Upadacitinib in Active Non-radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis: 1-Year Data From a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Upadacitinib improved the signs and symptoms of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) versus placebo over 14 weeks in the primary analysis of the SELECT-AXIS 2 nr-axSpA study. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib through 1 year in patients with nr-axSpA in SELECT-AXIS 2. METHODS: Patients aged at least 18 years diagnosed with nr-axSpA who fulfilled the 2009 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria and were receiving stable background therapy were randomized to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo for the 52-week double-blind period. Efficacy was assessed using non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation (NRI-MI) and as-observed analyses for binary endpoints, and mixed-effects model repeated measures for continuous endpoints. RESULTS: Of 314 randomized patients, 259 (upadacitinib, n = 129; placebo, n = 130) completed 52 weeks of treatment. More patients receiving upadacitinib versus placebo achieved ≥40% improvement in ASAS at week 52 (63% vs 43%, NRI-MI; nominal P < 0.001). Similar treatment effects were observed for the achievement of axSpA Disease Activity Score inactive disease (33% v 11%, NRI-MI; nominal P < 0.001). Overall, patients receiving upadacitinib versus placebo showed greater improvement in disease activity, inflammation, pain, function, enthesitis, and quality of life through 52 weeks. Adverse events were generally comparable between the treatment groups. No opportunistic infections, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolic events, inflammatory bowel disease, or deaths were reported in those receiving upadacitinib. CONCLUSION: Treatment with upadacitinib showed sustained efficacy versus placebo with no new safety findings identified through 1 year. These results support the continued favorable benefit-risk profile of upadacitinib treatment for nr-axSpA.

Disease modification in axial spondyloarthritis - still a controversy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review evaluates recent advancements in disease-modifying therapies for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). RECENT FINDINGS: A recent study could not demonstrate an additional effect of NSAID therapy on golimumab [Tumor Necrosis Factor-α inhibitor (TNFi)] on structural progression; however, this might be due to the fact that the study was underpowered. While DMARDs have shown promise in suppressing inflammation, their impact on structural progression remains uncertain. A well powered trial showed no difference in spinal progression between secukinumab [Interleukin17A inhibitor (IL17Ai)] and adalimumab-biosimilar (TNFi). Preliminary data on Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) focus on MRI findings but lack evidence on radiographic spinal progression. While some studies suggest promising outcomes, others reveal limitations and inconclusive findings. SUMMARY: Recent studies explore the effectiveness of NSAIDs, biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs like TNFi and IL-17i, as well as JAK inhibitors in axSpA. Conflicting evidence surrounds these therapies' ability to impede structural progression, with challenges in study design and interpretation. Moreover, changes in demographics and treatment methods underscore the importance of examining trends over time when assessing disease outcomes. Ultimately, ongoing research could benefit from new imaging tools when evaluating therapeutic strategies for modifying disease progression in axSpA.

Effect of Secukinumab Versus Adalimumab Biosimilar on Radiographic Progression in Patients With Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis: Results From a Head-to-Head Randomized Phase IIIb Study.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal radiographic progression is an important outcome in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). The objective of the phase IIIb SURPASS study was to compare spinal radiographic progression in patients with radiographic axial SpA treated with secukinumab (interleukin-17A inhibitor) versus adalimumab biosimilar (Sandoz adalimumab [SDZ-ADL]; tumor necrosis factor inhibitor). METHODS: Biologic-naive patients with active radiographic axial SpA, at high risk of radiographic progression (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hsCRP] ≥5 mg/L and/or ≥1 syndesmophyte[s] on spinal radiographs), were randomized (1:1:1) to secukinumab (150/300 mg) or SDZ-ADL (40 mg). The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression (change from baseline [CFB] in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS] ≤0.5) on secukinumab versus SDZ-ADL at week 104 (primary endpoint), mean CFB-mSASSS, proportion of patients with ≥1 syndesmophyte(s) at baseline with no new syndesmophyte(s), and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 859 patients (78.5% male, mSASSS 16.6, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index 7.1, hsCRP 20.4 mg/L, and 73.0% with ≥1 syndesmophyte[s]) received secukinumab 150 mg (n = 287), secukinumab 300 mg (n = 286), or SDZ-ADL (n = 286). At week 104, the proportion of patients with no radiographic progression was 66.1%, 66.9%, and 65.6% (P = not significant, both secukinumab doses) and mean CFB-mSASSS was 0.54, 0.55, and 0.72 in secukinumab 150 mg, secukinumab 300 mg, and SDZ-ADL arms, respectively. Overall, 56.9%, 53.8%, and 53.3% of patients on secukinumab 150 mg, secukinumab 300 mg, and SDZ-ADL, respectively, with ≥1 syndesmophyte(s) at baseline did not develop new syndesmophyte(s) by week 104. There were no unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSION: Spinal radiographic progression over two years was low with no significant difference between secukinumab and SDZ-ADL arms. The safety of both treatments was consistent with previous reports.

EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2023 update.

OBJECTIVE: New modes of action and more data on the efficacy and safety of existing drugs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) required an update of the EULAR 2019 recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of PsA. METHODS: Following EULAR standardised operating procedures, the process included a systematic literature review and a consensus meeting of 36 international experts in April 2023. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were determined. RESULTS: The updated recommendations comprise 7 overarching principles and 11 recommendations, and provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be used in monotherapy only for mild PsA and in the short term; oral glucocorticoids are not recommended. In patients with peripheral arthritis, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended and methotrexate preferred. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) should be initiated, without preference among modes of action. Relevant skin psoriasis should orient towards bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)-23p40, IL-23p19, IL-17A and IL-17A/F inhibitors. In case of predominant axial or entheseal disease, an algorithm is also proposed. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is proposed primarily after bDMARD failure, taking relevant risk factors into account, or in case bDMARDs are not an appropriate choice. Inflammatory bowel disease and uveitis, if present, should influence drug choices, with monoclonal tumour necrosis factor inhibitors proposed. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are also addressed. CONCLUSION: These updated recommendations integrate all currently available drugs in a practical and progressive approach, which will be helpful in the pharmacological management of PsA.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2023 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To obtain an overview of recent evidence on efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: This systematic literature research (SLR) investigated the efficacy and safety of conventional synthetic (cs), biological (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with PsA. A systematic database search using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted to identify relevant articles published since the previous update in 2019 until 28 December 2022. Efficacy was assessed in trials while for safety observational data were also considered. Adverse events of special interest were infections (including herpes zoster, influenza and tuberculosis), malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolisms, liver disease, laboratory changes and psychiatric adverse events. No meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: For efficacy, of 3946 articles screened, 38 articles (30 trials) were analysed. The compounds investigated included csDMARDs (leflunomide, methotrexate), bDMARDs inhibiting IL17 (bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, izokibep, secukinumab,), IL-23 (guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab), IL-12/23 (ustekinumab) as well as TNF (adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab) and Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi) (brepocitinib, deucravacitinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib). The compounds investigated were efficacious in improving signs and symptoms of PsA, improving physical functioning and quality of life. For safety, 2055 abstracts were screened, and 24 articles analysed: 15 observational studies and 9 long-term follow-ups of trials, assessing glucocorticoids, TNFi, IL-17i, JAKi, IL-12/23i and PDE4i (apremilast). Safety indicators were generally coherent with the previous SLR in 2019. CONCLUSION: The results of this SLR informed the task force responsible for the 2023 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for pharmacological management of PsA.

Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with ankylosing spondylitis refractory to biologic therapy: 1-year results from the open-label extension of a phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in the phase III SELECT-AXIS programs. We report the 1-year efficacy and safety in patients with AS and an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR) from the SELECT-AXIS 2 study. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years with active AS who met the modified New York criteria for AS and were bDMARD-IR received double-blind upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (QD) or placebo for 14 weeks. Patients who completed 14 weeks could enter an open-label extension and receive upadacitinib 15 mg QD for up to 2 years. Efficacy endpoints included the percentage of patients achieving ≥ 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society response (ASAS40), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) low disease activity (LDA), and ASDAS inactive disease (ID); and change from baseline in total and nocturnal back pain, and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI). Subgroup analyses (bDMARD lack of efficacy versus intolerance, and prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor [TNFi] versus interleukin-17 inhibitor [IL-17i] exposure) were conducted. Binary and continuous efficacy endpoints were assessed using non-responder imputation with multiple imputation (NRI-MI) and as observed (AO) analyses; and mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) and AO, respectively. Safety was assessed based on adverse events. Data through week 52 are reported. RESULTS: Of 420 randomized patients, 366 (continuous upadacitinib: n = 181; placebo to upadacitinib: n = 185) completed 52 weeks of treatment. At week 52, in the continuous upadacitinib and placebo to upadacitinib groups, ASAS40, ASDAS LDA, and ASDAS ID were achieved by 66% and 65%, 57% and 55%, and 26% and 25% (all NRI-MI); and change from baseline in total back pain, nocturnal back pain, and BASFI was -4.5 and -4.3, -4.6 and -4.4, and -3.6 and -3.5 (all MMRM), respectively. No new safety risks were identified. Subgroup analyses were consistent with the overall study population. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib 15 mg QD demonstrated sustained improvement up to 52 weeks in bDMARD-IR patients with AS. Efficacy was generally similar in patients with lack of efficacy versus intolerance to bDMARDs and prior TNFi versus IL-17i exposure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02049138.

Effect of tapered versus stable treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors on disease flares in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission: a randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVES: Many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) require treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to reach remission. It is debated whether tapering of TNFi to discontinuation should be considered in sustained remission. The aim of ARCTIC REWIND TNFi was to assess the effect of tapering TNFi to withdrawal compared with stable treatment on the risk of disease activity flares in patients with RA in remission ≥1 year. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at nine Norwegian rheumatology departments. Patients with RA in remission ≥12 months on stable TNFi therapy were allocated by computer-based block-randomisation to tapering to discontinuation of TNFi or stable TNFi. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic co-medication was unchanged. The primary endpoint was disease flare during the 12-month study period (non-inferiority margin 20%), assessed in the per-protocol population. RESULTS: Between June 2013 and January 2019, 99 patients were enrolled and 92 received the allocated treatment strategy. Eighty-four patients were included in the per-protocol population. In the tapering TNFi group, 27/43 (63%) experienced a flare during 12 months, compared with 2/41 (5%) in the stable TNFi group; risk difference (95% CI) 58% (42% to 74%). The tapering strategy was not non-inferior to continued stable treatment. The number of total/serious adverse events was 49/3 in the tapering group, 57/2 in the stable group. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA in remission for more than 1 year while using TNFi, an increase in flare rate was reported in those who tapered TNFi to discontinuation. However, most regained remission after reinstatement of full-dose treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT: 2012-005275-14 and clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01881308.

Bone marrow edema in the sacroiliac joints is associated with the development of structural lesions at the same anatomical location over time in patients with axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the presence of bone marrow edema (BME) leads to the development of structural lesions at the same anatomical location of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ), and to investigate the association between BME patterns over time and structural lesions in patients with early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Patients with axSpA from the DESIR cohort with ≥2 consecutive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-SIJ were assessed at baseline, 2 and 5 years. MRI-SIJ images were divided into 8 quadrants. The association between BME and subsequent structural lesions (sclerosis, erosions, fatty lesions, and ankylosis) on MRI in the same quadrant was tested longitudinally. Additionally, patients were grouped according to the pattern of BME evolution across quadrants over time (no BME, sporadic, fluctuating, and persistent). The association between these patterns and 5-year imaging outcomes (eg: ≥5 erosions and/or fatty lesions on MRI-SIJ) was tested. RESULTS: In total, 196 patients were included. BME in each quadrant was associated with sclerosis (OR:1.9 (95%CI: 1.1;3.4)), erosions (1.9 (1.5;2.5)) and fatty lesions (1.9 (1.4;2.6)). Ankylosis was uncommon. There was a gradient between increased level of inflammation and subsequent damage: compared to the 'no BME' pattern, the sporadic (OR (95% CI): 2.1 (1.0;4.5)), fluctuating (OR:5.6(2.2;14.4)) and persistent (OR:7.5(2.8;19.6)) patterns were associated with higher structural damage on MRI-SIJ at 5-years. CONCLUSIONS: In early axSpA, inflammation on MRI-SIJ leads to damage at the quadrant level. The higher the exposure to inflammation across quadrants in the SIJs over time the higher the likelihood of subsequent structural damage, suggesting a cumulative effect.

