Sarilumab for Relapse of Polymyalgia Rheumatica during Glucocorticoid Taper.

BACKGROUND: More than half of patients with polymyalgia rheumatica have a relapse during tapering of glucocorticoid therapy. Previous studies have suggested that interleukin-6 blockade may be clinically useful in the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica. Sarilumab, a human monoclonal antibody, binds interleukin-6 receptor α and efficiently blocks the interleukin-6 pathway. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive 52 weeks of a twice-monthly subcutaneous injection of either sarilumab (at a dose of 200 mg) plus a 14-week prednisone taper or placebo plus a 52-week prednisone taper. The primary outcome at 52 weeks was sustained remission, which was defined as the resolution of signs and symptoms of polymyalgia rheumatica by week 12 and sustained normalization of the C-reactive protein level, absence of disease flare, and adherence to the prednisone taper from weeks 12 through 52. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients underwent randomization (60 to receive sarilumab and 58 to receive placebo). At week 52, sustained remission occurred in 28% (17 of 60 patients) in the sarilumab group and in 10% (6 of 58 patients) in the placebo group (difference, 18 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 4 to 32; P = 0.02). The median cumulative glucocorticoid dose at 52 weeks was significantly lower in the sarilumab group than in the placebo group (777 mg vs. 2044 mg; P<0.001). The most common adverse events with sarilumab as compared with placebo were neutropenia (15% vs. 0%), arthralgia (15% vs. 5%), and diarrhea (12% vs. 2%). More treatment-related discontinuations were observed in the sarilumab group than in the placebo group (12% vs. 7%). CONCLUSIONS: Sarilumab showed significant efficacy in achieving sustained remission and reducing the cumulative glucocorticoid dose in patients with a relapse of polymyalgia rheumatica during glucocorticoid tapering. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; SAPHYR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03600818.).

Abatacept inhibits inflammation and onset of rheumatoid arthritis in individuals at high risk (ARIAA): a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and subclinical inflammatory changes in joints are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment strategies to intercept this pre-stage clinical disease remain to be developed. We aimed to assess whether 6-month treatment with abatacept improves inflammation in preclinical rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: The abatacept reversing subclinical inflammation as measured by MRI in ACPA positive arthralgia (ARIAA) study is a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 14 hospitals and community centres across Europe (11 in Germany, two in Spain, and one in the Czech Republic). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with ACPA positivity, joint pain (but no swelling), and signs of osteitis, synovitis, or tenosynovitis in hand MRI were randomly assigned (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg or placebo for 6 months followed by a double-blind, drug-free, observation phase for 12 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with any reduction in inflammatory MRI lesions at 6 months. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants who were randomly assigned and received study medication. Safety analyses were conducted in participants who received the study medication and had at least one post-baseline observation. The study was registered with the EUDRA-CT (2014-000555-93). FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2014, and June 15, 2021, 139 participants were screened. Of 100 participants, 50 were randomly assigned to abatacept 125 mg and 50 to placebo. Two participants (one from each group) were excluded due to administration failure or refusing treatment; thus, 98 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 70 (71%) of 98 participants were female and 28 (29%) of 98 were male. At 6 months, 28 (57%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 15 (31%) of 49 participants in the placebo group showed improvement in MRI subclinical inflammation (absolute difference 26·5%, 95% CI 5·9-45·6; p=0·014). Four (8%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 17 (35%) of 49 participants in the placebo group developed rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·14 [0·04-0·47]; p=0·0016). Improvement of MRI inflammation (25 [51%] of 49 participants in the abatacept group, 12 [24%] of 49 in the placebo group; p=0·012) and progression to rheumatoid arthritis (17 [35%] of 49, 28 [57%] of 49; HR 0·14 [0·04-0·47]; p=0·018) remained significantly different between the two groups after 18 months, 12 months after the end of the intervention. There were 12 serious adverse events in 11 participants (four [8%] of 48 in the abatacept group and 7 [14%] of 49 in the placebo group). No deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: 6-month treatment with abatacept decreases MRI inflammation, clinical symptoms, and risk of rheumatoid arthritis development in participants at high risk. The effects of the intervention persist through a 1-year drug-free observation phase. FUNDING: Innovative Medicine Initiative.

