Predictors of serious infections in rheumatoid arthritis-a prospective Brazilian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Infections increase mortality and morbidity and often limit immunosuppressive treatment in rheumatoid arthritis patients. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the occurrence of serious infections and the associated factors in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients under real-life conditions. METHODS: We analyzed data from the REAL, a prospective observational study, that evaluated Brazilian RA patients, with clinical and laboratory data collected over a year. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed from the adjustment of the logistic regression model Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with the primary outcome being the occurrence of serious infection, defined as need for hospitalization or use of intravenous antibiotics for its treatment. RESULTS: 841 patients were included with an average follow-up time of 11.2 months (SD 2.4). Eighty-nine serious infections occurred, corresponding to 13 infections per 100 patient-years. Pulmonary fibrosis, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and central nervous system disease increased the chances of serious infection by 3.2 times (95% CI: 1.5-6.9), 3.6 times (95% CI: 1.2-10.4) and 2.4 times (95% CI: 1.2-5.0), respectively. The use of corticosteroids in moderate doses increased the chances by 5.4 times (95% CI: 2.3-12.4), and for each increase of 1 unit in the health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), the chance increased 60% (95% CI: 20-120%). CONCLUSION: The use of corticosteroids at moderate doses increased the risk of serious infection in RA patients. Reduced functionality assessed by the HAQ and comorbidities were other important factors associated with serious infection in this cohort.

Extra-articular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis remain a major challenge: data from a large, multi-centric cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Although Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) extra-articular manifestations (ExtRA) occurrence has been decreasing over time, they are still a major mortality risk factor for patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of ExtRA in a large cohort, and its association with demographic and clinical variables. METHOD: Cross-sectional and observational study, based on a multi-centric database from a prospective cohort, in which 11 public rheumatology centres enrolled RA patients (1987 ARA or 2010 ACR-EULAR). Data collection began in 08-2015, using a single online electronic medical record. Continuous variables were compared using Mann-Whitney U-test, and Fisher's exact test or chi-square test, as appropriate, were used for categorical variables. The level of significance was set at 5% (p < 0.05). RESULTS: 1115 patients were included: 89% women, age [mean ± SD] 58.2 ± 11.5 years, disease duration 14.5 ± 12.2 years, positive Rheumatoid Factor (RF, n = 1108) in 77%, positive anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (ACPA, n = 477) in 78%. Regarding ExtRA, 334 occurrences were registered in 261 patients, resulting in an overall prevalence of 23.4% in the cohort. The comparison among ExtRA and Non-ExtRA groups shows significant higher age (p < 0.001), disease duration (p < 0.001), RF high titers (p = 0.018), Clinical Disease Activity index (CDAI) (p < 0.001), Disease Activity Index 28 (DAS 28) (p < 0.001), and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (p < 0.001) in ExtRA group. Treatment with Azathioprine (p = 0.002), Etanercept (p = 0.049) Glucocorticoids (GC) ('p = 0.002), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (p < 0.001) were more frequent in ExtRA group. CONCLUSIONS: ExtRA manifestations still show an expressive occurrence that should not be underestimated. Our findings reinforce that long-term seropositive disease, associated with significant disability and persistent inflammatory activity are the key factors related to ExtRA development.

