Corticosteroids and other immunosuppressants for immune-related adverse events and checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate an association between immunosuppression for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and impaired survival in patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Whether this is related to corticosteroids or second-line immunosuppressants is unknown. In the largest cohort thus far, we assessed the association of immunosuppressant type and dose with survival in melanoma patients with irAEs. METHODS: Patients with advanced melanoma who received immunosuppressants for irAEs induced by first-line anti-PD-1 ± anti-CTLA-4 were included from 18 hospitals worldwide. Associations of cumulative and peak dose corticosteroids and use of second-line immunosuppression with survival from start of immunosuppression were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: Among 606 patients, 404 had anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4-related irAEs and 202 had anti-PD-1-related irAEs. 425 patients (70 %) received corticosteroids only; 181 patients (30 %) additionally received second-line immunosuppressants. Median PFS and OS from starting immunosuppression were 4.5 (95 %CI 3.4-8.1) and 31 (95 %CI 15-not reached) months in patients who received second-line immunosuppressants, and 11 (95 %CI 9.4-14) and 55 (95 %CI 41-not reached) months in patients who did not. High corticosteroid peak dose was associated with worse PFS and OS (HRadj 1.14; 95 %CI 1.01-1.29; HRadj 1.29; 95 %CI 1.12-1.49 for 80vs40mg), while cumulative dose was not. Second-line immunosuppression was associated with worse PFS (HRadj 1.32; 95 %CI 1.02-1.72) and OS (HRadj 1.34; 95 %CI 0.99-1.82) compared with corticosteroids alone. CONCLUSIONS: High corticosteroid peak dose and second-line immunosuppressants to treat irAEs are both associated with impaired survival. While immunosuppression is indispensable for treatment of severe irAEs, clinicians should weigh possible detrimental effects on survival against potential disadvantages of undertreatment.

The serological immunogenicity of the third and fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases on different biologic or targeted DMARDs: a Swedish nationwide study (COVID-19-REUMA).

Studies investigating the immunogenicity of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses in immunosuppressed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) are still limited. The objective was to explore the antibody response including response to omicron virus subvariants (sBA.1 and sBS.2) after third and fourth COVID-19 vaccine doses in Swedish IRD patients treated with immunomodulating drugs compared to controls. Antibody levels to spike wild-type antigens (full-length protein and S1) and the omicron variants sBA.1 and sBA.2 (full-length proteins) were measured. A positive response was defined as having antibody levels over cut-off or ≥fourfold increase in post-vaccination levels for both antigens. Patients with arthritis, vasculitis, and other autoimmune diseases (n = 414), and controls (n = 61) receiving biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with or without conventional synthetic DMARDs participated. Of these, blood samples were available for 370 patients and 52 controls after three doses, and 65 patients and 15 controls after four doses. Treatment groups after three vaccine doses were rituximab (n = 133), abatacept (n = 22), IL6r inhibitors (n = 71), JAnus Kinase inhibitors (JAK-inhibitors) (n = 56), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF-inhibitors) (n = 61), IL12/23/17 inhibitors (n = 27), and controls (n = 52). The percentage of responders after three and four vaccine doses was lower in rituximab-treated patients (59% and 57%) compared to controls (100%) (P < 0.001). After three doses, the percentage of responders in all other groups was 100%, including response to omicron sBA.1 and sBA.2. In rituximab-treated patients, higher baseline immunoglobulin G (IgG) and longer time-period between rituximab and vaccination predicted better response. In this Swedish nationwide study including IRD patients three and four COVID-19 vaccine doses were immunogenic in patients treated with IL6r inhibitors, TNF-inhibitors, JAK-inhibitors, and IL12/23/17-inhibitors but not in rituximab. As >50% of rituximab patients responded to vaccines including omicron subvariants, these patients should be prioritized for additional vaccine doses. IMPORTANCE: Results from this study provide further evidence that additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines are immunogenic and result in satisfactory antibody response in a majority of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) receiving potent immunomodulating treatments such as biological or targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) given as monotherapy or combined with traditional DMARDs. We observed that rituximab treatment, both as monotherapy and combined with csDMARDs, impaired antibody response, and only roughly 50% of patients developed a satisfactory antibody response including response to omicron subvariants after the third vaccine. In addition, higher IgG levels at the last rituximab course before the third vaccine dose and a longer time after the last rituximab treatment increased the chance of a satisfactory antibody response. These results indicate that rituximab-treated patients should be prioritized for additional vaccine doses. CLINICAL TRIALS: EudraCT (European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database) with number 2021-000880-63.