Susceptibility to COVID-19 and Immunologic Response to Vaccination in Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases.

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are a highly heterogeneous group of diseases that share a common etiology of immune dysregulation, such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, among others. It is estimated that the prevalence of IMIDs ranges between 5% and 7% in developed countries. As current management of IMIDs includes the use of immunomodulatory medications, the resulting weakened immune response can increase the risk of infection, including with SARS-CoV-2 (the causative agent of COVID-19) and reduce response to vaccination, placing these individuals at continued risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. In this article, we summarize the current literature related to COVID-19 outcomes and the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among patients with rheumatologically dominated IMIDs, as well as the effect of immunomodulatory therapies on these outcomes. We conclude by providing current COVID-19 vaccination recommendations for individuals with IMID.

Trial of Upadacitinib or Abatacept in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as compared with abatacept, a T-cell costimulation modulator, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are unclear. METHODS: In this 24-week, phase 3, double-blind, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral upadacitinib (15 mg once daily) or intravenous abatacept, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the composite Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP; range, 0 to 9.4, with higher scores indicating more disease activity) at week 12, assessed for noninferiority. Key secondary end points at week 12 were the superiority of upadacitinib over abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the percentage of patients having clinical remission according to a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6. RESULTS: A total of 303 patients received upadacitinib, and 309 patients received abatacept. From baseline DAS28-CRP values of 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group, the mean change at week 12 was -2.52 and -2.00, respectively (difference, -0.52 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.69 to -0.35; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P<0.001 for superiority). The percentage of patients having remission was 30.0% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P<0.001 for superiority). During the treatment period, one death, one nonfatal stroke, and two venous thromboembolic events occurred in the upadacitinib group, and more patients in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group had elevated hepatic aminotransferase levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic DMARDs, upadacitinib was superior to abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the achievement of remission at week 12 but was associated with more serious adverse events. Longer and larger trials are required in order to determine the effect and safety of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Funded by AbbVie; SELECT-CHOICE Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03086343.).

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.

Consensus statement on blocking interleukin-6 receptor and interleukin-6 in inflammatory conditions: an update.

BACKGROUND: Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway. METHODS: A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document. RESULTS: The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers.

Comparison of drug retention of TNF inhibitors, other biologics and JAK inhibitors in RA patients who discontinued JAK inhibitor therapy.

