How to Distinguish Non-Inflammatory from Inflammatory Pain in RA?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Managing non-inflammatory pain in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be a huge burden for the rheumatologist. Pain that persists despite optimal RA treatment is extremely challenging for patient and physician alike. Here, we outline the latest research relevant to distinguishing non-inflammatory from inflammatory RA pain and review the current understanding of its neurobiology and management. RECENT FINDINGS: Nociplastic pain is a recently introduced term by the international pain community. Its definition encompasses the non-inflammatory pain of RA and describes pain that is not driven by inflamed joints or compromised nerves, but that is instead driven by a functional reorganisation of the central nervous system (CNS). Insights from all areas of nociplastic pain research, including fibromyalgia, support a personalised pain management approach for non-inflammatory pain of RA, with evidence-based guidelines favouring use of non-pharmacological interventions. Future developments include novel CNS targeting pharmacotherapeutic approaches to treat nociplastic pain.

Final Results from SAUL, a Single-arm International Study of Atezolizumab in Unselected Patients with Pretreated Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urinary Tract Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We assessed the safety of atezolizumab in unselected patients (including understudied populations typically excluded from clinical trials) with pretreated urinary tract carcinoma (UTC). The prespecified final analysis updates previously reported safety and efficacy data. METHODS: The single-arm prospective SAUL study (NCT02928406) enrolled 1004 patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial/non-urothelial UTC that had progressed during/after one to three prior treatment lines for advanced UTC (or <12 mo after [neo]adjuvant therapy). Broad eligibility criteria allowed enrollment of patients with complex comorbidities approximating the real-world setting. Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 wk until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included duration of response and overall survival (OS). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The treated cohort included 10% of patients with poor performance status, 5% with creatinine clearance <30 ml/min, and 4% with autoimmune disease. At median follow-up of 55 mo, median atezolizumab duration was 2.8 mo (range 0-62); 68 patients (7%) continued atezolizumab for >4 yr. Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 16% of patients (death in 1%); 8% discontinued atezolizumab for adverse events. Median OS was 8.6 mo (95% confidence interval 7.8-9.7) and 136 patients (14%) had OS longer than 4 yr. Limitations include the small sample size for some subgroups of special interest. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Long-term safety and efficacy data continue to show a benefit of atezolizumab in unselected patients with UTC. Remarkably, 14% of patients lived for >4 yr after starting atezolizumab. These results can inform multidisciplinary team discussions and treatment decision-making for patients with UTC with complex comorbidities. PATIENT SUMMARY: The SAUL study looked at how well tolerated a drug called atezolizumab was in patients with urinary tract cancer who had already received up to three previous treatments for their cancer, including people who are usually not included in clinical trials because of other medical conditions. The length of survival after starting treatment was also assessed. Overall, the results show that atezolizumab was well tolerated. People for whom other therapies had failed lived for about 8.6 months on average after starting treatment, and 14% of the patients were still alive after 4 years.

Enhancing current guidance for psoriatic arthritis and its comorbidities: recommendations from an expert consensus panel.

OBJECTIVES: Existing guidelines for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cover many aspects of management. Some gaps remain relating to routine practice application. An expert group aimed to enhance current guidance and develop recommendations for clinical practice that are complementary to existing guidelines. METHODS: A steering committee comprising experienced, research-active clinicians in rheumatology, dermatology and primary care agreed on themes and relevant questions. A targeted literature review of PubMed and Embase following a PICO framework was conducted. At a second meeting, recommendations were drafted and subsequently an extended faculty comprising rheumatologists, dermatologists, primary care clinicians, specialist nurses, allied health professionals, non-clinical academic participants and members of the Brit-PACT patient group, was recruited. Consensus was achieved via an online voting platform when 75% of respondents agreed in the range of 7-9 on a 9-point scale. RESULTS: The guidance comprised 34 statements covering four PsA themes. Diagnosis focused on strategies to identify PsA early and refer appropriately, assessment of diagnostic indicators, use of screening tools and use of imaging. Disease assessment centred on holistic consideration of disease activity, physical functioning and impact from a patient perspective, and on how to implement shared decision-making. For comorbidities, recommendations included specific guidance for high-impact conditions such as depression and obesity. Management statements (which excluded extant guidance on pharmacological therapies) covered multidisciplinary team working, implementation of lifestyle modifications and treat-to-target strategies. Minimising corticosteroid use was recommended where feasible. CONCLUSION: The consensus group have made evidence-based best practice recommendations for the management of PsA to enhance the existing guidelines.

