: results from the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) inception cohort.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the independent impact of definitions of remission/low disease activity (LDA) on direct/indirect costs (DCs, ICs) in a multicentre inception cohort. METHODS: Patients from 31 centres in 10 countries were enrolled within 15 months of diagnosis and assessed annually. Five mutually exclusive disease activity states (DAS) were defined as (1) remission off-treatment: clinical (c) SLEDAI-2K=0, without prednisone/immunosuppressants; (2) remission on-treatment: cSLEDAI-2K=0, prednisone ≤5 mg/day and/or maintenance immunosuppressants; (3) LDA-Toronto Cohort (TC): cSLEDAI-2K≤2, without prednisone/immunosuppressants; (4) modified lupus LDA state (mLLDAS): SLEDAI-2K≤4, no activity in major organs/systems, no new activity, prednisone ≤7.5 mg/day and/or maintenance immunosuppressants and (5) active: all remaining assessments.At each assessment, patients were stratified into the most stringent DAS fulfilled and the proportion of time in a DAS since cohort entry was determined. Annual DCs/ICs (2021 Canadian dollars) were based on healthcare use and lost workforce/non-workforce productivity over the preceding year.The association between the proportion of time in a DAS and annual DC/IC was examined through multivariable random-effects linear regressions. RESULTS: 1692 patients were followed a mean of 9.7 years; 49.0% of assessments were active. Remission/LDA (per 25% increase in time in a remission/LDA state vs active) were associated with lower annual DC/IC: remission off-treatment (DC -$C1372; IC -$C2507), remission on-treatment (DC -$C973; IC -$C2604,) LDA-TC (DC -$C1158) and mLLDAS (DC -$C1040). There were no cost differences between remission/LDA states. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that systemic lupus erythematosus patients who achieve remission, both off and on-therapy, and reductions in disease activity incur lower costs than those experiencing persistent disease activity.

What Bedside Skills Could the Modern Rheumatologist Possess? Part I. The Basics.

ABSTRACT: The hands-on aspect of rheumatologic practice serves to balance its more cerebral features with the everyday necessity to touch patients to assess their condition, obtain samples for diagnosis, and deliver therapy, all cementing the important bond between patient and physician. Factors over recent years, ranging from the intercession of the electronic medical record to COVID, have weakened this bond, which we must restore if the practice of rheumatology is to return to previous levels of satisfaction. We review herein, in 2 parts, the many ways rheumatologists may interact physically with patients, with hope that pursuit of these measures can enhance satisfaction of physician and patient alike. This first installment reviews those simple skills in place before more involved technical bedside skill began to evolve over the last half century.

What Bedside Skills Could the Modern Rheumatologist Possess? Part II. "Certain Technical Procedures".

ABSTRACT: Rheumatologists have never been reluctant to adopt procedures that might enhance their diagnostic or therapeutic powers. Their propensity to penetrate the joints of the patients they were treating set them apart from the general internist. Since the 1980s, when a chance to look inside the joints they were treating attracted a few rheumatologists, other things that could be done at the bedside emerged with now an array of bedside procedures that could be part of a rheumatologist's skill set. Besides gains in diagnosis and/or therapy, each constitutes a chance to restore the physical contact between physician and patient, riven by factors of the last decade, such as electronic medical records and COVID. With such contact so important to satisfaction of the patient and physician alike, acquisition of proficiency in certain technical procedures described herein offers one path to begin restoring rheumatology to the richly fulfilling practice it once was.

Concordance and discordance in SLE clinical trial outcome measures: analysis of three anifrolumab phase 2/3 trials.

