Malignancy risk with tofacitinib versus TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the open-label, randomised controlled ORAL Surveillance trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate malignancies and their associations with baseline risk factors and cardiovascular risk scores with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In an open-label, randomised controlled trial (ORAL Surveillance; NCT02092467), 4362 patients with RA aged ≥50 years with ≥1 additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 (N=1455) or 10 mg two times per day (N=1456) or TNFi (N=1451). Incidence rates (IRs; patients with first events/100 patient-years) and HRs were calculated for adjudicated malignancies excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), NMSC and subtypes. Post hoc analyses for malignancies excluding NMSC, lung cancer and NMSC included risk factors identified via simple/multivariable Cox models and IRs/HRs categorised by baseline risk factors, history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HxASCVD) and cardiovascular risk scores. RESULTS: IRs for malignancies excluding NMSC and NMSC were higher with tofacitinib (combined and individual doses) versus TNFi. Risk of lung cancer (most common subtype with tofacitinib) was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi. In the overall study population, the risk of malignancies excluding NMSC was similar between both tofacitinib doses and TNFi until month 18 and diverged from month 18 onwards (HR (95% CIs) for combined tofacitinib doses: 0.93 (0.53 to 1.62) from baseline to month 18 vs 1.93 (1.22 to 3.06) from month 18 onwards, interaction p=0.0469). Cox analyses identified baseline risk factors across treatment groups for malignancies excluding NMSC, lung cancer and NMSC; interaction analyses generally did not show statistical evidence of interaction between treatment groups and risk factors. HxASCVD or increasing cardiovascular risk scores were associated with higher malignancy IRs across treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of malignancies was increased with tofacitinib versus TNFi, and incidence was highest in patients with HxASCVD or increasing cardiovascular risk. This may be due to shared risk factors for cardiovascular risk and cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02092467, NCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT02147587, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT02281552, NCT02187055, NCT02831855, NCT00413699, NCT00661661.

After JAK inhibitor failure: to cycle or to switch, that is the question - data from the JAK-pot collaboration of registries.

OBJECTIVES: The expanded therapeutic arsenal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) raises new clinical questions. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of cycling Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) with switching to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients with RA after failure to the first JAKi. METHODS: This is a nested cohort study within data pooled from an international collaboration of 17 national registries (JAK-pot collaboration). Data from patients with RA with JAKi treatment failure and who were subsequently treated with either a second JAKi or with a bDMARD were prospectively collected. Differences in drug retention rates after second treatment initiation were assessed by log-rank test and Cox regression analysis adjusting for potential confounders. Change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) over time was estimated using a linear regression model, adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: 365 cycling and 1635 switching patients were studied. Cyclers were older and received a higher number of previous bDMARDs. Both strategies showed similar observed retention rates after 2 years of follow-up. However, adjusted analysis revealed that cycling was associated with higher retention (p=0.04). Among cyclers, when the first JAKi was discontinued due to an adverse event (AE), it was more likely that the second JAKi would also be stopped due to an AE. Improvement in CDAI over time was similar in both strategies. CONCLUSIONS: After failing the first JAKi, cycling JAKi and switching to a bDMARD appear to have similar effectiveness. Caution is advised if an AE was the reason to stop the first JAKi.

Efficacy and safety of Sandoz biosimilar rituximab for active rheumatoid arthritis: 52-week results from the randomized controlled ASSIST-RA trial.

OBJECTIVES: This report provides data for the extent of B cell depletion and recovery, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of Sandoz rituximab (SDZ-RTX; GP2013; Rixathon®) compared with reference rituximab (Ref-RTX) up to week 52 of the ASSIST-RA study. METHODS: Patients were randomized to SDZ-RTX or Ref-RTX in combination with methotrexate according to the RTX label. The primary endpoint was analysed at week 24. Responders (28-joint DAS [DAS28] decrease from baseline >1.2) at week 24 with residual disease activity (DAS28 ≥2.6) were eligible for a second treatment course between week 24 and 52. Endpoints after week 24 included change from baseline in peripheral B cells, DAS28, ACR 20% response rate (ACR20), Clinical and Simplified Disease Activity Indexes (CDAI, SDAI) and HAQ disability index (HAQ-DI). Safety and immunogenicity were assessed by the incidence of adverse events and antidrug antibodies. RESULTS: Primary and secondary endpoints up to week 24 were met. Overall, 260/312 randomized patients completed treatment up to week 52. SDZ-RTX resulted in B cell concentrations over time similar to Ref-RTX. The efficacy of SDZ-RTX was similar to Ref-RTX up to week 52, as measured by DAS28, ACR20/50/70, CDAI, SDAI and HAQ-DI. Safety of SDZ-RTX was similar to Ref-RTX regarding frequency, type and severity of adverse events, which were consistent with the known Ref-RTX safety profile. The incidence of antidrug antibodies was low and transient similarly across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: SDZ-RTX demonstrated similar B cell concentrations over time, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity to Ref-RTX over 52 weeks of the ASSIST-RA study.

