Disease activity and widespread pain are main contributors to patient-reported global health in axial spondyloarthritis: an analysis of 6064 patients.

Global health (GH) and health-related quality of life are patient priorities in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Our objective was to assess the relative importance of disease-related factors including disease activity, and patient-related factors including comorbidities, to explain GH in axSpA. Post hoc cross-sectional analyses of 4 sets (COMOSPA, PERSPA, COMEDSPA, and DESIR) of patients fulfilling ASAS criteria for axSpA. GH was assessed through the ASAS Health Index (ASAS-HI) or the EuroQoL-5D-3L (EQ-5D). Disease-related factors included disease activity (ASDAS, psoriasis, arthritis, enthesitis, and CRP), disease duration, diagnostic delay, bamboo spine, and treatment. Non-disease-related factors included sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities and chronic widespread pain. Multivariable logistic and linear regressions and partial variances (R2) were applied to identify independent determinants of GH. In 6064 patients (range 284-2756 across datasets), mean age ranged 38.9-45.8 years, 51-68% were male. GH was generally moderate: median ASAS-HI ranged 5.0-7.0. GH was explained by ASDAS (range of odds ratios, OR, 2.60-4.48) and chronic widespread pain (range of OR 2.19-8.39); other determinants included comorbidities and sociodemographic characteristics. Only 47-57% of the total variance in GH could be explained by the models; disease activity (partial variance, 16-26%) and chronic widespread pain (partial variance 12-15%) were the key contributing variables. A wide range of disease and non-disease-related variables usually collected in studies could only explain 47-57% of the variability in GH. Among these, disease activity and chronic widespread pain were most relevant and of similar magnitude of importance. These findings will be helpful for shared decision-making.

Why most (but perhaps not all) DMARDs work equally well.

Biological- or targeted-synthetic DMARD-responses reported in randomized clinical trials, placebo-controlled or head-to-head, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis or spondyloarthritis are unbelievably similar, when looking across trials performed in the same disease and applying the same primary outcome measures. The exception to this rule may be the response to Janus-kinase-inhibitors, which seem to work 10 % better in all trials (JAK-bonus) This article provides a potential explanation for this remarkable phenomenon, including an explanation for the JAK-bonus. It seems as if JAK-inhibitors exert some inflammation-independent effects on pain, fatigue and wellbeing, and that drug treatment of rheumatic diseases is more than the inhibition of inflammation alone.

Goodbye to the term 'ankylosing spondylitis', hello 'axial spondyloarthritis': time to embrace the ASAS-defined nomenclature.

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is the historic term used for decades for the HLA-B27-associated inflammatory disease affecting mainly the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) and spine. Classification criteria for AS have radiographic sacroiliitis as a dominant characteristic. However, with the availability of MRI of SIJ, it could be demonstrated that the disease starts long before definite SIJ changes become visible on radiographs. The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society, representing a worldwide group of experts reached consensus on changes in the nomenclature pertaining to axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), such as the terminology of diagnosis and of assessment of disease activity tools. These are important changes in the field, as experts in axSpA are now in agreement that the term axSpA is the overall term for the disease. A further differentiation, of which radiographic versus non-radiographic is only one aspect, may be relevant for research purposes. Another important decision was that the terms AS and radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) can be used interchangeably, but that the preferred term is r-axSpA. Based on the decision that axSpA is the correct terminology, a proposal was made to officially change the meaning of the ASDAS acronym to 'Axial Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Score'. In addition, for simplification it was proposed that the term ASDAS (instead of ASDAS-CRP) should be preferred and applied to the ASDAS calculated with C reactive protein (CRP). It is hoped that these changes will be used consequently for education, in textbooks, manuscripts and presentations.

Organ involvement and assessment in sarcoidosis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In recent years new recommendations have been published about organ assessment in the diagnosis of sarcoidosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Screening for pulmonary, cardiac, ocular, neurologic and renal involvement and hypercalcemia is recommended in the work-up for sarcoidosis, additionally, screening for hypercalciuria at the time of the diagnosis might be beneficial. SUMMARY: One of the goals in the work-up of sarcoidosis is to assess the extent and severity of organ involvement. Timely and accurate assessment leads to determination of treatment indication. Screening for pulmonary involvement should include pulmonary imaging and pulmonary function tests. Screening for cardiac involvement should include a clear history including palpitations and collapse and a baseline electrocardiogram or 24-h Holter monitoring. At diagnosis, ophthalmological assessment is recommended. Furthermore, serum calcium level and serum creatinine level should be obtained. Although routine 24-h urinary calcium excretion is not included in the guidelines, performing this test routinely can be considered. On indication, neurologic, rheumatologic or dermatologic assessment can be performed.