Do it fast! Early access to specialized care improved long-term outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: data from the REAL multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) offers an opportunity for better treatment outcomes. In real-life settings, grasping this opportunity might depend on access to specialized care. We evaluated the effects of early versus late assessment by the rheumatologist on the diagnosis, treatment initiation and long-term outcomes of RA under real-life conditions. METHODS: Adults meeting the ACR/EULAR (2010) or ARA (1987) criteria for RA were included. Structured interviews were conducted. The specialized assessment was deemed "early" when the rheumatologist was the first or second physician consulted after symptoms onset, and "late" when performed afterwards. Delays in RA diagnosis and treatment were inquired. Disease activity (DAS28-CRP) and physical function (HAQ-DI) were evaluated. Student's t, Mann-Whitney U, chi-squared and correlation tests, and multiple linear regression were performed. For sensitivity analysis, a propensity score-matched subsample of early- vs. late-assessed participants was derived based on logistic regression. The study received ethical approval; all participants signed informed consent. RESULTS: We included 1057 participants (89.4% female, 56.5% white); mean (SD) age: 56.9 (11.5) years; disease duration: 173.1 (114.5) months. Median (IQR) delays from symptoms onset to both RA diagnosis and initial treatment coincided: 12 (6-36) months, with no significant delay between diagnosis and treatment. Most participants (64.6%) first sought a general practitioner. Notwithstanding, 80.7% had the diagnosis established only by the rheumatologist. Only a minority (28.7%) attained early RA treatment (≤ 6 months of symptoms). Diagnostic and treatment delays were strongly correlated (rho 0.816; p < 0.001). The chances of missing early treatment more than doubled when the assessment by the rheumatologist was belated (OR 2.77; 95% CI: 1.93, 3.97). After long disease duration, late-assessed participants still presented lower chances of remission/low disease activity (OR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.99), while the early-assessed ones showed better DAS28-CRP and HAQ-DI scores (difference in means [95% CI]: -0.25 [-0.46, -0.04] and - 0.196 [-0.306, -0.087] respectively). The results in the propensity-score matched subsample confirmed those observed in the original (whole) sample. CONCLUSIONS: Early diagnosis and treatment initiation in patients with RA was critically dependent on early access to the rheumatologist; late specialized assessment was associated with worse long-term clinical outcomes.

Decreasing delays in the diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Brazil: a nationwide multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Management delays imply worse outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and, therefore, should be minimized. We evaluated changes in diagnostic and treatment delays regarding RA in the last decades in Brazil. METHODS: Adults fulfilling the ACR/EULAR (2010) criteria for RA were assessed. Delays in diagnosis and treatment, and the frequencies of early management initiation within thresholds (windows of opportunity) of 3, 6, and 12 months from symptoms onset were evaluated. The Mann-Kendall trend test, chi-squared tests with Cramer's V effect sizes and analysis of variance were conducted. RESULTS: We included 1116 patients: 89.4% female, 56.8% white, mean (SD) age 57.1 (11.5) years. A downward trend was found in diagnostic (tau = - 0.677, p < 0.001) and treatment (tau = - 0.695, p < 0.001) delays from 1990 to 2015. The frequency of early management increased throughout the period, with ascending effect sizes across the 3-, 6-, and 12-month windows (V = 0.120, 0.200 and 0.261, respectively). Despite all improvements, even in recent years (2011-2015) the diagnostic and treatment delays still remained unacceptably high [median (IQR): 8 (4-12) and 11 (5-17) months, respectively], with only 17.2% of the patients treated within the shortest, 3-month window. CONCLUSION: The delays in diagnosis and treatment of RA decreased during the last decades in Brazil. Improvements (effect sizes) were greater at eliminating extreme delays (≥ 12 months) than in attaining really short management windows (≤ 3 months). Very early treatment was still an unrealistic goal for most patients with RA.