How do patient reported outcome measures affect treatment intensification and patient satisfaction in the management of psoriatic arthritis? A cross sectional study of 503 patients.

OBJECTIVES: The ASSIST study investigated prescribing in routine psoriatic arthritis (PsA) care and whether the patient reported outcome: PsA Impact of Disease questionnaire (PsAID-12), impacted treatment. This study also assessed a range of patient and clinician factors and their relationship to PsAID-12 scoring and treatment modification. METHODS: Patients with PsA were selected across the UK and Europe between July 2021-March 2022. Patients completed the PsAID questionnaire, with the results shared with their physician. Patient characteristics, disease activity, current treatment methods, treatment strategies, medication changes and patient satisfaction scores were recorded. RESULTS: 503 patients recruited. 36.2% had changes made to treatment, 88.8% of this had treatment escalation. Overall, the mean PsAID-12 score was higher for patients with treatment escalation; the PsAID-12 score was associated with odds of treatment escalation (OR: 1.58; p< 0.0001). However, most clinicians reported PsAID-12 did not impact their decision to escalate treatment, instead supporting treatment reduction decisions. Physician's assessment of disease activity had the most statistically significant effect on likelihood of treatment escalation, (OR = 2.68, per 1-point score increase). Escalation was more likely in patients not treated with biologic therapies. Additional factors associated with treatment escalation included: patient characteristics, physician characteristics, disease activity and disease impact. CONCLUSION: This study highlights multiple factors impacting treatment decision making for individuals with PsA. PsAID-12 scoring correlates with multiple measures of disease severity and odds of treatment escalation. However, most clinicians reported the PsAID-12 did not influence treatment escalation decisions. PsAID scoring could be used to increase confidence in treatment de-escalation.

Reprint of "Residual pain in rheumatoid arthritis: Is it a real problem?"

Pain is a significant issue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can have a negative impact on patients' quality of life. Despite optimal control of inflammatory disease, residual chronic pain remains a major unmet medical need in RA. Pain in RA can be secondary to inflammation but can also generate neuroendocrine responses that initiate neurogenic inflammation and enhance cytokine release, leading to persistent hyperalgesia. In addition to well-known cytokines such as TNFα and IL-6, other cytokines and the JAK-STAT pathway play a role in pain modulation and inflammation. The development of chronic pain in RA involves processes beyond inflammation or structural damage. Residual pain is often observed in patients even after achieving remission or low disease activity, suggesting the involvement of non-inflammatory and central sensitization mechanisms. Moreover, fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is prevalent in RA patients and may contribute to persistent pain. Factors such as depression, sleep disturbance, and pro-inflammatory cytokines may contribute to the development of fibromyalgia in RA. It is essential to identify and diagnose concomitant FMS in RA patients to better manage their symptoms. Further research is needed to unravel the complexities of pain in RA. Finally, recent studies have shown that JAK inhibitors effectively reduce residual pain in RA patients, suggesting pain-reducing effects independent of their anti-inflammatory properties.

Start RA treatment - Biologics or JAK-inhibitors?

Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) for several years. They are the first oral advanced treatment with efficacy similar to, if not greater than, biologic agents. Recently, concerns over their safety was raised by the results from Oral Surveillance trial suggesting that tofacitinib, one of the JAKi, was associated with higher cardiovascular adverse events and malignancies than TNF inhibitors (TNFi). Since then, regulatory authorities have added warnings to the labels of JAKi. On this purpose, whether rheumatologists should use JAKi as first line advance treatment has become a controversial topic. Some rheumatologists have argued that biologics should be first line advance treatment since there are extensive effectiveness and safety data. In addition, with the advent of biosimilar drugs, they are the most cost-effective treatment. On the other hand, JAKi are very efficacious and are generally safe apart from older and high-risk patients. When TNFi are contraindicated and in certain RA patients ,especially when an oral drug is preferable, JAKi have significant advantage providing patients are involved in the decision-making process.