OBJECTIVES: JAK Inhibitors (JAKi) are recommended DMARDs for patients with moderate-to-severe RA who failed first-line therapy with methotrexate. There is a lack of data allowing an evidence-based choice of subsequent DMARD therapy for patients who had discontinued JAKi treatment. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of TNF inhibitor (TNFi) therapy vs JAKi vs other mode of action (OMA) biologic DMARD (bDMARD) in RA patients who were previously treated with a JAKi. METHODS: RA patients who discontinued JAKi treatment within the Swiss RA registry SCQM were included for this observational prospective cohort study. The primary outcome was drug retention for either TNFi, OMA bDMARD or JAKi. The hazard ratio for treatment discontinuation was calculated adjusting for potential confounders. A descriptive analysis of the reasons for discontinuation was performed. RESULTS: Four hundred treatment courses of JAKi were included, with a subsequent switch to either JAKi, TNFi or OMA bDMARD. The crude overall drug retention was higher in patients switching to another JAKi as compared with TNFi and comparable to OMA. A significant difference of JAKi vs TNFi persisted after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: In a real-world population of RA patients who discontinued treatment with a JAKi, switching to another JAKi resulted in a higher drug retention than switching to a TNFi. A switch to a second JAKi seems an effective therapeutic option.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines as inducers of humoral response against apolipoprotein A-1?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 and some anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines trigger a humoral autoimmune response against a broad range of endogenous components, which may affect recipients' prognosis in predisposed individuals. Autoantibodies directed against apolipoprotein A-1 (AAA1 IgG) the major protein fraction of High Density Lipoprotein have been shown to be raised in COVID-19 and in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and other populations where they have been associated with poorer outcomes. We wanted to assess the impact of anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based vaccination on AAA1 autoimmune biomarkers in RA patients. METHODS: 20 healthy controls and 77 RA mRNA-based vaccinated patients were collected at baseline, 3 weeks after the first vaccination, 2 and 8 weeks after the second vaccination. AAA1 and SARS-CoV-2 serologies were measured by immunoassays. Systemic and local symptoms occurring during the vaccination protocol were recorded. RESULTS: mRNA-based vaccination induced a significant increase in median AAA1 IgG levels in both healthy controls and RA patients overtime. However, in both populations, these medians trend did not translate into significant increase in AAA1 IgG seropositivity rates despite evolving from 5 to 10% in healthy controls, and from 9 to 12.9% in RA patients. No associations were retrieved between AAA1 IgG and symptoms of any kind during the vaccination protocol. CONCLUSIONS: mRNA-based vaccination seems to induce a light AAA1 IgG response in immunocompetent individuals within 2 months after the last injection. Although we did not observe any warning signs, the formal demonstration of the harmlessness of such biological warrants further studies.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the disease course of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases: results from the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the transient reduction in rheumatology services imposed by virus containment measures during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with disease worsening in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Patient-reported disease activity assessed during face-to-face visits and/or via a smartphone application were compared between three periods of each 2 months duration (before, during and after the COVID-19-wave) from January to June 2020 in 666 patients with axSpA, RA and PsA in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort. RESULTS: The number of consultations dropped by 52%, whereas the number of remote assessments increased by 129%. The proportion of patients with drug non-compliance slightly increased during the pandemic, the difference reaching statistical significance in axSpA (19.9% vs 13.2% before the pandemic, p=0.003). The proportion of patients with disease flares remained stable (<15%). There was no increase in mean values of the Bath Ankylosing Disease Activity Index, the Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 and the Patient Global Assessment in patients with axSpA, RA and PsA, respectively. CONCLUSION: A short interruption of in-person patient-rheumatologist interactions had no major detrimental impact on the disease course of axSpA, RA and PsA as assessed by patient-reported outcomes.

Associations between serum antibodies to periodontal pathogens and preclinical phases of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether serum antibodies against selected periodontal pathogens are associated with early symptoms of RA development in healthy individuals at risk of developing the disease. METHODS: Within an ongoing study cohort of first-degree relatives of patients with RA (RA-FDRs), we selected four groups corresponding to specific preclinical phases of RA development (n = 201). (i) RA-FDR controls without signs and symptoms of arthritis nor RA-related autoimmunity (n = 51); (ii) RA-FDRs with RA-related autoimmunity (n = 51); (iii) RA-FDRs with inflammatory arthralgias without clinical arthritis (n = 51); and (iv) RA-FDRs who have presented at least one swollen joint ('unclassified arthritis') (n = 48). Groups were matched for smoking, age, sex and shared epitope status. The primary outcome was IgG serum levels against five selected periodontal pathogens and one commensal oral species assessed using validated-in-house ELISA assays. Associations between IgG measurements and preclinical phases of RA development were examined using Kruskal-Wallis or Mann-Whitney tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: None of the IgGs directed against individual periodontal pathogens significantly differed between the four groups of RA-FDRs. Further analyses of cumulated IgG levels into bacterial clusters representative of periodontal infections revealed significantly higher IgG titres against periodontopathogens in anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA)-positive RA-FDRs (P = 0.015). Current smoking displayed a marked trend towards reduced IgG titres against periodontopathogens. CONCLUSION: Our results do not suggest an association between serum IgG titres against individual periodontal pathogens and specific preclinical phases of RA development. However, associations between cumulative IgG titres against periodontopathogens and the presence of ACPAs suggest a synergistic contribution of periodontopathogens to ACPA development.