Single dose tocilizumab for COVID-19 associated cytokine storm syndrome: Less is more.

AIMS: We aim to evaluate the clinical pharmacokinetics of a single dose interleukin-6 (IL-6) antibody tocilizumab (TCZ) in methylprednisolone (MP)-treated COVID-19 patients with cytokine storm syndrome (CSS). METHODS: MP pre-treated patients with COVID-19-associated CSS, defined as at least two elevations of C-reactive protein (CRP) >100 mg/L, ferritin >900 µg/L or D-dimers >1500 µg/L, received intravenous TCZ (8 mg/kg, max. 800 mg) upon clinical deterioration. A nonlinear-mixed effects model was developed based on TCZ serum concentrations and dosing information. Population pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated and concentration-time profiles were plotted against individual predicted values. Fixed dose simulations were subsequently performed based on the final model. RESULTS: In total 40 patients (mean [SD] age: 62 [12] years, 20% female, body weight: 87 [17] kg) with COVID-19 induced CSS were evaluated on pharmacokinetics and laboratory parameters. A biphasic elimination of TCZ serum concentration was described by a homogeneous population pharmacokinetic model. Serum TCZ concentrations above the 1 µg/L target saturation threshold were covered for 16 days in all evaluated patients treated with a single dose of 8 mg/kg. In a simulation with TCZ 400 mg fixed dose, this condition of full IL-6 receptor occupancy at minimum serum concentration was also met. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose (8 mg/kg, max. 800 mg) is sufficient to cover a period of 16 days of IL-6-mediated hyperinflammation in COVID-19-induced CSS in MP-treated patients. Based on body weight PK simulations, a fixed-dose tocilizumab of 400 mg should be considered to prevent overtreatment, future drug shortage and unnecessary drug expenditure.

The added value of predictive biomarkers in treat-to-target strategies for rheumatoid arthritis patients: a conceptual modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the additional value of a hypothetical biomarker predicting response to treatment for RA regarding efficacy and costs by using a modelling design. METHODS: A Markov model was built comparing a usual care T2T strategy with a biomarker-steered strategy for RA patients starting biologic therapy. Outcome measures include time spent in remission or low disease activity (LDA) and costs. Four additional scenario analyses were performed by varying biomarker or clinical care characteristics: (i) costs of the biomarker; (ii) sensitivity and specificity of the biomarker; (iii) proportion of eligible patients tapering; and (iv) medication costs. RESULTS: In the base model, patients spent 2.9 months extra in LDA or remission in the biomarker strategy compared with usual care T2T over 48 months. Total costs were €43 301 and €42 568 for, respectively, the usual care and biomarker strategy, and treatment costs accounted for 91% of total costs in both scenarios. Cost savings were driven due to patients in the biomarker strategy experiencing remission or LDA earlier, and starting tapering sooner. Cost-effectiveness was not so much driven by costs or test characteristics of the biomarker (scenario 1/2), but rather by the level of early and proactive tapering and drug costs (scenarios 3/4). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a biomarker for prediction of response to b/tsDMARD treatment in RA can be of added value to current treat-to-target clinical care. However, gains in efficacy are modest and cost gains are depending on a combination of early proactive tapering and high medication costs.

Controversies in rheumatology: telemedicine-friend or foe?

Telemedicine is increasingly used in rheumatology. While telemedicine guaranteed care of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is now increasingly used to facilitate triage of patients, monitoring of disease activity, and patients' education. In addition, tele-visits as well as remote physio- and psychotherapy are replacing traditional face-to-face contacts between patients and their healthcare provider. While this may save resources in a world in which the gap between the demand and the provision of healthcare increases, there is also a danger of losing essential information, for example by non-verbal communication, that can only be retrieved during face-to-face contact in the office. In addition, it may be challenging to build a trusting relationship between patients and healthcare professionals by virtual means only. Globally acting companies that see market opportunities already amply offer 'simple' technical solutions for telemedicine. While such solutions may seem (economically) interesting at first glance, there is a risk of monopolization, leaving the most valuable parts of healthcare to a small number of profit-seeking companies. In this article, the opportunities and threats of telemedicine in rheumatology are debated. A possible way forward is to complement traditional face-to-face visits with information gained by telemedicine, in order to render these consultations more efficient rather than replacing personal contact by technology.