The effect of guselkumab on inhibiting radiographic progression in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: study protocol for APEX, a Phase 3b, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin (IL)-23p19 subunit, is approved to treat adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In the Phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial of 739 bilogico-naïve patients with active PsA, guselkumab 100 mg resulted in less radiographic progression, assessed via change from baseline in PsA-modified van der Heijde-Sharp (vdH-S) score, compared with placebo at week (W) 24 when given at W0, W4, and then every 4 weeks (Q4W) or Q8W. The least squares mean differences from placebo were -0.66 for guselkumab Q4W (p=0.011) and -0.43 for guselkumab Q8W (p=0.072). Reports suggest baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) and joint erosions are strongly prognostic of poor outcomes, especially radiographic progression, in PsA patients. We designed a trial (APEX) to further assess the effect of guselkumab on radiographic progression in patients with active PsA and risk factors for radiographic progression. METHODS: Patients are eligible for APEX if they have had PsA for ≥6 months and active disease (≥3 swollen and ≥3 tender joints, CRP ≥0.3 mg/dL) despite prior therapy with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, apremilast, and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, with ≥2 joints with erosions on baseline radiographs (hands and feet). The primary and major secondary endpoints are the proportion of patients achieving ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) response at W24 and change from baseline at W24 in PsA-modified vdH-S score, respectively. Sample sizes of 350/250/350 for guselkumab Q8W/guselkumab Q4W/placebo are expected to provide >99% power to detect significant differences in W24 ACR20 response rates for each guselkumab group vs placebo, as well as ≥90% (Q4W vs placebo) and ≥80% (Q8W vs placebo) power to detect a significant difference in PsA-modified vdH-S score change at W24. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test and analysis of covariance will compare treatment efficacy for the primary and major secondary endpoints, respectively. DISCUSSION: DISCOVER-2 findings informed the design of APEX, a Phase 3b study intended to further evaluate the impact of guselkumab in patients with active PsA and known risk factors for radiographic progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04882098 . Registered on 11 May 2021.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. METHODS: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. RESULTS: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Stratification of biological therapies by pathobiology in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (STRAP and STRAP-EU): two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite highly effective targeted therapies for rheumatoid arthritis, about 40% of patients respond poorly, and predictive biomarkers for treatment choices are lacking. We did a biopsy-driven trial to compare the response to rituximab, etanercept, and tocilizumab in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis stratified for synovial B cell status. METHODS: STRAP and STRAP-EU were two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, stratified, randomised, phase 3 trials done across 26 university centres in the UK and Europe. Biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were included. Following ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy, patients were classified as B cell poor or B cell rich according to synovial B cell signatures and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous rituximab (1000 mg at week 0 and week 2), subcutaneous tocilizumab (162 mg per week), or subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg per week). The primary outcome was the 16-week ACR20 response in the B cell-poor, intention-to-treat population (defined as all randomly assigned patients), with data pooled from the two trials, comparing etanercept and tocilizumab (grouped) versus rituximab. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, 2014-003529-16 (STRAP) and 2017-004079-30 (STRAP-EU). FINDINGS: Between June 8, 2015, and July 4, 2019, 226 patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (n=73), tocilizumab (n=74), and rituximab (n=79). Three patients (one in each group) were excluded after randomisation because they received parenteral steroids in the 4 weeks before recruitment. 168 (75%) of 223 patients in the intention-to-treat population were women and 170 (76%) were White. In the B cell-poor population, ACR20 response at 16 weeks (primary endpoint) showed no significant differences between etanercept and tocilizumab grouped together and rituximab (46 [60%] of 77 patients vs 26 [59%] of 44; odds ratio 1·02 [95% CI 0·47-2·17], p=0·97). No differences were observed for adverse events, including serious adverse events, which occurred in six (6%) of 102 patients in the rituximab group, nine (6%) of 108 patients in the etanercept group, and three (4%) of 73 patients in the tocilizumab group (p=0·53). INTERPRETATION: In this biologic-naive population of patients with rheumatoid arthrtitis, the dichotomic classification into synovial B cell poor versus rich did not predict treatment response to B cell depletion with rituximab compared with alternative treatment strategies. However, the lack of response to rituximab in patients with a pauci-immune pathotype and the higher risk of structural damage progression in B cell-rich patients treated with rituximab warrant further investigations into the ability of synovial tissue analyses to inform disease pathogenesis and treatment response. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Versus Arthritis.