Effect of disease duration and other characteristics on efficacy outcomes in clinical trials of tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which disease duration, alone or in combination with other baseline clinical and non-clinical factors, explains variations in outcome of tocilizumab initiated in biologic-naïve patients with established RA. METHODS: In this pooled analysis of phase 3 and 4 clinical trials conducted by the sponsor, predictors of response, including demographics, disease characteristics at baseline (start of tocilizumab dosing) and study characteristics (e.g. patient inclusion criteria, tocilizumab dosing regimen) were evaluated. Response was measured as change from baseline to week 24 in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and HAQ-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores and as the proportions of patients who experienced ≥50% improvement based on ACR criteria (ACR50) and CDAI remission (≤2.8) rates at week 24. RESULTS: Improvements in all outcomes investigated were observed in patients receiving tocilizumab. Although disease duration was statistically significant in the models, it accounted for <2% of variation in CDAI and HAQ-DI score changes from baseline to week 24; baseline CDAI and HAQ-DI values accounted for 32% and 15% of variations, respectively. Doubling of disease duration reduced the odds of achieving an ACR50 response by only 9%, and each additional 5-year period of disease duration decreased the odds of achieving CDAI remission by only 15%. CONCLUSION: RA duration, alone or in combination with other baseline characteristics, had a statistically significant but clinically small effect on the outcomes of tocilizumab initiated in biologic-naïve patients with established RA.

Rituximab plus leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, investigator-initiated clinical trial (AMARA study).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of rituximab + LEF in patients with RA. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients with an inadequate response to LEF who had failed one or more DMARD were randomly assigned 2:1 to i.v. rituximab 1000 mg or placebo on day 1 and 15 plus ongoing oral LEF. The primary efficacy outcome was the difference between ≥50% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR50 response) rates at week 24 (P ≤ 0.025). Secondary endpoints included ACR20/70 responses, ACR50 responses at earlier timepoints and adverse event (AE) rates. The planned sample size was not achieved due to events beyond the investigators' control. RESULTS: Between 13 August 2010 and 28 January 2015, 140 patients received rituximab (n = 93) or placebo (n = 47) plus ongoing LEF. Rituximab + LEF resulted in an increase in the ACR50 response rate that was significant at week 16 (32 vs 15%; P = 0.020), but not week 24 (27 vs 15%; P = 0.081), the primary endpoint. Significant differences favouring the rituximab + LEF arm were observed in some secondary endpoints, including ACR20 rates from weeks 12 to 24. The rituximab and placebo arms had similar AE rates (71 vs 70%), but the rituximab arm had a higher rate of serious AEs (SAEs 20 vs 2%), primarily infections and musculoskeletal disorders. CONCLUSION: The primary endpoint was not reached, but rituximab + LEF demonstrated clinical benefits vs LEF in secondary endpoints. Although generally well tolerated, the combination was associated with additional SAEs and requires monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2009-015950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01244958.

Canakinumab for Treatment of Adult-Onset Still's Disease to Achieve Reduction of Arthritic Manifestation (CONSIDER): phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, investigator-initiated trial.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of interleukin (IL)-1 represents a promising treatment option in adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of canakinumab in patients with AOSD and active joint involvement by means of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: Patients with AOSD and active joint involvement (tender and swollen joint counts of ≥4 each) were treated with canakinumab (4 mg/kg, maximum 300 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant reduction in disease activity at week 12 as determined by the change in disease activity score (ΔDAS28>1.2). RESULTS: At enrolment, patients had high active disease with a mean DAS28(ESR) of 5.4 in the canakinumab and 5.3 in the placebo group, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 12 patients (67%) in the canakinumab group and 7 patients (41%) in the placebo group fulfilled the primary outcome criterion (p=0.18). In the per-protocol analysis, significantly higher American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 30% (61% vs 20%, p=0.033), ACR 50% (50% vs 6.7%, p=0.009) and ACR 70% (28% vs 0%, p=0.049) response rates were observed in the canakinumab group compared with the placebo group. Two patients in the canakinumab group experienced a serious adverse event. CONCLUSION: Although the study was terminated prematurely and the primary endpoint was not achieved, treatment with canakinumab led to an improvement of several outcome measures in AOSD. The overall safety findings were consistent with the known profile of canakinumab. Thus, our data support indication for IL-1 inhibition with canakinumab in AOSD.