Efficacy of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on efficacy of DMARDs (disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) and inform the taskforce of the 2022 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This systematic literature review (SLR) investigated the efficacy of conventional synthetic (cs), biological (b), biosimilar and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs in patients with RA. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science were used to identify all relevant articles published since the previous update in 2019 to 14 January 2022. RESULTS: Of 8969 search results, 169 articles were selected for detailed review and 47 were finally included. Trials investigated the efficacy of csDMARDs, bDMARDs and tsDMARDs, DMARD switching, tapering and trials investigating different treatment strategies. The compounds investigated were csDMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), bDMARDs (abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, denosumab, etanercept, infliximab, levilimab, olokizumab, opineracept, rituximab, sarilumab, tocilizumab) and tsDMARDs (baricitinib, filgotinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib). The efficacy of csDMARDs+ short-term glucocorticoids in early RA was confirmed and similar to bDMARD+MTX combination therapy. Interleukin-6 pathway inhibition was effective in trials on olokizumab and levilimab. Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) was efficacious in different patient populations. After insufficient response to JAKi, patients could respond to TNFi treatment. Tapering of DMARDs was feasible for a proportion of patients, who were able to taper therapy while remaining in low disease activity or remission. CONCLUSION: The results of this SLR, together with one SLR on safety of DMARD and one on glucocorticoids, informed the taskforce of the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for pharmacological management of RA.

Efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

This systematic literature review (SLR) regarding the efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids (GCs), was performed to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Studies on GC efficacy were identified from a separate search on the efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). A combined search was performed for the duration of use and safety of GCs in RA patients. Dose-defined and time-defined GC treatment of any dose and duration (excluding intra-articular GCs) prescribed in combination with other DMARDs were considered. Results are presented descriptively. Two included studies confirmed the efficacy of GC bridging as initial therapy, with equal efficacy after 2 years of initial doses of 30 mg/day compared with 60 mg/day prednisone. Based on a recently performed SLR, in clinical trials most patients starting initial GC bridging are able to stop GCs within 12 (22% patients continued on GCs) to 24 months (10% patients continued on GCs). The safety search included 12 RCTs and 21 observational studies. Well-known safety risks of GC use were confirmed, including an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, serious infections, diabetes and mortality. Data on cardiovascular outcomes were Inconsistent. Overall, safety risks increased with increasing dose and/or duration, but evidence on which dose is safe was conflicting. In conclusion, this SLR has confirmed the efficacy of GCs in the treatment of RA. In clinical trials, most patients have shown to be able to stop GCs within 12-24 months. Well-known safety risks of GC use have been confirmed, but with heterogeneity between studies.

Efficacy and safety of biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the ASAS-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on efficacy and safety of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) to inform the 2022 update of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ASAS-EULAR) recommendations for the management of axSpA. METHODS: Systematic literature review (2016-2021) on efficacy and safety of bDMARDs in axSpA (radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA)/non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA)). Eligible study designs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), strategy trials and observational studies (the latter only for safety and extra-musculoskeletal manifestations). All relevant efficacy/safety outcomes were included. RESULTS: In total, 148 publications were included. Efficacy of golimumab and certolizumab was confirmed. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilar-originator equivalence was demonstrated. RCT (n=15) data on efficacy of interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) demonstrated clinically relevant effects (risk ratio vs placebo to achieve ASAS40 response 1.3-15.3 (r-axSpA, n=9), 1.4-2.1 (nr-axSpA, n=2)). Efficacy of secukinumab/ixekizumab was demonstrated in TNFi-naïve and TNFi-inadequate responders. IL-23 and IL-12/23 inhibitors (risankizumab/ustekinumab) failed to show relevant benefits. Tapering of TNFi by spacing was non-inferior to standard-dose treatment. The first axSpA treat-to-target trial did not meet its primary endpoint, but showed improvements in secondary outcomes. No new risks were identified with TNFi use in observational studies (data lacking for IL-17i). Secukinumab (n=1) and etanercept (n=2) were associated with increased risk of uveitis in observational studies compared to monoclonal TNFi. CONCLUSIONS: New evidence supports the efficacy and safety of TNFi (originators/biosimilars) and IL-17i in r-axSpA and nr-axSpA, while IL-23i failed to show relevant effects. Observational studies are needed to confirm long-term IL-17i safety. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021257588.