Safety of upadacitinib in Latin American patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an integrated safety analysis of the SELECT phase 3 clinical program.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by ongoing inflammation and degradation of synovial joints. The oral JAK inhibitor, upadacitinib, is approved for RA. We conducted an integrated safety analysis of upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (QD) in patients from Latin America (LATAM) versus the rest of the world (RoW). METHODS: Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and laboratory data from six phase 3, randomized controlled trials, adjusted for upadacitinib 15 mg QD use in RA, were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 3209 patients received upadacitinib 15 mg QD for 7024 patient-years (PY). LATAM patients (n = 725) had a mean upadacitinib exposure of 1518 PY. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between LATAM and RoW populations. AE rates (including serious/opportunistic infections, tuberculosis, and herpes zoster) and deaths were comparable between populations. LATAM patients had lower serious AE rates per 100 PY (9.4 vs 14.0 E/100 PY) and discontinuation-related AEs (3.9 vs 6.0 E/100 PY) versus RoW. Rates of cardiovascular events were low (≤ 0.5 E/100 PY) and similar between populations. Malignancies, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, were less common in the LATAM population versus RoW (0.2 vs 1.0 E/100 PY). Laboratory abnormalities were similar between populations, with decreases in hemoglobin, lymphocyte, and neutrophil counts, and elevations in liver enzymes and creatine phosphokinase. Mean change from baseline in low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was generally comparable between LATAM and RoW populations. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib 15 mg QD demonstrated a consistent safety profile across LATAM and RoW patient populations, with no new safety risks observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: SELECT-EARLY, NCT02706873; SELECT-NEXT, NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE, NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND, NCT02706847; SELECT-CHOICE, NCT03086343.

Extra-articular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis remain a major challenge: data from a large, multi-centric cohort

Abstract Introduction Although Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) extra-articular manifestations (ExtRA) occurrence has been decreasing over time, they are still a major mortality risk factor for patients. Objective To determine the prevalence of ExtRA in a large cohort, and its association with demographic and clinical variables. Method Cross-sectional and observational study, based on a multi-centric database from a prospective cohort, in which 11 public rheumatology centres enrolled RA patients (1987 ARA or 2010 ACR-EULAR). Data collection began in 08-2015, using a single online electronic medical record. Continuous variables were compared using Mann-Whit-ney U-test, and Fisher's exact test or chi-square test, as appropriate, were used for categorical variables. The level of significance was set at 5% (p < 0.05). Results 1115 patients were included: 89% women, age [mean ± SD] 58.2 ± 11.5 years, disease duration 14.5 ± 12.2 years, positive Rheumatoid Factor (RF, n = 1108) in 77%, positive anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (ACPA, n = 477) in 78%. Regarding ExtRA, 334 occurrences were registered in 261 patients, resulting in an overall prevalence of 23.4% in the cohort. The comparison among ExtRA and Non-ExtRA groups shows significant higher age (p < 0.001), disease duration (p < 0.001), RF high titers (p = 0.018), Clinical Disease Activity index (CDAI) (p < 0.001), Disease Activity Index 28 (DAS 28) (p < 0.001), and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (p < 0.001) in ExtRA group. Treatment with Azathioprine (p = 0.002), Etanercept (p = 0.049) Glucocorticoids (GC) ('p = 0.002), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (p < 0.001) were more frequent in ExtRA group. Conclusions ExtRA manifestations still show an expressive occurrence that should not be underestimated. Our findings reinforce that long-term seropositive disease, associated with significant disability and persistent inflammatory activity are the key factors related to ExtRA development.

Do it fast! Early access to specialized care improved long-term outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: data from the REAL multicenter observational study