Long-term safety of sarilumab in rheumatoid arthritis: an integrated analysis with up to 7 years' follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Sarilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-6 from binding to membrane-bound and soluble IL-6 receptor-α. We assessed the long-term safety of sarilumab in patients from eight clinical trials and their open-label extensions. METHODS: Data were pooled from patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received at least one dose of sarilumab in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs; combination group) or as monotherapy (monotherapy group). Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and AEs and laboratory values of special interest were assessed. RESULTS: 2887 patients received sarilumab in combination with csDMARDs and 471 patients received sarilumab monotherapy, with mean exposure of 2.8 years and 1.7 years, maximum exposure 7.3 and 3.5 years, and cumulative AE observation period of 8188 and 812 patient-years, respectively. Incidence rates per 100 patient-years in the combination and monotherapy groups, respectively, were 9.4 and 6.7 for serious AEs, 3.7 and 1.0 for serious infections, 0.6 and 0.5 for herpes zoster (no cases were disseminated), 0.1 and 0 for gastrointestinal perforations, 0.5 and 0.2 for major adverse cardiovascular events, and 0.7 and 0.6 for malignancy. Absolute neutrophil counts <1000 cells/mm3 were recorded in 13% and 15% of patients, respectively. Neutropenia was not associated with increased risk of infection or serious infection. Analysis by 6-month interval showed no signal for increased rate of any AE over time. CONCLUSION: The long-term safety profile of sarilumab, either in combination with csDMARDs or as monotherapy, remained stable and consistent with the anticipated profile of a molecule that inhibits IL6 signalling.

Network Meta-Analysis of Tofacitinib, Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs, and Apremilast for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib and other new treatments approved for use in psoriatic arthritis have only recently been included in psoriatic arthritis treatment guidelines, and studies evaluating the relative efficacy of available therapies are important to inform treatment decisions by healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis naïve to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy (TNFi-naïve) or with an inadequate response (TNFi-IR). METHODS: A systematic literature review used searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library on October 9, 2017. Randomized controlled trials including adult patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment administered as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic DMARDs were selected. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20 response, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index. Treatment effects were evaluated during placebo-controlled phases, using a binomial logit model for binary outcomes and a normal identify link model for other outcomes. Discontinuations due to adverse events and serious infection events were assessed as safety outcomes. RESULTS: The network meta-analysis included 24 published randomized controlled trials, of which 13 enrolled TNFi-naïve patients only, 3 enrolled TNFi-IR patients only, and 8 enrolled both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR patients. Placebo-controlled treatment durations ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. Indirect comparisons showed tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID to have similar efficacy compared with most bDMARDs and apremilast in improving joint symptoms (based on American College of Rheumatology 20 response), and with some bDMARDs in improving skin symptoms (based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) (tofacitinib 10 mg BID only in TNFi-IR) in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were TNFi-naïve or TNFi-IR. Results also showed that, compared with placebo, the improvement in physical functioning (based on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID was similar to that observed with most bDMARDs and apremilast in TNFi-naïve patients, and similar to that observed with all bDMARDs with available data in the TNFi-IR population. Improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index scores were comparable between treatments. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were median-ranked 8 and 15, respectively, for discontinuation due to any adverse events, and 5 and 16, respectively, for a serious infection event out of a total of 20 treatments in the network (lower numbers are more favorable). CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib provides an additional treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis, both in patients naïve to TNFi and in those with TNFi-IR. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX-XXX).