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

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

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

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

Safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SELECT-BEYOND): a double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Phase 2 studies with upadacitinib, a selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, have shown safety and efficacy in the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. We did this study to further assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). METHODS: We did this double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 153 sites in 26 countries. Patients were aged 18 years or older, had active rheumatoid arthritis and previous inadequate response or intolerance to bDMARDs, and were receiving concomitant background conventional synthetic DMARDS (csDMARDs). We randomly assigned patients (2:2:1:1) by interactive response technology to receive once-daily oral extended-release upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg or placebo for 12 weeks, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg from week 12 onwards. The two separate primary endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12 and the proportion of patients achieving a 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) of 3·2 or less at week 12. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population of all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Data are presented up to week 24 of this ongoing study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02706847). FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2016, and Jan 10, 2017, 499 patients were randomly assigned (n=165 upadacitinib 15 mg; n=165 upadacitinib 30 mg; n=85 placebo then upadacitinib 15 mg; and n=84 placebo then upadacitinib 30 mg) and one patient was withdrawn from the 15 mg upadacitinib group before the start of study treatment. Mean disease duration was 13·2 years (SD 9·5); 235 (47%) of 498 patients had received one previous bDMARD, 137 (28%) had received two, and 125 (25%) had received at least three; 451 (91%) patients completed treatment up to week 12 and 419 (84%) patients completed treatment up to week 24. At week 12, ACR20 was achieved by 106 (65%; 95% CI 57-72) of 164 patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 93 (56%; 49-64) of 165 patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg compared with 48 (28%; 22-35) of 169 patients receiving placebo (p<0·0001 for each dose vs placebo). DAS28(CRP) of 3·2 or less was achieved by 71 (43%; 95% CI 36-51) of 164 patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 70 (42%; 35-50) of 165 patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg versus 24 (14%; 9-20) of 169 patients receiving placebo (p<0·0001 for each dose vs placebo). Up to week 12, overall numbers of patients with adverse events were similar for the placebo group (95 [56%] of 169) and the upadacitinib 15 mg group (91 [55%] of 164), but higher in the upadacitinib 30 mg group (111 [67%] of 165). At week 12, the most common adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients in any treatment group were upper respiratory tract infection (13 [8%] of 169 in the placebo group; 13 [8%] of 164 in the upadacitinib 15 mg group; ten [6%] of 165 in the upadacitinib 30 mg group), nasopharyngitis (11 [7%]; seven [4%]; nine [5%]), urinary tract infection (ten [6%]; 15 [9%]; nine [5%]), and worsening of rheumatoid arthritis (ten [6%]; four [2%]; six [4%]). The number of patients with serious adverse events was higher in the upadacitinib 30 mg group (12 [7%]) than in the upadacitinib 15 mg group (eight [5%]); no serious adverse events were reported in patients receiving placebo. More patients in the upadacitinib 30 mg group had serious infections, herpes zoster, and adverse events leading to discontinuation than in the upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo groups. During the placebo-controlled phase of the study, one case of pulmonary embolism, three malignancies, one major adverse cardiovascular event, and one death were reported in patients receiving upadacitinib; none were reported in patients receiving placebo. INTERPRETATION: Both doses of upadacitinib led to rapid and significant improvements compared with placebo over 12 weeks in patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis. FUNDING: AbbVie Inc.

Early and late responses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug inadequate responders and were treated with tocilizumab or switched to rituximab: an open-label phase 3 trial (MIRAI).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate early and late responses in biological-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating tocilizumab and early tocilizumab non-responders who switched to rituximab. METHODS: In this open-label, non-randomised phase 3 study, RA patients with inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs received tocilizumab 8 mg/kg intravenously at study begin and weeks 4, 8 and 12. After evaluation at week 16, early responders (Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] <2.6) completed the study; partial responders (DAS28-ESR decrease >1.2 or DAS28-ESR ≥2.6-≤3.2) were to continue tocilizumab through week 28; non-responders (DAS28-ESR decrease ≤1.2) switched to rituximab (1000 mg, weeks 16 and 18) with safety follow-up through week 66. RESULTS: Of 519 patients, 222 (42.8%) achieved early DAS28-ESR remission at week 16; 240 patients continued treatment, 213 (41.0%) received tocilizumab, and 27 (5.2%) switched to rituximab. At week 32 DAS28-ESR remission was achieved by 117/213 patients (54.9%) who continued tocilizumab and 4/27 patients (14.8%) who switched to rituximab; good EULAR response was achieved by 66.7% and 25.9% and CDAI remission by 19.2% and 14.8% of patients, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred through week 32 in 45/490 patients (9.2%) who received tocilizumab (serious infections, 2.7%) and through week 66 in 8/27 patients (29.6%) who switched to rituximab. CONCLUSIONS: Early response to tocilizumab was observed in 42.8% of patients. Half of early partial responders benefitted from continuing tocilizumab. Switching non-responders to rituximab seems feasible. No new safety signals were observed in patients treated with tocilizumab or switched to rituximab.