An international multi-centre analysis of current prescribing practices and shared decision-making in psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision-making (SDM) is advocated to improve patient outcomes in Psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We analysed current prescribing practices and the extent of SDM in PsA across Europe. METHODS: The ASSIST study was a cross-sectional observational study of PsA patients aged ≥18 years attending face-to-face appointments between July 2021-March 2022. Patient demographics, current treatment and treatment decisions were recorded. SDM was measured by the clinician's effort to collaborate (CollaboRATE questionnaire) and patient communication confidence (PEPPI-5 tool). RESULTS: 503 patients were included from 24 centres across the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Physician- and patient-reported measures of disease activity were highest in the UK. Conventional synthetic DMARDs constituted a higher percentage of current PsA treatment in UK than continental Europe (66.4% vs 44.9%), which differed from biologic DMARDs (36.4% vs 64.4%). Implementing treatment escalation was most common in the UK. CollaboRATE and PEPPI-5 scores were high across centres. Of 31 patients with low CollaboRATE scores (<4.5), no patients with low PsAID-12 scores (<5) had treatment escalation. However, of 465 patients with CollaboRATE scores ≥4.5, 59 patients with low PsAID-12 scores received treatment escalation. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of treatment escalation seen in the UK may be explained by higher disease activity and a younger cohort. High levels of collaboration in face-to-face PsA consultations suggests effective implementation of the SDM approach. Our data indicate that, in patients with mild disease activity, only those with higher perceived collaboration underwent treatment escalation. Prospective studies should examine the impact of SDM on PsA patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05171270.

MACE and VTE across upadacitinib clinical trial programmes in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an integrated analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and events of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and associated risk factors across rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) phase 2b/3 upadacitinib clinical programmes. METHODS: Data were analysed and summarised from clinical trials of RA, PsA and AS treated with upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (QD) and 30 mg QD (as of 30 June 2021). Data from adalimumab (RA and PsA) and methotrexate (RA) arms were included as comparators. Adjudicated MACEs and VTE events were presented as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (E/100 PY). Univariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses assessed potential associations of risk factors for MACE and VTE. RESULTS: In total, 4298 patients received upadacitinib 15 mg (RA n=3209, PsA n=907 and AS n=182) and 2125 patients received upadacitinib 30 mg (RA n=1204 and PsA n=921). In patients with RA and PsA, rates of MACE (0.3-0.6 E/100 PY) and VTE (0.2-0.4 E/100 PY) were similar across upadacitinib doses; in patients with AS, no MACEs and one VTE event occurred. Most patients experiencing MACEs or VTE events had two or more baseline cardiovascular risk factors. Across RA and PsA groups, rates of MACEs and VTE events were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of MACEs and VTE events with upadacitinib were consistent with previously reported data for patients receiving conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and comparable with active comparators adalimumab and methotrexate. Associated patient characteristics are known risk factors for MACEs and VTE events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: RA (SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873, SELECT-CHOICE: NCT03086343), PsA (SELECT-PsA 2: NCT03104374; SELECT-PsA 1: NCT03104400), and AS (SELECT-AXIS 1: NCT03178487).

Residual pain in rheumatoid arthritis: Is it a real problem?

Pain is a significant issue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can have a negative impact on patients' quality of life. Despite optimal control of inflammatory disease, residual chronic pain remains a major unmet medical need in RA. Pain in RA can be secondary to inflammation but can also generate neuroendocrine responses that initiate neurogenic inflammation and enhance cytokine release, leading to persistent hyperalgesia. In addition to well-known cytokines such as TNFα and IL-6, other cytokines and the JAK-STAT pathway play a role in pain modulation and inflammation. The development of chronic pain in RA involves processes beyond inflammation or structural damage. Residual pain is often observed in patients even after achieving remission or low disease activity, suggesting the involvement of non-inflammatory and central sensitization mechanisms. Moreover, fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is prevalent in RA patients and may contribute to persistent pain. Factors such as depression, sleep disturbance, and pro-inflammatory cytokines may contribute to the development of fibromyalgia in RA. It is essential to identify and diagnose concomitant FMS in RA patients to better manage their symptoms. Further research is needed to unravel the complexities of pain in RA. Finally, recent studies have shown that JAK inhibitors effectively reduce residual pain in RA patients, suggesting pain-reducing effects independent of their anti-inflammatory properties.