Quantification of pre-existing radiographic damage and its relationship with joint activity and long-term clinical outcomes with secukinumab therapy in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patient data from two phase 3 secukinumab trials (FUTURE 1, 5) were analysed to quantify the prevalence and extent of pre-existing radiographic damage (RD) at baseline; investigate the association of RD with swollen/tender joint counts (SJC/TJC) at baseline; and investigate the extent to which RD at baseline correlated with response to secukinumab. METHODS: Pooled data (N = 1554) provided baseline radiographic bone erosion and joint space narrowing (JSN) scores at pre-specified locations per the van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score (vdH-mTSS) for PsA and swollen and tender joint scores in the same joints at multiple visits. Overall patient RD and individual joints RD bone erosion and JSN scores were assessed. The association between joint activity (tenderness, swelling) and vdH-mTSS was assessed at the overall patient-level and individual joint tender, swollen scores (yes/no) and RD joint JSN and bone erosion scores at the individual joint-level. Treatment response was assessed using SJC/TJC at weeks 16 and 52 and the proportion of patients achieving minimal disease activity (MDA) over all assessments within 1 year from FUTURE 5 alone. RESULTS: A substantial prevalence of pre-existing RD with higher prevalence of erosion than JSN was observed (86% and 60% of patients had positive erosion and JSN scores, respectively); higher RD prevalence was associated with longer time since PsA diagnosis. Joint activity was weakly associated with RD at baseline at the patient-level (Pearson's coefficients: range 0.12-0.18), but strongly associated at the individual joint-level, with a higher probability of tender/swollen joints to associate with higher JSN/erosion scores: all 42 analysed joints showed statistical significance at the 0.05 level (unadjusted) for the relationship between joint tenderness (yes/no) and its JSN score, all but one for tenderness and bone erosion scores, and all but 2 for swollen and JSN scores and for swollen and bone erosion score. Secukinumab (150/300 mg), reduced TJC and SJC across all values of baseline erosion and JSN scores at weeks 16 and 52. Patients with higher levels of RD were less likely to achieve zero tender/zero swollen joint status and had lower chance of achieving MDA. CONCLUSIONS: PsA patients showed substantial prevalence of RD at baseline that correlated with time since diagnosis, but patient's individual joint activity was strongly associated with pre-existing RD at those joints. Patients with the highest RD at baseline had a reduced likelihood of achieving zero joint count status.