Treatment response and drug retention rates in 24 195 biologic-naïve patients with axial spondyloarthritis initiating TNFi treatment: routine care data from 12 registries in the EuroSpA collaboration.

OBJECTIVE: To study drug retention and response rates in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) initiating a first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). METHODS: Data from 12 European registries, prospectively collected in routine care, were pooled. TNFi retention rates (Kaplan-Meier statistics), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) Inactive disease (<1.3), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) <40 mm and Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society responses (ASAS 20/40) were assessed at 6, 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: A first TNFi was initiated in 24 195 axSpA patients. Heterogeneity of baseline characteristics between registries was observed. Twelve-month retention was 80% (95% CI 79% to 80%), ranging from 71% to 94% across registries. At 6 months, ASDAS Inactive disease/BASDAI<40 rates were 33%/72% (LUNDEX-adjusted: 27%/59%), ASAS 20/40 response rates 64%/49% (LUNDEX-adjusted 52%/40%). In patients initiating first TNFi after 2009, 6097 patients was registered to fulfil ASAS criteria for axSpA, 2935 was registered to fulfil modified New York Criteria for Ankylosing Spondylitis and 1178 patients was registered as having non-radiographic axSpA. In nr-axSpA patients, we observed lower 12-month retention rates (73% (70%-76%)) and lower 6-month LUNDEX adjusted response rates (ASDAS Inactive disease/BASDAI40 20%/50%, ASAS 20/40 45%/33%). For patients initiating first TNFi after 2014, 12-month retention rate, but not 6-month response rate, was numerically higher compared with patients initiating TNFi in 2009-2014. CONCLUSION: A large European database of patients with axSpA initiating a first TNFi treatment in routine care, demonstrated that 27% of patients achieved ASDAS inactive disease after 6 months, while 59% achieved BASDAI <40. Four of five patients continued treatment after 1 year.

The role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

Registries characterize the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic interventions in daily clinical practice. Data from registries enable mining the records of tens of thousands of patients towards determining the effectiveness, safety, and cost-benefit of any given therapeutic. The strengths of registries include real-life settings, greater power than clinical trials to detect rare events, and the study of multiple outcomes and several research questions. Registries also have their weaknesses. They are expensive, less accurate than clinical trials, affected by channelling bias, often require links to external sources or use historic and selected control cohorts or combine datasets to increase power, and have the risk of multiple confounders. Since the beginning of biological era, registries were developed to profile emerging treatments. This article reviews the role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

Factors associated with long-term retention of treatment with golimumab in a real-world setting: an analysis of the Spanish BIOBADASER registry.

The retention rate of a biological drug (percentage of patients remaining on treatment over time) provides an index of a drug's overall effectiveness. The golimumab retention rate as first-line biological therapy was high in clinical trial extensions lasting 5 years. Real-world studies also indicate good retention rates but have been of shorter duration. The probability of retention with golimumab treatment was assessed, as any line of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy, for up to 5 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), associated factors were analyzed. A retrospective database analysis of the Spanish registry of patients with rheumatic disorders receiving biological drugs (BIOBADASER) was performed. Among 353 patients, 29.8% had RA, 41.6% SpA and 28.6% PsA. Golimumab was the first biological drug in 40.1% of patients, second in 30.1% and third/later in 29.8%. The overall probability of retention of golimumab at years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 was 85.9% (95% confidence interval 81.4-89.5%), 73.7% (67.1-79.1%), 68.5% (60.5-75.1%), 60.6% (50.2-69.5%) and 57.1% (44.9-67.5%), respectively. Retention was similar across indications (p = 0.070) but was greater when golimumab was used as the first biological agent compared with later therapy lines (p < 0.001). Factors associated with higher retention of golimumab treatment (Cox regression) were use as a first-line biological and concomitant methotrexate treatment; corticosteroid need was associated with lower retention. The long-term probability of golimumab retention was high in this real-world study of patients with rheumatic diseases, especially when used as the first biological drug.

Early and sustained efficacy with apremilast monotherapy in biological-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis: a phase IIIB, randomised controlled trial (ACTIVE).