Are JAKis more effective among elderly patients with RA, smokers and those with higher cardiovascular risk? A comparative effectiveness study of b/tsDMARDs in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the relative effectiveness of janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis differ by the presence or absence of risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) disease, age, sex and smoking. METHODS: Through Swedish registers, we identified 13 493 individuals with 3166 JAKi, 5575 non-TNFi and 11 286 TNFi treatment initiations 2016-2022. All lines of therapy were included, with the majority in second line or higher. Treatment response was defined as the proportion reaching European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) good response and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission, respectively, within 6 months. Crude percentage point differences in these proportions (JAKis, and non-TNFis, vs TNFis) overall and by risk factors were observed, and adjusted for confounders using linear regression models. Predicted probabilities of response and remission were estimated from adjusted Poisson models, and presented across CV risk and age. RESULTS: Overall, adjusted percentage point differences indicated higher response (+5.0%, 95% CI 2.2% to 7.9%) and remission (+5.8%, 95% CI 3.2% to 8.5%) with JAKis versus TNFis. The adjusted percentage point differences for response in those above 65, at elevated CV risk, and smokers were +5.9% (95% CI 2.7% to 9.0%), +8.3% (95% CI 5.3% to 11.4%) and +6.0% (95% CI 3.3% to 8.7%), respectively. The corresponding estimates for remission were +8.0% (95% CI 5.3% to 10.8%), +5.6% (95% CI 3.0% to 8.2%) and +7.6% (95% CI 5.5% to 9.7%). CONCLUSIONS: As used in clinical practice, response and remission at 6 months with JAKis are higher than with TNFi. Among patients with risk factors of concern, effectiveness is similar or numerically further increased. For individualised benefit-to-risk ratios to guide treatment choice, safety and effectiveness in specific patient segments should be considered.

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.

Risk of lung cancer in rheumatoid arthritis and in relation to autoantibody positivity and smoking.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is a common malignancy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Since smoking is a risk factor for both (seropositive) RA and lung cancer, it remains unclear whether RA, in itself, increases lung cancer risk. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study of patients with RA and individually matched general population reference individuals identified in Swedish registers and from the Epidemiological Investigation of RA early RA study, prospectively followed for lung cancer occurrence 1995-2018. We calculated incidence rates and performed Cox regression to estimate HRs including 95% CIs of lung cancer, taking smoking and RA serostatus into account. RESULTS: Overall, we included 44 101 patients with RA (590 incident lung cancers, 56 per 100 000), and 216 495 matched general population individuals (1691 incident lung cancers, 33 per 100 000), corresponding to a crude HR (95% CI) of 1.76 (1.60 to 1.93). In subset analyses, this increased risk remained after adjustment for smoking (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.97). Compared with general population subjects who were never smokers, patients with RA who were ever smokers had almost seven times higher risk of lung cancer. In RA, seropositivity was a significant lung cancer risk factor, even when adjusted for smoking, increasing the incidence 2-6 times. At 20 years, the risk in patients with RA was almost 3%, overall and over 4% for patients who were ever smokers and had at least one RA autoantibody. CONCLUSIONS: Seropositive RA is a risk factor for lung cancer over and above what can be explained by smoking, although residual confounding by smoking or other airway exposures cannot be formally excluded. There is a need for increased awareness and potentially for regular lung cancer screening, at least in a subset of patients with RA.