A systematic literature review informing the consensus statement on efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment with interleukin-6 pathway inhibition with biological DMARDs in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

OBJECTIVES: Informing an international task force updating the consensus statement on efficacy and safety of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) selectively targeting interleukin-6 (IL-6) pathway in the context of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. METHODS: A systematic literature research of all publications on IL-6 axis inhibition with bDMARDs published between January 2012 and December 2020 was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in clinical trials including their long-term extensions and observational studies. Meeting abstracts from ACR, EULAR conferences and results on clinicaltrials.gov were taken into consideration. RESULTS: 187 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Evidence for positive effect of IL-6 inhibition was available in various inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, cytokine release syndrome due to chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy and systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease. Newcomers like satralizumab and anti-IL-6 ligand antibody siltuximab have expanded therapeutic approaches for Castleman's disease and neuromyelitis optica, respectively. IL-6 inhibition did not provide therapeutic benefits in psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and certain connective tissue diseases. In COVID-19, tocilizumab (TCZ) has proven to be therapeutic in advanced disease. Safety outcomes did not differ from other bDMARDs, except higher risks of diverticulitis and lower gastrointestinal perforations. Inconsistent results were observed in several studies investigating the risk for infections when comparing TCZ to TNF-inhibitors. CONCLUSION: IL-6 inhibition is effective for treatment of several inflammatory diseases with a safety profile that is widely comparable to other bDMARDs.

[What do the results of the ORAL surveillance study mean for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib?] / Tofacitinib onveiliger dan TNF-α-remmer bij reumatoïde artritis.

Tofacitinib is a relatively new oral drug for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The ORAL surveillance study shows in a direct comparison that more patients with RA develop a 'major adverse cardiovascular event' (MACE) or malignancy during treatment with tofacitinib than during treatment with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The reliability of the study, the generalisability and interpretation of the results, as well as their implication for daily practice are discussed here.

Upadacitinib in active ankylosing spondylitis: results of the 2-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled SELECT-AXIS 1 study and open-label extension.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) has not been previously reported. METHODS: In SELECT-AXIS 1, patients receiving placebo were switched to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily at week 14 while patients initially randomised to upadacitinib continued their regimen through week 104. Efficacy was assessed using as-observed (AO) and non-responder imputation (NRI). RESULTS: Of 187 patients randomised, 144 patients (77%) completed week 104. Among patients receiving continuous upadacitinib, 85.9% (AO) and 65.6% (NRI) achieved Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 response (ASAS40) at week 104. Similar magnitude of ASAS40 responses were observed among patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib (88.7% and 63.8%, respectively). The mean change from baseline to week 104 in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada MRI spine and sacroiliac joint inflammation scores were -7.3 and -5.3, respectively, in the continuous upadacitinib group and -7.9 and -4.9 in the placebo-to-upadacitinib switch group. The mean (95% CI) change from baseline to week 104 in the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score was 0.7 (0.3, 1.1) in the total group. Adverse event rate was 242.7/100 patient-years. No serious infections, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events, lymphoma, non-melanoma skin cancer, or gastrointestinal perforations were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib 15 mg once daily showed sustained and consistent efficacy over 2 years for ASAS40 and other clinically relevant endpoints. A low rate of radiographic progression was observed and no new safety findings were observed.

Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib for active ankylosing spondylitis refractory to biological therapy: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with an inadequate response (IR) to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). METHODS: Adults with active AS who met modified New York criteria and had an IR to one or two bDMARDs (tumour necrosis factor or interleukin-17 inhibitors) were randomised 1:1 to oral upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 (ASAS40) response at week 14. Sequentially tested secondary endpoints included Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity score, Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada MRI spine inflammation score, total back pain, nocturnal back pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index and Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score. Results are reported from the 14-week double-blind treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 420 patients with active AS were randomised (upadacitinib 15 mg, n=211; placebo, n=209). Significantly more patients achieved the primary endpoint of ASAS40 at week 14 with upadacitinib vs placebo (45% vs 18%; p<0.0001). Statistically significant improvements were observed with upadacitinib vs placebo for all multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints (p<0.0001). Adverse events were reported for 41% of upadacitinib-treated and 37% of placebo-treated patients through week 14. No events of malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism or deaths were reported with upadacitinib. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib 15 mg was significantly more effective than placebo over 14 weeks of treatment in bDMARD-IR patients with active AS. No new safety risks were identified with upadacitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04169373.