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate apremilast efficacy across various psoriatic arthritis (PsA) manifestations beginning at week 2 in biological-naïve patients with PsA. METHODS: Patients were randomised (1:1) to apremilast 30 mg twice daily or placebo. At week 16, patients whose swollen and tender joint counts had not improved by ≥10% were eligible for early escape. At week 24, all patients received apremilast through week 52. RESULTS: Among 219 randomised patients (apremilast: n=110; placebo: n=109), a significantly greater American College of Rheumatology 20 response at week 16 (primary outcome) was observed with apremilast versus placebo (38.2% (42/110) vs 20.2% (22/109); P=0.004); response rates at week 2 (first assessment) were 16.4% (18/110) versus 6.4% (7/109) (P=0.025). Improvements in other efficacy outcomes, including 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS-28) using C reactive protein (CRP), swollen joint count, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), enthesitis and morning stiffness severity, were observed with apremilast at week 2. At week 16, apremilast significantly reduced PsA disease activity versus placebo, with changes in DAS-28 (CRP) (P<0.0001), HAQ-DI (P=0.023) and Gladman Enthesitis Index (P=0.001). Improvements were maintained with continued treatment through week 52. Over 52 weeks, apremilast's safety profile was consistent with prior phase 3 studies in psoriasis and PsA. During weeks 0-24, the incidence of protocol-defined diarrhoea was 11.0% (apremilast) and 8.3% (placebo); serious adverse event rates were 2.8% (apremilast) and 4.6% (placebo). CONCLUSIONS: In biological-naïve patients with PsA, onset of effect with apremilast was observed at week 2 and continued through week 52. The safety profile was consistent with previous reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01925768; Results.

Spanish transcultural adaptation and validation of the English version of the compliance questionnaire in rheumatology.

To perform a transcultural adaptation and validation of a Spanish version of the compliance questionnaire in rheumatology (sCQR). In this transversal study of transcultural adaptation of the sCQR, validity was evaluated in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a minimum 6-month follow-up by determining compliance with the electronic prescription system in consuming steroids or nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. A two-week retest was proposed to all patients. All patients completed the health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), and the Morisky-Green test was also performed. Reliability was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Convergent construct validity was tested in the electronic prescription system using discriminative analysis, and divergent construct validity was tested by comparing it to the HAQ. Sensitivity, specificity and ROC curves were evaluated for the sCQR and the Morisky-Green test. Of 123 recruited patients, 101 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and 61 were on biologic therapy. 23 performed the retest. Test-retest reliability (ICC) was 0.76 (Cronbach's alpha 0.86). Multiple regression analysis showed correlation with each item of the sCQR as independent variables (r2 = 0.60). No correlation was seen between total score punctuation of the sCQR and the HAQ (r2 = 0.22). Discriminative analysis weighting each sCQR item showed a cutoff point of - 0.9991 (sensibility and 58.8%, specificity 98.3%). The likelihood ratio of the sCQR to detect ≤ 80% adherence with electronic prescriptions was 35.3. The Morisky-Green test revealed sensibility and specificity were 29.4 and 83.3%, respectively. This study validates the transcultural adaptation of sCQR in RA patients. A high reliability of sCQR for measuring adherence was found. Its predictive value suggests that it could be used as a screening instrument.

Correction to: Spanish transcultural adaptation and validation of the English version of the compliance questionnaire in rheumatology.

In the original published article, the family name was incorrectly tagged for two co-authors. The correct family names of authors José Ramón Maneiro Fernández is Maneiro Fernández and Alejandro Souto Vilas is Souto Vilas.

A randomised, double-blind trial to demonstrate bioequivalence of GP2013 and reference rituximab combined with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this report is to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) equivalence as well as similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between GP2013, a biosimilar rituximab, and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment. METHODS: In this multinational, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, 312 patients with active disease despite prior TNFi therapy were randomised to receive GP2013 or either the EU (RTX-EU) or the US (RTX-US) reference product, along with methotrexate (MTX) and folic acid. The primary endpoint was the area under the serum concentration-time curve from study drug infusion to infinity (AUC0-inf). Additional PK and PD parameters, along with efficacy, immunogenicity and safety outcomes were also assessed up to week 24. RESULTS: The 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio of the AUCs were within the bioequivalence limits of 80% to 125% for all three comparisons; GP2013 versus RTX-EU: 1.106 (90% CI 1.010 to 1.210); GP2013 versus RTX-US: 1.012 (90% CI 0.925 to 1.108); and RTX-EU versus RTX-US: 1.093 (90% CI 0.989 to 1.208). Three-way PD equivalence of B cell depletion was also demonstrated. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar between GP2013 and RTX. CONCLUSIONS: Three-way PK/PD equivalence of GP2013, RTX-EU and RTX-US was demonstrated. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar between GP2013 and RTX. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01274182; Results.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update.

Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.

Monotherapy with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis.

Current EULAR guidelines state that biologic DMARD (bDMARD) therapy should be administered in combination with MTX or other conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD in RA. Nonetheless, a third of patients for whom a bDMARD agent is prescribed take it in the absence of concurrent csDMARD therapy. While the reasons underlying the low uptake of bDMARD-csDMARD combination therapy in clinical practice have not been well delineated, they may include poor adherence, contraindication to csDMARD therapy and adverse effects, as well as csDMARD withdrawal following remission. The challenges surrounding bDMARD therapy and the benefit/risk ratio of biologic monotherapy when compared with combination with a csDMARD will be discussed. We will provide insights into these important issues, as well as reviewing the evidence base differentiating biologic agents and exploring therapeutic options for patients with rheumatoid arthritis for whom csDMARD therapy is contraindicated or discontinued.

The effect of tofacitinib on pneumococcal and influenza vaccine responses in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate tofacitinib's effect upon pneumococcal and influenza vaccine immunogenicity. METHODS: We conducted two studies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV-23) and the 2011-2012 trivalent influenza vaccine. In study A, tofacitinib-naive patients were randomised to tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily or placebo, stratified by background methotrexate and vaccinated 4 weeks later. In study B, patients already receiving tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily (with or without methotrexate) were randomised into two groups: those continuing ('continuous') or interrupting ('withdrawn') tofacitinib for 2 weeks, and then vaccinated 1 week after randomisation. In both studies, titres were measured 35 days after vaccination. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients achieving a satisfactory response to pneumococcus (twofold or more titre increase against six or more of 12 pneumococcal serotypes) and influenza (fourfold or more titre increase against two or more of three influenza antigens). RESULTS: In study A (N=200), fewer tofacitinib patients (45.1%) developed satisfactory pneumococcal responses versus placebo (68.4%), and pneumococcal titres were lower with tofacitinib (particularly with methotrexate). Similar proportions of tofacitinib-treated and placebo-treated patients developed satisfactory influenza responses (56.9% and 62.2%, respectively), although fewer tofacitinib patients (76.5%) developed protective influenza titres (≥1:40 in two or more of three antigens) versus placebo (91.8%). In study B (N=183), similar proportions of continuous and withdrawn patients had satisfactory responses to PPSV-23 (75.0% and 84.6%, respectively) and influenza (66.3% and 63.7%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients starting tofacitinib, diminished responsiveness to PPSV-23, but not influenza, was observed, particularly in those taking concomitant methotrexate. Among existing tofacitinib users, temporary drug discontinuation had limited effect upon influenza or PPSV-23 vaccine responses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01359150, NCT00413699.

Evidence for treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: results of a systematic literature search update.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic literature review (SLR; 2009-2014) to compare a target-oriented approach with routine management in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to allow an update of the treat-to-target recommendations. METHODS: Two SLRs focused on clinical trials employing a treatment approach targeting a specific clinical outcome were performed. In addition to testing clinical, functional and/or structural changes as endpoints, comorbidities, cardiovascular risk, work productivity and education as well as patient self-assessment were investigated. The searches covered MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and Clinicaltrial.gov for the period between 2009 and 2012 and separately for the period of 2012 to May of 2014. RESULTS: Of 8442 citations retrieved in the two SLRs, 176 articles underwent full-text review. According to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, six articles were included of which five showed superiority of a targeted treatment approach aiming at least at low-disease activity versus routine care; in addition, publications providing supportive evidence were also incorporated that aside from expanding the evidence provided by the above six publications allowed concluding that a target-oriented approach leads to less comorbidities and cardiovascular risk and better work productivity than conventional care. CONCLUSIONS: The current study expands the evidence that targeting low-disease activity or remission in the management of RA conveys better outcomes than routine care.