ASAS-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis: 2022 update.

OBJECTIVES: To update the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Following the EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, two systematic literature reviews were conducted on non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment of axSpA. In a task force meeting, the evidence was presented, discussed, and overarching principles and recommendations were updated, followed by voting. RESULTS: Five overarching principles and 15 recommendations with a focus on personalised medicine were agreed: eight remained unchanged from the previous recommendations; three with minor edits on nomenclature; two with relevant updates (#9, 12); two newly formulated (#10, 11). The first five recommendations focus on treatment target and monitoring, non-pharmacological management and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-choice pharmacological treatment. Recommendations 6-8 deal with analgesics and discourage long-term glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for pure axial involvement. Recommendation 9 describes the indication of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs, that is, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i)) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs, ie, Janus kinase inhibitors) for patients who have Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score ≥2.1 and failed ≥2 NSAIDs and also have either elevated C reactive protein, MRI inflammation of sacroiliac joints or radiographic sacroiliitis. Current practice is to start a TNFi or IL-17i. Recommendation 10 addresses extramusculoskeletal manifestations with TNF monoclonal antibodies preferred for recurrent uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease, and IL-17i for significant psoriasis. Treatment failure should prompt re-evaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities (#11). If active axSpA is confirmed, switching to another b/tsDMARD is recommended (#12). Tapering, rather than immediate discontinuation of a bDMARD, can be considered in patients in sustained remission (#13). The last recommendations (#14, 15) deal with surgery and spinal fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The 2022 ASAS-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA.

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.

Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) concerning the safety of synthetic(s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: SLR of observational studies comparing safety outcomes of any DMARD with another intervention in RA. A comparator group was required for inclusion. For treatments yet without, or limited, registry data, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were used. RESULTS: Fifty-nine observational studies addressed the safety of DMARDs. Two studies (unclear risk of bias (RoB)) showed an increased risk of serious infections with bDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs. Herpes zoster infections occurred more with JAKi than csDMARDs (adjusted HR (aHR): 3.66) and bDMARDs (aHR: 1.9-2.3) (four studies, two low RoB). The risk of malignancies was similar across bDMARDs (five studies) and with tofacitinib compared with bDMARDs (one study, low RoB). The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was similar with bDMARDs and tofacitinib (two studies, one low RoB). Thirty studies reported safety from RCTs, with one, designed to evaluate safety, showing that malignancies (HR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.04 to 2.09)) and MACE (HR (95% CI): 1.33 (0.91 to 1.94)) occurred numerically more frequently with tofacitinib (5 mg and 10 mg doses combined) than with TNFi in patients with cardiovascular risk factors. In this study, the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg than with TNFi. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of bDMARDs was further demonstrated. Whether the difference in incidence of malignancies, MACE and VTE between tofacitinib and TNFi applies to other JAKi needs further evaluation.

Instrument selection for the ASAS core outcome set for axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To define the instruments for the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology (ASAS-OMERACT) core domain set for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: An international working group representing key stakeholders selected the core outcome instruments following a predefined process: (1) identifying candidate instruments using a systematic literature review; (2) reducing the list of candidate instruments by the working group, (3) assessing the instruments' psychometric properties following OMERACT filter 2.2, (4) selection of the core instruments by the working group and (5) voting and endorsement by ASAS. RESULTS: The updated core set for axSpA includes seven instruments for the domains that are mandatory for all trials: Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score and Numerical Rate Scale (NRS) patient global assessment of disease activity, NRS total back pain, average NRS of duration and severity of morning stiffness, NRS fatigue, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Function Index and ASAS Health Index. There are 9 additional instruments considered mandatory for disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) trials: MRI activity Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) sacroiliac joints and SPARCC spine, uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis assessed as recommended by ASAS, 44 swollen joint count, Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score, dactylitis count and modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score. The imaging outcomes are considered mandatory to be included in at least one trial for a drug tested for properties of DMARD. Furthermore, 11 additional instruments were also endorsed by ASAS, which can be used in axSpA trials on top of the core instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of the instruments for the ASAS-OMERACT core domain set completes the update of the core outcome set for axSpA, which should be used in all trials.