Abstract Background Early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) offers an opportunity for better treatment outcomes. In real-life settings, grasping this opportunity might depend on access to specialized care. We evaluated the effects of early versus late assessment by the rheumatologist on the diagnosis, treatment initiation and long-term outcomes of RA under real-life conditions. Methods Adults meeting the ACR/EULAR (2010) or ARA (1987) criteria for RA were included. Structured interviews were conducted. The specialized assessment was deemed "early" when the rheumatologist was the first or second physician consulted after symptoms onset, and "late" when performed afterwards. Delays in RA diagnosis and treatment were inquired. Disease activity (DAS28-CRP) and physical function (HAQ-DI) were evaluated. Student's t, Mann-Whitney U, chi-squared and correlation tests, and multiple linear regression were performed. For sensitivity analysis, a propensity score-matched subsample of early- vs. late-assessed participants was derived based on logistic regression. The study received ethical approval; all participants signed informed consent. Results We included 1057 participants (89.4% female, 56.5% white); mean (SD) age: 56.9 (11.5) years; disease duration: 173.1 (114.5) months. Median (IQR) delays from symptoms onset to both RA diagnosis and initial treatment coincided: 12 (6-36) months, with no significant delay between diagnosis and treatment. Most participants (64.6%) first sought a general practitioner. Notwithstanding, 80.7% had the diagnosis established only by the rheumatologist. Only a minority (28.7%) attained early RA treatment (≤ 6 months of symptoms). Diagnostic and treatment delays were strongly correlated (rho 0.816; p < 0.001). The chances of missing early treatment more than doubled when the assessment by the rheumatologist was belated (OR 2.77; 95% CI: 1.93, 3.97). After long disease duration, late-assessed participants still presented lower chances of remission/low disease activity (OR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.99), while the early-assessed ones showed better DAS28-CRP and HAQ-DI scores (difference in means [95% CI]: −0.25 [−0.46, −0.04] and − 0.196 [−0.306, −0.087] respectively). The results in the propensity-score matched subsample confirmed those observed in the original (whole) sample. Conclusions Early diagnosis and treatment initiation in patients with RA was critically dependent on early access to the rheumatologist; late specialized assessment was associated with worse long-term clinical outcomes.

Decreasing delays in the diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Brazil: a nationwide multicenter observational study

Abstract Background Management delays imply worse outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and, therefore, should be minimized. We evaluated changes in diagnostic and treatment delays regarding RA in the last decades in Brazil. Methods Adults fulfilling the ACR/EULAR (2010) criteria for RA were assessed. Delays in diagnosis and treatment, and the frequencies of early management initiation within thresholds (windows of opportunity) of 3, 6, and 12 months from symptoms onset were evaluated. The Mann-Kendall trend test, chi-squared tests with Cramer's V effect sizes and analysis of variance were conducted. Results We included 1116 patients: 89.4% female, 56.8% white, mean (SD) age 57.1 (11.5) years. A downward trend was found in diagnostic (tau = - 0.677, p < 0.001) and treatment (tau = - 0.695, p < 0.001) delays from 1990 to 2015. The frequency of early management increased throughout the period, with ascending effect sizes across the 3-, 6-, and 12-month windows (V = 0.120, 0.200 and 0.261, respectively). Despite all improvements, even in recent years (2011-2015) the diagnostic and treatment delays still remained unacceptably high [median (IQR): 8 (4-12) and 11 (5-17) months, respectively], with only 17.2% of the patients treated within the shortest, 3-month window. Conclusion The delays in diagnosis and treatment of RA decreased during the last decades in Brazil. Improvements (effect sizes) were greater at eliminating extreme delays (≥ 12 months) than in attaining really short management windows (≤ 3 months). Very early treatment was still an unrealistic goal for most patients with RA.

Comparison of rheumatoid arthritis composite disease activity indices and residual activity in a Brazilian multicenter study- REAL study.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) composite disease activity indices have become handy tools in daily clinical practice and crucial in defining remission or low disease activity, the main target of the RA treatment. However, there is no definition of the best index to assess disease activity in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To compare the residual activity among the indices with the ACR/EULAR remission criteria (Boolean method) to identify the most feasible for assessing remission in daily practice, also considering correlation and concordance, sensibility, and specificity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We selected 1116 patients with established RA from the real-life rheumatoid arthritis study database-REAL. The composite disease activity indices-DAS28-ESR, DAS28-CRP, SDAI, and CDAI-and their components were compared to the Boolean method to identify residual activity using binomial regression. The indices were analyzed for correlation and agreement using the Spearman index and weighted kappa. The chi-square test evaluated sensibility and specificity for remission based on the Boolean method. RESULTS: DAS28-CRP overestimated remission and confirmed higher residual activity than SDAI and CDAI. The indices showed good correlation and agreement, with a better relationship between SDAI and CDAI (k:0,88). CDAI and SDAI showed higher sensitivity and specificity for remission based on the Boolean method. CDAI was performed in 99% of patients, while DAS28 and SDAI were completed in approximately 85%. CONCLUSIONS: Although all composite indices of activity can be used in clinical practice and showed good agreement, CDAI and SDAI have better performance in evaluating remission based on the Boolean method, showing less residual activity and higher sensibility and specificity. In addition, CDAI seems to be more feasible for disease activity evaluation in daily clinical practice, especially in developing countries.