Development and external validation of prediction models for adverse health outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: A multinational real-world cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Identification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients at high risk of adverse health outcomes remains a major challenge. We aimed to develop and validate prediction models for a variety of adverse health outcomes in RA patients initiating first-line methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy. METHODS: Data from 15 claims and electronic health record databases across 9 countries were used. Models were developed and internally validated on Optum® De-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database using L1-regularized logistic regression to estimate the risk of adverse health outcomes within 3 months (leukopenia, pancytopenia, infection), 2 years (myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke), and 5 years (cancers [colorectal, breast, uterine] after treatment initiation. Candidate predictors included demographic variables and past medical history. Models were externally validated on all other databases. Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots. FINDINGS: Models were developed and internally validated on 21,547 RA patients and externally validated on 131,928 RA patients. Models for serious infection (AUC: internal 0.74, external ranging from 0.62 to 0.83), MI (AUC: internal 0.76, external ranging from 0.56 to 0.82), and stroke (AUC: internal 0.77, external ranging from 0.63 to 0.95), showed good discrimination and adequate calibration. Models for the other outcomes showed modest internal discrimination (AUC < 0.65) and were not externally validated. INTERPRETATION: We developed and validated prediction models for a variety of adverse health outcomes in RA patients initiating first-line MTX monotherapy. Final models for serious infection, MI, and stroke demonstrated good performance across multiple databases and can be studied for clinical use. FUNDING: This activity under the European Health Data & Evidence Network (EHDEN) has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 806968. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA.

Comparison of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced arthritis and reactive arthritis to inform therapeutic strategy.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IA) is a relatively new disease entity caused by ICI agents during cancer therapy. Reactive arthritis (ReA) is a well-known disease entity caused by urogenital or gastrointestinal bacterial infection or pneumonia. In this sense, ICI-IA and ReA are both defined by a reaction to a well-specified causal event. As a result, comparing these diseases may help to determine therapeutic strategies. METHODS: We compared ICI-IA and ReA with special focus on pharmacological management. Specifically regarding treatment, we conducted a literature search of studies published in the PubMed database. Inclusion criteria were studies on treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoids (GC), or disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in ICI-IA or ReA. During systematic selection, 21 studies evaluating ICI-IA and 14 studies evaluating ReA were included. RESULTS: In ICI-IA, prospective and retrospective studies have shown effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoid (GC), sulfasalazine (SSZ), methotrexate (MTX), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and TNFi. In ReA, retrospective studies evaluated NSAIDs and GC. A randomized controlled trial reported the effect of SSZ, and a retrospective study reported the effect of MTX and SSZ in combination with tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibition (TNFi). For both entities, small case reports show treatment effects of interleukin 6 receptor inhibition (IL-6Ri). DISCUSSION: This literature review identified both similarities and differences regarding the pathogenesis and clinical features of ReA and ICI-IA. Studies on treatment reported effectiveness of NSAIDs, GC, MTX, SSZ and TNFi in both diseases. Further, small case reports showed effects of IL-6Ri.

Effectiveness of baricitinib and tofacitinib compared with bDMARDs in RA: results from a cohort study using nationwide Swedish register data.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of baricitinib and tofacitinib by Swedish RA patients and to compare their effectiveness with that of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs). METHODS: RA patients who initiated baricitinib (n = 1420), tofacitinib (n = 316), abatacept (n = 1050), IL-6 inhibitors (IL-6is; n = 849), rituximab (n = 1101) or TNF inhibitors (TNFis; n = 6036) between January 2017 and November 2019 were followed for a minimum of 1 year using data from several linked Swedish national registers. Proportions reaching a good EULAR 28-joint DAS (DAS28) response, HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI) improvement >0.2 units and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission were compared at 1 year, imputing discontinued treatments as 'non-response'. Additionally, we compared drug retention and changes in DAS28, HAQ-DI and CDAI from baseline to 3 months after treatment initiation. RESULTS: On average, baricitinib, and particularly tofacitinib, were initiated as later lines of therapy and more frequently as monotherapy compared with rituximab and TNFi. Adjusted 1 year response proportions were consistently lower on TNFi compared with baricitinib, with differences of -4.3 percentage points (95% CI -8.7, 0.1) for good EULAR response, -9.9 (-14.4 to -5.4) for HAQ-DI improvement and -6.0 (-9.8 to -2.2) for CDAI remission. Comparisons with non-TNFi bDMARDs also favoured baricitinib, but not consistently. Treatment responses for tofacitinib were only marginally lower than those for baricitinib and generally similar to those of bDMARDs, with precision limited by low power. Comparisons of drug retention and changes in disease activity from baseline to 3 months supported the 1 year findings. CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib and tofacitinib showed at least equivalent effectiveness compared with bDMARDs after exploring several different effectiveness measures.

Using Autoantibodies to Diagnose Systemic Autoimmune Diseases Triggered by Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Clinical Perspective.

Immunotherapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), have significantly advanced the treatment of cancer and other conditions. However, these therapies can also cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are unintended side effects due to their effects on the immune system of the treated patient. These effects can be classified as organ-specific or systemic, with the latter being of particular interest due to their potential overlap with systemic autoimmune diseases (SADs). Autoantibodies, which are proteins produced by the immune system that react with self components, are often used to diagnose and classify SAD. However, the diagnostic value of autoantibodies in the context of systemic irAEs (sirAEs) triggered by ICIs is not well understood. This review aims to evaluate the diagnostic value of conventional autoantibodies in the identification and classification of sirAEs. A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted using the PubMed database, with a focus on articles published in the past 10 years. The results of the review suggest that, although autoantibodies can be useful in the diagnosis and classification of some SAD triggered by ICIs, there is a clear predominance of seronegative irAEs. The lack of traditional autoantibodies may suggest a unique mechanism for sirAEs and increases the already complex diagnostic approach of these manifestations, requiring evaluation by multidisciplinary teams with extensive experience in immunomediated diseases. Further research is needed to fully understand the diagnostic value of autoantibodies in this context and to determine the optimal approach for their detection and interpretation.

Tocilizumab decreases T cells but not macrophages in the synovium of patients with rheumatoid arthritis while it increases the levels of serum interleukin-6 and RANKL.

OBJECTIVES: Our knowledge about the effect of tocilizumab (TCZ) on the synovium in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of TCZ on citrullination and on inflammation in the synovial tissue and in the peripheral blood. METHODS: 15 patients with RA underwent synovial biopsy before and 8 weeks after TCZ initiation. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and at 8 weeks. Using immunohistochemistry, we evaluated the expression of CD68, CD3, CD20, osteoprotegerin (OPG) and receptor activator for nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL) before and after treatment with TCZ. We also analysed the expression of protein arginine deiminase (PAD)-2 and PAD-4 enzymes in the synovial tissue and protein citrullination patterns with the help of anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) clones 1325:04C03 and 1325:01B09. Serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8, RANKL, OPG and C-terminal crosslinked telopeptide type II collagen were measured by ELISA. Paired-wise Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare median values before and after treatment. RESULTS: Disease activity in patients was reduced from baseline to 8 weeks. Although PAD-2 and PAD-4 expressions remained unchanged after TCZ treatment, the binding of one ACPA clone decreased in the synovial tissue. TCZ did not affect the number of CD68+ macrophages or CD20+ B cells but induced significant decrease in the number of CD3+ T cells. RANKL and OPG expression remained unchanged in the synovial tissue. A significant increase in the levels of IL-6 and RANKL was observed in the serum. This increase was statistically significant in patients who responded to TCZ (achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index low disease activity or remission) but not in non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: TCZ reduced synovial T-cell counts but not macrophages. A significant increase of serum IL-6 was observed in responders.

Effectiveness of a Second Biologic After Failure of a Non-tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor As First Biologic in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), evidence regarding the effectiveness of a second biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients whose first-ever bDMARD was a non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD is limited. The objective of this study was therefore to assess the outcome of a second bDMARD (non-TNFi: rituximab [RTX], abatacept [ABA], or tocilizumab [TCZ], separately; and TNFi) after failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD. METHODS: We identified patients with RA from the 5 Nordic biologics registers who started treatment with a non-TNFi as first-ever bDMARD but switched to a second bDMARD. For the second bDMARD, we assessed drug survival (at 6 and 12 months) and primary response (at 6 months). RESULTS: We included 620 patients starting a second bDMARD (ABA 86, RTX 40, TCZ 67, and TNFi 427) following failure of a first non-TNFi bDMARD. At 6 and 12 months after start of their second bDMARD, approximately 70% and 60%, respectively, remained on treatment, and at 6 months, less than one-third of patients were still on their second bDMARD and had reached low disease activity or remission according to the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. For those patients whose second bMDARD was a TNFi, the corresponding proportion was slightly higher (40%). CONCLUSION: The drug survival and primary response of a second bDMARD in patients with RA switching due to failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD is modest. Some patients may benefit from TNFi when used after failure of a non-TNFi as first bDMARD.

Treatment of rheumatic immune-related adverse events due to cancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors-is it time for a paradigm shift?