Tocilizumab combination therapy or monotherapy or methotrexate monotherapy in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomised, placebo-controlled FUNCTION trial.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate whether the efficacy and safety of intravenous tocilizumab (TCZ) demonstrated at week 52 in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are maintained to week 104. METHODS: Methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with early progressive RA were randomly assigned to double-blind 4 mg/kg TCZ+MTX, 8 mg/kg TCZ+MTX, 8 mg/kg TCZ+placebo or placebo+MTX for 104 weeks. Patients not receiving 8 mg/kg TCZ and not achieving Disease Activity Score-28 joints (DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)) ≤3.2 at week 52 switched to escape therapy (8 mg/kg TCZ+MTX). Analyses were exploratory. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat and safety populations included 1157 and 1153 patients, respectively. DAS28-ESR remission (<2.6) rates were maintained from weeks 52 to 104 (eg, 8 mg/kg TCZ+MTX, 49.3% to 47.6%). Placebo+MTX and 4 mg/kg TCZ+MTX escape patients' week 104 response rates were 51.4% and 30.5%, respectively. Inhibition of radiographic progression was maintained with 8 mg/kg TCZ (eg, 8 mg/kg TCZ+MTX mean (SD) change from baseline in modified total Sharp score: 0.13 (1.28), week 52; 0.19 (2.08), week 104). The safety profile of TCZ was consistent with that of previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with early RA treated with TCZ monotherapy or TCZ+MTX maintained clinical benefits during their second year of treatment with no new safety signals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01007435; Results.

A randomised phase IIb study of mavrilimumab, a novel GM-CSF receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the therapeutic value of current rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments, agents with alternative modes of action are required. Mavrilimumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor-α, was evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. METHODS: In a phase IIb study (NCT01706926), patients with inadequate response to ≥1 synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug(s), Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28)-C reactive protein (CRP)/erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≥3.2, ≥4 swollen joints despite methotrexate (MTX) were randomised 1:1:1:1 to subcutaneous mavrilimumab (150, 100, 30 mg), or placebo every other week (eow), plus MTX for 24 weeks. Coprimary outcomes were DAS28-CRP change from baseline to week 12 and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response rate (week 24). RESULTS: 326 patients were randomised (150 mg, n=79; 100 mg, n=85; 30 mg, n=81; placebo, n=81); 305 completed the study (September 2012-June 2013). Mavrilimumab treatment significantly reduced DAS28-CRP scores from baseline compared with placebo (change from baseline (SE); 150 mg: -1.90 (0.14), 100 mg: -1.64 (0.13), 30 mg: -1.37 (0.14), placebo: -0.68 (0.14); p<0.001; all dosages compared with placebo).Significantly more mavrilimumab-treated patients achieved ACR20 compared with placebo (week 24: 73.4%, 61.2%, 50.6% vs 24.7%, respectively (p<0.001)). Adverse events were reported in 43 (54.4%), 36 (42.4%), 41 (50.6%) and 38 (46.9%) patients in the mavrilimumab 150, 100, 30 mg eow and placebo groups, respectively. No treatment-related safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Mavrilimumab significantly decreased RA disease activity, with clinically meaningful responses observed 1 week after treatment initiation, representing a novel mechanism of action with persuasive therapeutic potential. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01706926; results.