Performance of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index in the Assessment of Disease Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis-Findings From the REAL Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Although telemedicine use has been under discussion for decades, this topic has gained unprecedented importance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI) is a user-friendly tool, fully self-administered, to assess rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of RADAI with other disease activity indices, functional status, and inflammatory markers in a large cohort of RA patients. METHODS: We assessed the concurrent validity of RADAI against Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints-C-reactive protein, Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Simplified Disease Activity Index, and physician assessment of disease activity and the correlation of RADAI with Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index and inflammatory markers at the REAL Study baseline. We also evaluated the correlation of the change in RADAI and the change in CDAI over a 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: From the 1115 patients included in the REAL Study, 1113 had RADAI scores in the first assessment. At baseline, correlations between RADAI and other disease activity indices were strong, ranging from 0.64 (comparison with physician assessment) to 0.79 (comparison with CDAI). Correlation between the change in RADAI score over the 6 months of follow-up and the change in CDAI score over the same period was moderate/strong for the overall group and within the stratified analyses. CONCLUSION: The strong correlation of RADAI with other well-established tools for disease activity measurement reassures its use with RA patients' follow-up, especially in this new era of telemedicine.

Upadacitinib in patients from China, Brazil, and South Korea with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional therapy.

AIM: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib (UPA), in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), in Chinese, Brazilian, and South Korean patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response (IR) to csDMARDs. METHODS: Patients on stable csDMARDs were randomized (1:1) to once-daily UPA 15 mg or matching placebo (PBO) for a 12-week, double-blind period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: In total, 338 patients were randomized and treated, of whom 310 (91.7%) completed the double-blind phase. The study met the primary endpoint of ACR20 at week 12 for UPA 15 mg vs PBO (71.6% vs 31.4%, P < .001), with a treatment difference observed as early as week 1. All ranked and other key secondary endpoints, including more stringent responses such as ACR50, ACR70 (≥50%/70% improvement in ACR criteria), and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein <2.6, were met for UPA 15 mg vs PBO. The incidence of serious infections (2.4% vs 0.6%) and herpes zoster (HZ: 1.8% vs 0.6%) was higher with UPA 15 mg vs PBO. There was one case of venous thromboembolism reported in the UPA group. CONCLUSION: UPA 15 mg in combination with csDMARDs demonstrated clinical and functional improvement and an acceptable safety profile over 12 weeks among patients from China, Brazil, and South Korea who had moderately to severely active RA and an IR to csDMARDs.

Cardiovascular risk comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis patients and the use of anti-rheumatic drugs: a cross-sectional real-life study.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common autoimmune systemic inflammatory disease. In addition to joint involvement, RA patients frequently have other comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases. Drugs used for RA treatment may increase or decrease the risk of a cardiovascular event. This study aims to analyze cardiovascular risk comorbidities in patients with RA and the correlation with the use of anti-rheumatic drugs. METHODS: Cross-sectional study conducted based on the real-life rheumatoid arthritis study database - REAL, a prospective observational cohort study. Associations between the use of anti-rheumatic drugs and the presence of comorbidities were represented by their prevalence ratio and evaluated using the Chi-square or Fisher's Exact tests. RESULTS: We assessed 1116 patients, 89.4% women, mean age of 55.15 years and predominance of seropositive disease. 63.3% had some cardiovascular comorbidity, predominantly hypertension (49.9%). The use of glucocorticoids was observed in 47.4% of patients and there was a significant tendency of lower use of these drugs in the presence of dyslipidemia (PR: 0.790; p = 0.007). We observed that the presence of cardiovascular comorbidities was associated with higher use of bDMARDs (PR:1.147; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of cardiovascular risk comorbidities was confirmed to be higher in RA patients. Different treatment strategies using less glucocorticoids in the presence of dyslipidemia and more common use of bDMARDs in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities suggest that rheumatologists are aware of the potential influence of the DMARDs in the risk of cardiovascular event. Reinforcing these results, we highlight the need for a better baseline assessment to guide the choice of anti-rheumatic drugs in RA patients who have comorbidities.

Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: an update of Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (2020).

The Brazilian guidelines for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis were updated and important topics were included such as assessment of risk fracture using FRAX Brazil, use of denosumab, and also recommendations for the use of glucocorticoid pulse therapy and inhaled glucocortiocoid. INTRODUCTION: Glucocorticoids (GCs) are used in almost all medical specialties and the incidences of vertebral/nonvertebral fractures range from 30 to 50% in individuals treated with GCs for over 3 months. Thus, osteoporosis and frailty fractures should be prevented and treated in patients initiating treatment or already being treated with GCs. The Committee for Osteoporosis and Bone Metabolic Disorders of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (BSR) established in 2012 the Brazilian Guidelines for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO). Herein, we provide a comprehensive update of the original guidelines based on improved available scientific evidence and/or expert experience. METHODS: From March to June 2020, the Osteoporosis Committee of the BRS had meetings to update the questions presented in the first consensus (2012). Thus, twenty-six questions considered essential for the preparation of the recommendations were selected. A systematic literature review based on real-life scenarios was undertaken to answer the proposed questions. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases were searched using specific search keywords. RESULTS: Based on the review and expert opinion, the recommendations were updated for each of the 26 questions. We included 48 new bibliographic references that became available after the date of the publication of the first version of the consensus. CONCLUSION: We updated the Brazilian guidelines for the prevention/treatment of GIO. New topics were added in this update, such as the assessment of risk fracture using FRAX Brazil, the use of denosumab, and approaches for the treatment of children and adolescents. Furthermore, we included recommendations for the use of inhaled GCs and GC pulse therapy in clinical settings.

Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with a new formulation of a fixed-dose combination of glucosamine sulfate and bovine chondroitin: a multicenter, randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of a new formulation of a fixed dose combination of glucosamine sulfate (GS; 1500 mg) and bovine chondroitin sulfate (CS; 1200 mg) versus the reference product (RP) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, single-blind trial, 627 patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA)-Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3 and mean score ≥ 40 mm in the WOMAC pain subscale-were randomized to receive GS/CS or the RP for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in WOMAC pain subscale score. The secondary endpoints included the following: WOMAC total and subscale scores, overall assessment of the disease by the patient and the investigator, SF-12 score, OMERACT-OARSI response rate to the treatment, and rescue medication use. RESULTS: Mean reductions of WOMAC pain score were - 35.1 (sd = 23.2) mm in the GS/CS group and - 36.5 (sd = 24.9) mm in the RP group. The difference between the adjusted means of both treatments confirmed the non-inferiority of GS/CS versus the RP. Improvement was observed in pain, stiffness, physical function and total WOMAC score, as well as in overall OA assessment by the patient and the investigator for both groups. No improvement was observed in SF-12. The rate of OMERACT-OARSI responders was 89.4% in GS/CS group and 87.9% in the RP group. Headache and changes in glucose tolerance were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The new formulation of a fixed-dose combination of glucosamine sulfate and bovine chondroitin sulfate was non-inferior to the RP in symptomatic treatment of knee OA, with a high responder rate and good tolerability profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; Registration number NCT02830919 ; Date of registration: July 13, 2016; First randomization date: December 05, 2016).