OBJECTIVES: In the anifrolumab systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) trial programme, there was one trial (TULIP-1) in which BILAG-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) responses favoured anifrolumab over placebo, but the SLE Responder Index (SRI(4)) treatment difference was not significant. We investigated the degree of concordance between BICLA and SRI(4) across anifrolumab trials in order to better understand drivers of discrepant SLE trial results. METHODS: TULIP-1, TULIP-2 (both phase 3) and MUSE (phase 2b) were randomised, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg every 4 weeks, 48 weeks; TULIP-1/TULIP-2: n=180; MUSE: n=99) or placebo (TULIP-1: n=184, TULIP-2: n=182; MUSE: n=102). Week 52 BICLA and SRI(4) outcomes were assessed for each patient. RESULTS: Most patients (78%-85%) had concordant BICLA and SRI(4) outcomes (Cohen's Kappa 0.6-0.7, nominal p<0.001). Dual BICLA/SRI(4) response rates favoured anifrolumab over placebo in TULIP-1, TULIP-2 and MUSE (all nominal p≤0.004). A discordant TULIP-1 BICLA non-responder/SRI(4) responder subgroup was identified (40/364, 11% of TULIP-1 population), comprising more patients receiving placebo (n=28) than anifrolumab (n=12). In this subgroup, placebo-treated patients had lower baseline disease activity, joint counts and glucocorticoid tapering rates, and more placebo-treated patients had arthritis response than anifrolumab-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Across trials, most patients had concordant BICLA/SRI(4) outcomes and dual BICLA/SRI(4) responses favoured anifrolumab. A BICLA non-responder/SRI(4) responder subgroup was identified where imbalances of key factors driving the BICLA/SRI(4) discordance (disease activity, glucocorticoid taper) disproportionately favoured the TULIP-1 placebo group. Careful attention to baseline disease activity and monitoring glucocorticoid taper variation will be essential in future SLE trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02446912 and NCT02446899.

Anifrolumab efficacy and safety by type I interferon gene signature and clinical subgroups in patients with SLE: post hoc analysis of pooled data from two phase III trials.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) according to interferon gene signature (IFNGS), demographic and clinical subgroups. METHODS: We performed post hoc analyses of pooled data from the 52-week phase III TULIP-1/TULIP-2 placebo-controlled trials of intravenous anifrolumab in moderate-to-severe SLE. Outcomes were assessed in predefined subgroups: IFNGS (high/low), age, sex, body mass index, race, geographic region, age of onset, glucocorticoid use, disease activity and serological markers. RESULTS: In pooled data, patients received anifrolumab 300 mg (360/726) or placebo (366/726); 82.6% were IFNGS-high. IFNGS-high patients had greater baseline disease activity and were more likely to have abnormal serological markers versus IFNGS-low patients. In the total population, a greater proportion of patients treated with anifrolumab versus placebo achieved British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response at week 52 (difference 16.6%; nominal p<0.001). BICLA response treatment differences with anifrolumab versus placebo were comparable to the total population across most predefined subgroups, including subgroups for baseline glucocorticoid dosage (<10/≥10 mg/day prednisone/equivalent) and for clinical disease activity (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 score <10/≥10). Subgroups with larger treatment differences included IFNGS-high patients (18.2%), patients with abnormal baseline serological markers (23.1%) and Asian patients (29.2%). The safety profile of anifrolumab was similar across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study supports the consistent efficacy and safety of anifrolumab across a range of patients with moderate-to-severe SLE. In a few subgroups, small sample sizes limited conclusions from being drawn regarding the treatment benefit with anifrolumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02446912, NCT02446899.

Phase 3, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, an anti-interleukin-12/23 p40 antibody, in a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled study of patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) despite receiving standard-of-care. METHODS: Active SLE patients (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) ≥6 during screening and SLEDAI-2K ≥4 for clinical features at week 0) despite receiving oral glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or immunomodulatory drugs were randomised (3:2) to receive ustekinumab (intravenous infusion ~6 mg/kg at week 0, followed by subcutaneous injections of ustekinumab 90 mg at week 8 and every 8 weeks) or placebo through week 48. The primary endpoint was SLE Responder Index (SRI)-4 at week 52, and major secondary endpoints included time to flare through week 52 and SRI-4 at week 24. RESULTS: At baseline, 516 patients were randomised to placebo (n=208) or ustekinumab (n=308). Following the planned interim analysis, the sponsor discontinued the study due to lack of efficacy but no safety concerns. Efficacy analyses included 289 patients (placebo, n=116; ustekinumab, n=173) who completed or would have had a week 52 visit at study discontinuation. At week 52, 44% of ustekinumab patients and 56% of placebo patients had an SRI-4 response; there were no appreciable differences between the treatment groups in the major secondary endpoints. Through week 52, 28% of ustekinumab patients and 32% of placebo patients had a British Isles Lupus Assessment Group flare, with a mean time to first flare of 204.7 and 200.4 days, respectively. Through week 52, 70% of ustekinumab patients and 74% of placebo patients had ≥1 adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Ustekinumab did not demonstrate superiority over placebo in this population of adults with active SLE; adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of ustekinumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03517722.