Immunotherapy has revolutionized cancer treatment during the last years. Several monoclonal antibodies that are specific for regulatory checkpoint molecules, that is, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), have been approved and are currently in use for various types of cancer in different lines of treatment. Cancer immunotherapy aims for enhancing the immune response against cancer cells. Despite their high efficacy, ICIs are associated to a new spectrum of adverse events of autoimmune origin, often referred to as immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which limit the utility of these drugs. These irAEs are quite common and can affect almost every organ. The grade of toxicity varies from very mild to life-threatening. The pathophysiological mechanisms behind these events are not fully understood. In this review, we will summarize current evidence specifically regarding the rheumatic irAEs and we will focus on current and future treatment strategies. Treatment guidelines largely support the use of glucocorticoids as first-line therapy, when symptomatic therapy is not efficient, and for more persistent and/or moderate/severe degree of inflammation. Targeted therapies are higher up in the treatment pyramid, after inadequate response to glucocorticoids and conventional, broad immunosuppressive agents, and for severe forms of irAEs. However, preclinical data provide evidence that raise concerns regarding the potential risk of impaired antitumoral effect. This potential risk of glucocorticoids, together with the high efficacy and potential synergistic effect of newer, targeted immunomodulation, such as tumor necrosis factor and interleukin-6 blockade, could support a paradigm shift, where more targeted treatments are considered earlier in the treatment sequence.

[Overview of immune-related side effects from immune checkpoint inhibitors. Part 2: Endocrine, rheumatologic and skin toxicity]. / Immunrelaterade biverkningar i hud, endokrina organ och leder.

In the past decade, immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized the field of oncology. Checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for several types of cancer and thousands of patients in Sweden now receive oncological immunotherapy annually. Immune-related side effects are common and can occur in almost any organ. These side effects are different from those that occur with traditional oncological treatments. The side effects are usually mild, but can be serious and even lethal. In a short time, health care providers have had to readjust to be able to handle these side effects. Early and correct diagnosis of immune-related side effects, proper management and a multidisciplinary approach is crucial. Here, we give an overview of the presentation, diagnosis and treatment of immune-related side effects, with emphasis on endocrine, rheumatologic and skin toxicity.

Higher depression rates and similar cardiovascular comorbidity in psoriatic arthritis compared with rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: We explore the spectrum of comorbidities in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients in comparison with other high comorbidity-burden diseases like rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: Two hundred and fifteen PsA patients, cross-sectionally collected from two tertiary hospitals, were compared with 215 RA and 215 DM patients (age/sex-matched, similar disease duration). Cardiovascular risk factors [hypertension, current smoking, hyperlipidaemia, obesity (body mass index (BMI) ⩾30)], coronary artery disease (CAD), stroke, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; combined CAD and stroke), depression, osteoporosis and malignancies were recorded. Odds ratios (ORs) for stroke, CAD and MACE were adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, smoking, hyperlipidaemia, BMI, glucocorticoids use and those for depression were adjusted for age, sex, disease duration, skin involvement and smoking. Within the PsA group, associations between comorbidities and demographic/clinical features were assessed. RESULTS: Depression [OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 3.02 (1.57-5.81)], obesity [OR (95% CI): 2.83, (1.65-4.86)] and hyperlipidaemia [OR (95% CI): 1.96 (1.32-2.90)] were more prevalent in PsA compared with RA, while no differences were observed for CAD, stroke, MACE and malignancies. Depression [OR (95% CI): 4.85 (2.37-9.93)] and osteoporosis [OR (95% CI): 6.22 (1.33-29.2)] were more common in PsA than in DM. Hypertension, but not the other cardiovascular risk factors, was more frequent in DM [OR (95% CI) 0.49 (0.33-0.74)]. However, prevalence of stroke, CAD and MACE did not differ between PsA and DM. Within PsA group, depression was associated with age [OR (95% CI): 1.03 (0.99-1.06)], female sex [OR (95% CI): 3.47 (1.51-7.99)] and smoking [OR (95% CI): 2.78 (1.31-5.88)] while MACEs were associated with age [OR (95% CI): 1.08 (1.00-1.17)], male sex [OR (95% CI) for females: 0.26 (0.06-1.23) and hypertension [OR (95% CI): 6.07 (1.12-33.0)]. No differences were recorded in comorbidities between the different PsA phenotypes. CONCLUSION: Depression was more prevalent in PsA compared with RA and DM, while cardiovascular comorbidity was comparable to both groups, supporting the need for their assessment and management.