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

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

High Levels of Polypharmacy in Rheumatoid Arthritis-A Challenge Not Covered by Current Management Recommendations: Data From a Large Real-Life Study.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with high frequency of comorbidities and increased risk of polypharmacy. Although there is a great potential for complications, there is a gap in literature on polypharmacy in patients with rheumatic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and factors associated with polypharmacy in a population in a real-life setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional multicenter study was conducted in Brazil. Patients underwent clinical evaluation and medical records analysis. Polypharmacy was considered as a dependent variable. To test independent variables, we used Poisson regression. RESULTS: We evaluated 792 patients (89% female, median age 56.6 years). Median duration of disease was 12.7 years, 78.73% had a positive rheumatoid factor. The median of disease activity score-28 was 3.5 (disease with mild activity), median of the clinical disease activity index score was 9, and median of health assessment questionnaire-disability index was 0.875; 47% used corticosteroids, 9.1% used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 90.9% used synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, 35.7% used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). In total, 537 (67.9%) patients used 5 or more drugs. Polypharmacy showed a relationship with a number of comorbidities and use of specific drugs (corticosteroids, methotrexate, and biological DMARDs). CONCLUSION: We found a high prevalence of polypharmacy (67.9%) in RA. Solutions to management this problem should be stimulated.

Real-life data of survival and reasons for discontinuation of biological disease-modifying drugs 'in' rheumatoid arthritis.

Background Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic, autoimmune disease in which treatment has evolved with a variety of therapeutic classes. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have improved therapy; however, the continued long-term use of these drugs with sustained safety and efficacy remains a challenge. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to analyze time of use and reasons for discontinuation of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.SettingIt is as part of REAL (Rheumatoid Arthritis in Real Life), a multicenter project that evaluated Brazilian patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real-life setting. Eleven referral centers for the treatment in the public network participated in the study.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data collected in the REAL study from August to October 2015 study. The patients were submitted to clinical evaluation and analysis of medical records.Results1125 patients were included (89.5% women; median age: 56.6 years; and disease time: 12.8 years). A total of 406 (36.09%) participants were on a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Infliximab was the drug with the longest time of use (12 years). Most (64.4%) drug suspension episodes were due to inefficacy. Adalimumab and certolizumab had a greater number of suspensions due to primary inefficacy, while discontinuations for abatacept were due more to secondary inefficacy. Infliximab had fewer suspensions due to primary inefficacy and golimumab had fewer episodes of secondary inefficacy. Regarding side effects, infliximab was suspended a greater number of times because of clinical and laboratory side effects. Abatacept and adalimumab had fewer suspensions due to clinical side effects, and certolizumab, rituximab and tocilizumab had fewer laboratory adverse effects. Conclusion Among the biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs being used for long periods, infliximab had greater time of use. Most drug suspensions (64%) were due to primary or secondary inefficacy. Number of discontinuations due to clinical and laboratory adverse effects for each drug was analyzed, and these data should be confirmed by other real-life studies. Knowledge of what is happening in real life is essential to health professionals, who need to be aware of the most common adverse effects and to health managers, who aim for greater cost-effectiveness in the choice of medications.

Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with a new formulation of a fixed-dose combination of glucosamine sulfate and bovine chondroitin: a multicenter, randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial

Abstract Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of a new formulation of a fixed dose combination of glucosamine sulfate (GS; 1500 mg) and bovine chondroitin sulfate (CS; 1200 mg) versus the reference product (RP) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, single-blind trial, 627 patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA)—Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3 and mean score ≥ 40 mm in the WOMAC pain subscale—were randomized to receive GS/ CS or the RP for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in WOMAC pain subscale score. The secondary endpoints included the following: WOMAC total and subscale scores, overall assessment of the disease by the patient and the investigator, SF-12 score, OMERACT-OARSI response rate to the treatment, and rescue medication use. Results: Mean reductions of WOMAC pain score were - 35.1 (sd = 23.2) mm in the GS/CS group and - 36.5 (sd = 24.9) mm in the RP group. The difference between the adjusted means of both treatments confirmed the noninferiority of GS/CS versus the RP. Improvement was observed in pain, stiffness, physical function and total WOMAC score, as well as in overall OA assessment by the patient and the investigator for both groups. No improvement was observed in SF-12. The rate of OMERACT-OARSI responders was 89.4% in GS/CS group and 87.9% in the RP group. Headache and changes in glucose tolerance were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events. Conclusions: The new formulation of a fixed-dose combination of glucosamine sulfate and bovine chondroitin sulfate was non-inferior to the RP in symptomatic treatment of knee OA, with a high responder rate and good tolerability profile. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; Registration number NCT02830919; Date of registration: July 13, 2016; First randomization date: December 05, 2016).(AU)