Regarding Arthroscopy: Can Orthopedists and Rheumatologists Be Friends?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Rheumatologists' interest in arthroscopy began before the 1980s, when many era practitioners began to take up the procedure in earnest. Some of the important players in pre-World War II explorations of arthroscopy were rheumatologists, and the father of modern arthroscopy Makei Watanabe counted many rheumatologists among his postwar students, who were publishing about arthroscopic insights into rheumatic conditions in the 1960s and 1970s. We chose to review this evolution to demonstrate the diverging interests of rheumatologists and orthopedists in arthroscopy and emphasize the chances for reconciliation and cooperation. Methods involve our personal recollection and review of the literature. RESULTS: Guidelines for the practice of arthroscopy were published by the American Rheumatism Association (now the American College of Rheumatology) 7 years before similar guidelines appeared from the Arthroscopy Association of North America. American rheumatologists ceased arthroscopy when controlled trials showed no effect in osteoarthritis beyond placebo and biologics for synovitis virtually eliminated situations in which synovectomy might be considered. The research potential of arthroscopy has been realized mainly by European rheumatologists, although the ultrasound-guided biopsy is supplanting arthroscopy as means to secure synovium for investigation, despite the advantages of the latter, such as the ability to obtain larger amounts of tissue, select tissue based on macroscopic appearance, sample multiple area in the same joint, and deliver the potentially therapeutic effect of washout. New miniscopes suitable for office use could restore some of the lagging interest in arthroscopy for investigation. Orthopedists have generally been resistant to rheumatologists doing arthroscopy but would not be sharing any turf with rheumatologists using the miniscope. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that we orthopedists and rheumatologists could be friends as we enter this new phase of arthroscopy as we use the technique for different purposes.

Arthroscopy in rheumatology: where have we been? Where might we go?

The aim of our manuscript is to illustrate the past, present and future role of rheumatologists performing arthroscopy. Doctors first began adapting endoscopes to inspect joints to assess synovial conditions that concern rheumatologists. Rheumatologists were among the pioneers developing arthroscopy. Students of the father of modern arthroscopy, Watanabe, included rheumatologists, who taught others once home. Rheumatologists assessed the intra-articular features of their common diseases in the 60s and 70s. Improvements in instrumentation and efforts by a few orthopaedists adapted a number of common joint surgical procedures for arthroscopy. Interest from rheumatologists in arthroscopy grew in the 90s with 'needle scopes' used in an office setting. Rheumatologists conducting the first prospective questioning arthroscopic debridement in OA and developing biological compounds reduced the call for arthroscopic interventions. The arthroscope has proven an excellent tool for viewing and sampling synovium, which continues to at several international centres. Some OA features-such as calcinosis-beg further arthroscopic investigation. A new generation of 'needle scopes' with far superior optics awaits future investigators.

Neuropsychiatric events in systemic lupus erythematosus: a longitudinal analysis of outcomes in an international inception cohort using a multistate model approach.

OBJECTIVES: Using a reversible multistate model, we prospectively examined neuropsychiatric (NP) events for attribution, outcome and association with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), in an international, inception cohort of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients. METHODS: Annual assessments for 19 NP events attributed to SLE and non-SLE causes, physician determination of outcome and patient HRQoL (short-form (SF)-36 scores) were measured. Time-to-event analysis and multistate modelling examined the onset, recurrence and transition between NP states. RESULTS: NP events occurred in 955/1827 (52.3%) patients and 592/1910 (31.0%) unique events were attributed to SLE. In the first 2 years of follow-up the relative risk (95% CI) for SLE NP events was 6.16 (4.96, 7.66) and non-SLE events was 4.66 (4.01, 5.43) compared with thereafter. Patients without SLE NP events at initial assessment had a 74% probability of being event free at 10 years. For non-SLE NP events the estimate was 48%. The majority of NP events resolved over 10 years but mortality was higher in patients with NP events attributed to SLE (16%) versus patients with no NPSLE events (6%) while the rate was comparable in patients with non-SLE NP events (7%) compared with patients with no non-SLE events (6%). Patients with NP events had lower SF-36 summary scores compared with those without NP events and resolved NP states (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: NP events occur most frequently around the diagnosis of SLE. Although the majority of events resolve they are associated with reduced HRQoL and excess mortality. Multistate modelling is well suited for the assessment of NP events in SLE.

Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels predict damage accrual in patients with recent-onset systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: The soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) has potential as a prognosis and severity biomarker in several inflammatory and infectious diseases. In a previous cross-sectional study, suPAR levels were shown to reflect damage accrual in cases of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Herein, we evaluated suPAR as a predictor of future organ damage in recent-onset SLE. METHODS: Included were 344 patients from the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) Inception Cohort who met the 1997 American College of Rheumatology classification criteria with 5-years of follow-up data available. Baseline sera from patients and age- and sex-matched controls were assayed for suPAR. Organ damage was assessed annually using the SLICC/ACR damage index (SDI). RESULTS: The levels of suPAR were higher in patients who accrued damage, particularly those with SDI≥2 at 5 years (N = 32, 46.8% increase, p = 0.004), as compared to patients without damage. Logistic regression analysis revealed a significant impact of suPAR on SDI outcome (SDI≥2; OR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.03-1.26), also after adjustment for confounding factors. In an optimized logistic regression to predict damage, suPAR persisted as a predictor, together with baseline disease activity (SLEDAI-2K), age, and non-Caucasian ethnicity (model AUC = 0.77). Dissecting SDI into organ systems revealed higher suPAR levels in patients who developed musculoskeletal damage (SDI≥1; p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Prognostic biomarkers identify patients who are at risk of acquiring early damage and therefore need careful observation and targeted treatment strategies. Overall, suPAR constitutes an interesting biomarker for patient stratification and for identifying SLE patients who are at risk of acquiring organ damage during the first 5 years of disease.

Baricitinib for systemic lupus erythematosus: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have substantial unmet medical need. Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor that we hypothesised might have therapeutic benefit in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, 24-week phase 2 study, patients were recruited from 78 centres in 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus, and had active disease involving skin or joints. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib 2 mg, baricitinib 4 mg, or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving resolution of arthritis or rash at week 24, as defined by Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index-2000 (SLEDAI-2K). Efficacy and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02708095. FINDINGS: Between March 24, 2016, and April 27, 2017, 314 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n=105), baricitinib 2 mg (n=105), or baricitinib 4 mg (n=104). At week 24, resolution of SLEDAI-2K arthritis or rash was achieved by 70 (67%) of 104 patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg (odds ratio [OR] vs placebo 1·8, 95% CI 1·0-3·3; p=0·0414) and 61 (58%) of 105 patients receiving baricitinib 2 mg (OR 1·3, 0·7-2·3; p=0·39). Adverse events were reported in 68 (65%) patients in the placebo group, 75 (71%) patients in the baricitinib 2 mg group, and 76 (73%) patients in the baricitinib 4 mg group. Serious adverse events were reported in ten (10%) patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg, 11 (10%) receiving baricitinib 2 mg, and five (5%) receiving placebo; no deaths were reported. Serious infections were reported in six (6%) patients with baricitinib 4 mg, two (2%) with baricitinib 2 mg, and one (1%) with placebo. INTERPRETATION: The baricitinib 4 mg dose, but not the 2 mg dose, significantly improved the signs and symptoms of active systemic lupus erythematosus in patients who were not adequately controlled despite standard of care therapy, with a safety profile consistent with previous studies of baricitinib. This study provides the foundation for future phase 3 trials of JAK1/2 inhibition with baricitinib as a new potential oral therapy for systemic lupus erythematosus. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Use of combined hormonal contraceptives among women with systemic lupus erythematosus with and without medical contraindications to oestrogen.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in reproductive-age women with SLE with and without possible contraindications and to determine factors associated with their use in the presence of possible contraindications. METHODS: This observational cohort study included premenopausal women ages 18-45 years enrolled in the SLICC Registry ⩽15 months after SLE onset, with annual assessments spanning 2000-2017. World Health Organization Category 3 or 4 contraindications to CHCs (e.g. hypertension, aPL) were assessed at each study visit. High disease activity (SLEDAI score >12 or use of >0.5 mg/kg/day of prednisone) was considered a relative contraindication. RESULTS: A total of 927 SLE women contributed 6315 visits, of which 3811 (60%) occurred in the presence of one or more possible contraindication to CHCs. Women used CHCs during 512 (8%) visits, of which 281 (55%) took place in the setting of one or more possible contraindication. The most frequently observed contraindications were aPL (52%), hypertension (34%) and migraine with aura (22%). Women with one or more contraindication were slightly less likely to be taking CHCs [7% of visits (95% CI 7, 8)] than women with no contraindications [9% (95% CI 8, 10)]. CONCLUSION: CHC use was low compared with general population estimates (>35%) and more than half of CHC users had at least one possible contraindication. Many yet unmeasured factors, including patient preferences, may have contributed to these observations. Further work should also aim to clarify outcomes associated with this exposure.