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

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

Rate of discontinuation and drug survival of biologic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of drug registries and health care databases.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the proportion of RA patients who discontinued biologics in world registries and health care databases and to identify causes and predictors of discontinuation. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science electronic databases and ACR and EULAR meeting abstracts were used. The selection of studies from world registries and health care databases including RA patients treated with biologics was independently performed. Data extracted from articles and abstracts were combined using a random effects model. Meta-analyses of percentages and hazard ratios were used to assess discontinuation. RESULTS: Ninety-eight studies with >200 000 patients from 11 242 articles and 119 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Overall discontinuation rates of TNF inhibitors at 0.5, 1, 2, 3 and 4 years were 21, 27, 37, 44 and 52%, respectively. Discontinuation of etanercept was significantly lower at 3 and 4 years (35% and 41%, respectively) than infliximab and adalimumab (46% and 52%, respectively). Predictors of time to discontinuation were etanercept [hazard ratios (HRs) 0.58 and 0.77 versus infliximab and adalimumab, respectively), concomitant use of DMARDs (HR 0.77), disease duration (HR 1.01) and female sex (HR 1.18). Studies from registries conducted after 2005 and from countries with lower biologics access showed higher percentages of discontinuation. Relevant data on abatacept and tocilizumab were missing. CONCLUSION: In RA, treatment with etanercept has a lower percentage of discontinuation than infliximab and adalimumab. Concomitant use of DMARDs, disease duration before treatment with a biologic and female sex predict time to discontinuation.

Effects of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results of two Phase 2 randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we investigated the effects of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with active RA. METHODS: Two, 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2b studies were performed. The combination study evaluated patients with inadequate response to methotrexate who received tofacitinib 1-15 mg twice daily (BID), 20 mg once daily or placebo, on background methotrexate. In the monotherapy study, patients with inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs received tofacitinib 1-15 mg BID, adalimumab 40 mg once every other week or placebo. PROs measured were: Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (PAAP), Patient's Assessment of Disease Activity, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F and SF-36. RESULTS: In the combination study (n=507), significant improvements (p<0.05) versus placebo were observed at Week 12 in PAAP (visual analogue scale) and HAQ-DI for all tofacitinib groups. In the monotherapy study (n=384), significant improvements in PAAP were observed at Week 12 for tofacitinib 5, 10 and 15 mg BID, and in HAQ-DI for tofacitinib 3, 5, 10 and 15 mg BID. Significant improvements versus placebo were seen at Week 2 in PAAP (both studies) and HAQ­DI (monotherapy study) with tofacitinib, and were maintained throughout each study. In both studies, improvements in several domains of the SF-36 in the tofacitinib groups were observed at Weeks 12 and 24. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active RA, tofacitinib, either in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy, demonstrated rapid and sustained improvement in pain, physical functioning and health-related quality of life.

Anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies and their value for predicting responses to biologic agents: a review.

Anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPAs) play an important pathogenic role both at the onset and during the disease course. These antibodies precede the clinical appearance of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and are associated with a less favorable prognosis, both clinically and radiologically. The objective of this work was to conduct a comprehensive review of studies published through September 2015 of ACPAs' role as a predictor of the therapeutic response to the biological agents in RA patients. The review also includes summary of the biology and detection of ACPAs as well as ACPAs in relation to joint disease and CV disease and the possible role of seroconversion. The reviews of studies examining TNF inhibitors and tocilizumab yielded negative results. In the case of rituximab, the data indicated a greater probability of clinical benefit in ACPA(+) patients versus ACPA(-) patients, as has been previously described for rheumatoid factor. Nonetheless, the effect is discreet and heterogeneous. Another drug that may have greater effectiveness in ACPA(+) patients is abatacept. Some studies have suggested that the drug is more efficient in ACPA(+) patients and that those patients show greater drug retention. In a subanalysis of the AMPLE trial, patients with very high ACPA titers who were treated with abatacept had a statistically significant response compared to patients with lower titers. In summary, the available studies suggest that the presence of or high titers of ACPA may predict a better response to rituximab and/or abatacept. Evidence regarding TNFi and tocilizumab is lacking. However, there is a lack of studies with appropriate designs to demonstrate that some drugs are superior to others for ACPA(+) patients.