Lung cancer in rheumatoid arthritis. Is there a need for better risk assessment and screening?

Extra-articular manifestations are common in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with lung involvement being one of the commonest. Apart from interstitial lung disease which is a well-recognized manifestation, it seems that lung cancer has also increased frequency in RA. In fact, recent meta-analyses have suggested that in RA compared with the general population, lymphomas and lung malignancy are more frequent. For the latter, male gender, seropositivity for rheumatoid factor and/or anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA), as well as older age, has been suggested, among others, as risk factors. Several hypotheses have been formulated to explain the increased frequency of lung cancer in RA. These include smoking and/or interstitial lung as common risk factors for both RA and lung cancer and chronic inflammation predisposing to malignant diseases. Numerous questions remain to be answered. For example, are there any risk factors (e.g., positivity for rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies) that would predict the development of lung cancer in these patients? Are there any screening procedures appropriate for early diagnosis and therefore better outcome? Data from large registries are needed to better define the profile of these patients.

Low rates of remission with methotrexate monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: review of randomised controlled trials could point towards a paradigm shift.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has improved substantially during the last decades, mainly due to the development and introduction in everyday practice of new, highly efficacious, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), more optimal usage of them, earlier diagnosis and tighter control of disease activity targeting at remission. Methotrexate is still today the anchor drug and the first-line treatment after diagnosis. However, numerous studies comparing methotrexate and biologic DMARDs, as well as new targeted synthetic DMARDs, both in early as in more established disease, have shown consistently better efficacy of the latter compared with methotrexate, with methotrexate yielding remission to maximum half of patients. This could suggest a new paradigm shift with earlier start of a biologic or a targeted synthetic DMARD, with the possibility of subsequent discontinuation in case of achievement of stable remission. Several strategy trials, however, have shown that there might be a clinical and structural benefit of initial, aggressive therapy, possibly even associated with higher chance of remaining in remission, after cessation of the biologic DMARD and continuing with methotrexate alone, but they have failed to show a clear advantage of such an aggressive treatment strategy. This might become a valuable option for the future treatment algorithm of RA, especially for a subgroup of patients with RA, but further confirmation from future research is needed. The crucial role of glucocorticoid use as part of the combination strategy should be acknowledged, and strategy trials should include this combination as an active comparator.

2017 EULAR recommendations for a core data set to support observational research and clinical care in rheumatoid arthritis.

Personalised medicine, new discoveries and studies on rare exposures or outcomes require large samples that are increasingly difficult for any single investigator to obtain. Collaborative work is limited by heterogeneities, both what is being collected and how it is defined. To develop a core set for data collection in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) research which (1) allows harmonisation of data collection in future observational studies, (2) acts as a common data model against which existing databases can be mapped and (3) serves as a template for standardised data collection in routine clinical practice to support generation of research-quality data. A multistep, international multistakeholder consensus process was carried out involving voting via online surveys and two face-to-face meetings. A core set of 21 items ('what to collect') and their instruments ('how to collect') was agreed: age, gender, disease duration, diagnosis of RA, body mass index, smoking, swollen/tender joints, patient/evaluator global, pain, quality of life, function, composite scores, acute phase reactants, serology, structural damage, treatment and comorbidities. The core set should facilitate collaborative research, allow for comparisons across studies and harmonise future data from clinical practice via electronic medical record systems.

Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the management of RA. METHODS: Systematic literature review (SLR) of observational studies comparing any DMARD with another intervention for the management of patients with RA. All safety outcomes were included. A comparator group was required for the study to be included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Hayden's tool. RESULTS: Twenty-six observational studies addressing diverse safety outcomes of therapy with bDMARDs met eligibility criteria (15 on serious infections, 4 on malignancies). Substantial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Together with the evidence from the 2013 SLR, based on 15 studies, 7 at low risk of bias, patients on bDMARDs compared with patients on conventional sDMARDs had a higher risk of serious infections (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.1 to 1.8)-without differences across bDMARDs-a higher risk of tuberculosis (aHR 2.7 to 12.5), but no increased risk of infection by herpes zoster. Patients on bDMARDs did not have an increased risk of malignancies in general, lymphoma or non-melanoma skin cancer, but the risk of melanoma may be slightly increased (aHR 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the known safety pattern of bDMARDs, including both tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) and non-TNFi, for the treatment of RA.

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.