Phase III trial results with blisibimod, a selective inhibitor of B-cell activating factor, in subjects with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Targeted inhibitors of B-cell activating factor (BAFF) have been evaluated in phase III trials in over 4000 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Post hoc analyses of these studies identify greater treatment effect in patients entering with higher disease activity, greater corticosteroid doses, anti double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) and low complement C3 or C4. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of blisibimod, a BAFF inhibitor, in a population of patients with SLE enriched for high disease activity. METHODS: 442 patients with SLE with antinuclear antibodies or anti-dsDNA and Safety of Estrogen in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment - Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI) score ≥10 on standard-of-care medications were randomised to receive weekly subcutaneous blisibimod (200 mg) or placebo. Corticosteroid taper was encouraged from week 8. The primary end point was the week 52 SLE Responder Index-6 (SRI-6). RESULTS: The SRI-6 primary end point was not met. There was a statistically significant steroid-sparing effect, and significantly more blisibimod-treated subjects achieved corticosteroid taper. Increased blisibimod treatment effect on SRI-6 was observed in subjects who achieved a concomitant decrease in corticosteroid dose from baseline. In subjects with baseline urinary protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) ≥56.5 mg/mmol, significantly higher proportions of blisibimod subjects achieved >50% reduction in UPCR and/or UPCR <56.5 mg/mmol. Reductions in SLE autoantibodies and B cells, and increases in complement C3 and C4 were observed with blisibimod.Blisibimod was well-tolerated. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, injection site erythema/reaction and diarrhoea. CONCLUSIONS: Although the SRI-6 end point was not met, blisibimod was associated with successful steroid reduction, decreased proteinuria and biomarker responses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01395745.

Clinical trial parameters that influence outcomes in lupus trials that use the systemic lupus erythematosus responder index.

Objective: The SLE Responder Index (SRI) is a composite endpoint used in SLE trials. This investigation examined the clinical trial elements that drive response measured by the SRI. Methods: Analyses are based on data from two phase 3 trials (n = 2262) that evaluated the impact of an anti-B-cell activating factor antibody on disease activity using SRI-5 as the primary endpoint (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01196091 and NCT01205438). Results: The SRI-5 response rate at week 52 for all patients was 32.8%. Non-response due to a lack of SLEDAI improvement, concomitant medication non-compliance or dropout was 31, 16.5 and 19.1%, respectively. Non-response due to deterioration in BILAG or Physician's Global Assessment after SLEDAI improvement, concomitant medication compliance and trial completion was 0.5%. Disease activity in three SLEDAI organ systems was highly prevalent at baseline: mucocutaneous, 90.6%; musculoskeletal, 82.9%; and immunologic, 71.6%. Disease activity in each of the other organ systems was <11% of patients. Four clinical manifestations were highly prevalent at baseline: arthritis, 82.6%; rash, 69.2%; alopecia, 58.2%; and mucosal ulcer, 32.5%. The combined prevalence of renal, vascular and CNS disease at baseline was 17.6%; these patients had high SRI-5 response rates. Adjustments to corticosteroids were allowed during the first 24 weeks. Increases in corticosteroids above 2.5 mg/day were observed in 16.2% of placebo patients over the first 24 weeks after randomization. Conclusion: The primary drivers of SRI-5 response were SLEDAI improvement, concomitant medication adherence and trial completion. Arthritis, rash, alopecia and mucosal ulcer were the most prevalent clinical manifestations at baseline. Corticosteroid increases and rare, highly weighted disease manifestations in SLEDAI can confound the SRI signal.