Cardiovascular risk comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis patients and the use of anti-rheumatic drugs: a cross-sectional real- life study

Abstract Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common autoimmune systemic inflammatory disease. In addition to joint involvement, RA patients frequently have other comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases. Drugs used for RA treatment may increase or decrease the risk of a cardiovascular event. This study aims to analyze cardiovascular risk comorbidities in patients with RA and the correlation with the use of anti-rheumatic drugs. Methods: Cross-sectional study conducted based on the real-life rheumatoid arthritis study database - REAL, a prospective observational cohort study. Associations between the use of anti-rheumatic drugs and the presence of comorbidities were represented by their prevalence ratio and evaluated using the Chi-square or Fisher's Exact tests. Results: We assessed 1116 patients, 89.4% women, mean age of 55.15 years and predominance of seropositive disease. 63.3% had some cardiovascular comorbidity, predominantly hypertension (49.9%). The use of glucocorticoids was observed in 47.4% of patients and there was a significant tendency of lower use of these drugs in the presence of dyslipidemia (PR: 0.790; p = 0.007). We observed that the presence of cardiovascular comorbidities was associated with higher use of bDMARDs (PR:1.147; p = 0.003). Conclusions: The presence of cardiovascular risk comorbidities was confirmed to be higher in RA patients. Different treatment strategies using less glucocorticoids in the presence of dyslipidemia and more common use of bDMARDs in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities suggest that rheumatologists are aware of the potential influence of the DMARDs in the risk of cardiovascular event. Reinforcing these results, we highlight the need for a better baseline assessment to guide the choice of anti-rheumatic drugs in RA patients who have comorbidities.

A comparative study of PF-06438179/GP1111 (an infliximab biosimilar) and reference infliximab in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis: A subgroup analysis.

AIM: PF-06438179/GP1111 (PF-SZ-IFX) is a biosimilar of reference infliximab (Remicade® ). This analysis compared the efficacy of PF-SZ-IFX and reference infliximab sourced from the European Union (IFX-EU) in patient subgroups from a randomized, comparative study of PF-SZ-IFX versus IFX-EU. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were randomized 1:1 to PF-SZ-IFX (n = 324) or IFX-EU (n = 326); study drug (3 mg/kg) was administered intravenously at weeks 0, 2, and 6, then every 8 weeks thereafter. Subgroup analyses of efficacy endpoints such as American College of Rheumatology criteria for ≥20% clinical improvement (ACR20), change in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, four components based on hs-CRP (DAS28-CRP) at weeks 14 and 30 were performed by age, gender, race, region, immunogenicity status, and treatment history. RESULTS: Overall, ACR20 response rates as well as changes in DAS28-CRP and hs-CRP at week 14 were similar between PF-SZ-IFX and IFX-EU within the subgroups of age, gender, race, region, treatment history, and immunogenicity status. Results to week 30 support overall similarity in efficacy between the two treatment arms in all subgroups. CONCLUSION: Overall, PF-SZ-IFX and IFX-EU were similar in efficacy within the analyzed subgroups of age, gender, race, region, treatment history, and immunogenicity status. The efficacy results from these subgroup analyses were aligned with the previously described results for the overall population up to week 30.