Glucocorticoid use and factors associated with variability in this use in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Inception Cohort.

Objectives: To describe glucocorticoid (GC) use in the SLICC inception cohort and to explore factors associated with GC use. In particular we aimed to assess temporal trends in GC use and to what extent physician-related factors may influence use. Methods: Patients were recruited within 15 months of diagnosis of SLE from 33 centres between 1999 and 2011 and continue to be reviewed annually. Descriptive statistics were used to detail oral and parenteral GC use. Cross sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed to explore factors associated with GC use at enrolment and over time. Results: We studied 1700 patients with a mean (s.d.) follow-up duration of 7.26 (3.82) years. Over the entire study period, 1365 (81.3%) patients received oral GCs and 447 (26.3%) received parenteral GCs at some point. GC use was strongly associated with treatment centre, age, race/ethnicity, sex, disease duration and disease activity. There was no change in the proportion of patients on GCs or the average doses of GC used over time according to year of diagnosis. Conclusion: GCs remain a cornerstone in SLE management and there have been no significant changes in their use over the past 10-15 years. While patient and disease factors contribute to the variation in GC use, between-centre differences suggest that physician-related factors also contribute. Evidence-based treatment algorithms are needed to inform a more standardized approach to GC use in SLE.

Current advances in therapies for osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although osteoarthritis (OA) has received a paucity of attention from researchers in terms of drug development, there have been some significant findings relevant to clinical issues in OA that are summarized in this review. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent osteoarthritis research has focused on synovial, subchondral bone, and biomechanical effects of the disease. Results from a pilot study of patients treated with methotrexate demonstrated 20% pain reduction in 50% of patients and 40% pain reduction in 37% of patients. Data show that plasma levels of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist and synovial fluid levels of interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha associate with radiographic progression, suggesting that these mediators may be prognostic biomarkers and/or targets for drug development. Recent data suggest that subchondral bone features associate with structural progression, suggesting a need for therapeutic approaches that target this region. Patient-reported outcome measures and kinematic factors may predict success to an exercise treatment protocol and unloader braces appear to reduce the knee adduction moment, suggesting a need for a comprehensive review of the clinical effects of braces. SUMMARY: Advances in the understanding of key areas of osteoarthritis pathogenesis are helping define the spectrum of therapeutic targets that potentially should be explored to reduce the symptomatic and structural effects of osteoarthritis.

A Phase II study of the efficacy and safety of rontalizumab (rhuMAb interferon-α) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (ROSE).

OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety and efficacy of rontalizumab, a humanised IgG1 anti-interferon α (anti-IFN-α) monoclonal antibody, in patients with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Patients with active SLE were randomised (2:1) to 750 mg intravenous rontalizumab every 4 weeks or placebo (Part 1), and 300 mg subcutaneous rontalizumab every 2 weeks or placebo (Part 2). BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and corticosteroids were allowed. Patients taking immunosuppressants at baseline were required per protocol to discontinue. Efficacy end points included reduction in disease activity by British Isles Lupus Disease Activity Group (BILAG)-2004 (primary), and SLE response index (SRI, secondary) at Week 24. Efficacy was also examined by an exploratory measure of IFN-regulated gene expression (interferon signature metric, ISM). RESULTS: Patients (n=238) received rontalizumab (n=159) or placebo (n=79). At baseline, the mean Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment version of the SLE Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI) score in all cohorts was ~10, and 75.6% of patients had a high ISM (ISM-High). Efficacy response rates by BILAG and SRI were similar between rontalizumab and placebo groups. However, in the exploratory subgroup of ISM-Low patients, SRI response was higher and steroid use was lower in the rontalizumab-treated patients. There was also a reduction in SELENA-SLEDAI flare index rates (HR 0.61, 0.46 to 0.81, p=0.004) in this subgroup. Adverse events were similar between placebo and rontalizumab groups. CONCLUSIONS: The primary and secondary end points of this trial were not met in all patients or in patients with high ISM scores. In an exploratory analysis, rontalizumab treatment was associated with improvements in disease activity, reduced flares and decreased steroid use in patients with SLE with low ISM scores. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00962832.