Real-World Sarilumab Use and Rule Testing to Predict Treatment Response in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Findings from the RISE Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trial findings may not be generalizable to routine practice. This study evaluated sarilumab effectiveness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and tested the real-world applicability of a response prediction rule, derived from trial data using machine learning (based on C-reactive protein [CRP] > 12.3 mg/l and seropositivity [anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, ACPA +]). METHODS: Sarilumab initiators from the ACR-RISE Registry, with ≥ 1 prescription on/after its FDA approval (2017-2020), were divided into three cohorts based on progressively restrictive criteria: Cohort A (had active disease), Cohort B (met eligibility criteria of a phase 3 trial in RA patients with inadequate response/intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFi]), and Cohort C (characteristics matched to the phase 3 trial baseline). Mean changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) were evaluated at 6 and 12 months. In a separate cohort, predictive rule was tested based on CRP levels and seropositive status (ACPA and/or rheumatoid factor); patients were categorized into rule-positive (seropositive with CRP > 12.3 mg/l) and rule-negative groups to compare the odds of achieving CDAI low disease activity (LDA)/remission and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) over 24 weeks. RESULTS: Among sarilumab initiators (N = 2949), treatment effectiveness was noted across cohorts, with greater improvement noted for Cohort C at 6 and 12 months. Among the predictive rule cohort (N = 205), rule-positive (vs. rule-negative) patients were more likely to reach LDA (odds ratio: 1.5 [0.7, 3.2]) and MCID (1.1 [0.5, 2.4]). Sensitivity analyses (CRP > 5 mg/l) showed better response to sarilumab in rule-positive patients. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world setting, sarilumab demonstrated treatment effectiveness, with greater improvements in the most selective population, mirroring phase 3 TNFi-refractory and rule-positive RA patients. Seropositivity appeared a stronger driver for treatment response than CRP, although optimization of the rule in routine practice requires further data.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a condition that may cause joint damage, if untreated. Sarilumab is an advanced medication, approved for treating moderate-to-severe RA in patients not responding to initial standard medicines. Clinical trials have shown that sarilumab improves RA symptoms; however, some people do not respond. This is a common problem in RA treatment. Physicians measure proteins in people's blood (called biomarkers; e.g., anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies [ACPA], C-reactive protein [CRP], and rheumatoid factor [RF]) to predict a medicine's response. A previous study showed that people with positive blood tests for ACPA and CRP (> 12.3 mg/l) responded well to sarilumab; this study was based on machine learning (a branch of science using computers) and identified factors that could be linked to treatment benefits. The present study analyzed routine data of 2949 people from the ACR-RISE Registry and showed an improvement in RA symptoms after 6 and 12 months of sarilumab, with a greater improvement noted in patients previously treated with other medicines. Biomarkers were tested in 205 people to check whether they could predict treatment response in day-to-day life. People were called rule-positive if they tested positive for RF and/or ACPA with CRP > 12.3 mg/l, and otherwise rule-negative. After 24 weeks of treatment, rule-positive people had a greater chance of disease improvement than rule-negative people. These results showed the benefits of sarilumab in RA in routine care and suggested the usefulness of machine learning in identifying biomarkers that physicians can use to make treatment decisions.

Comparative effectiveness of TNF inhibitor vs IL-6 receptor inhibitor as monotherapy or combination therapy with methotrexate in biologic-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An analysis from the CorEvitas RA Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high disease activity and inadequate response/intolerance to methotrexate have shown interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor inhibitors (IL-6Ri) to be superior to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) as monotherapy. This observational study aimed to compare the effectiveness of TNFi vs IL-6Ri as mono- or combination therapy in biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) -experienced RA patients with moderate/high disease activity. METHODS: Eligible b/ts-experienced patients from the CorEvitas RA registry were categorized as TNFi and IL-6Ri initiators, with subgroups initiating as mono- or combination therapy. Mixed-effects regression models evaluated the impact of treatment on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), patient-reported outcomes, and disproportionate pain (DP). Unadjusted and covariate-adjusted effects were reported. RESULTS: Patients initiating IL-6Ri (n = 286) vs TNFi monotherapy (n = 737) were older, had a longer RA history and higher baseline CDAI, and were more likely to initiate as third-line therapy; IL-6Ri (n = 401) vs TNFi (n = 1315) combination therapy initiators had higher baseline CDAI and were more likely to initiate as third-line therapy. No significant differences were noted in the outcomes between TNFi and IL-6Ri initiators (as mono- or combination therapy). CONCLUSION: This observational study showed no significant differences in outcomes among b/ts-experienced TNFi vs IL-6Ri initiators, as either mono- or combination therapy. These findings were in contrast with the previous RCTs in biologic-naïve patients and could be explained by the differences in the patient characteristics included in this study. Further studies are needed to help understand the reasons for this discrepancy in the real-world b/ts-experienced population.

Approaches to optimising access to NICE-approved biologic anti-TNFs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis with moderately active disease.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that is associated with joint pain and stiffness. Biologics represent some of the most effective treatments for RA, but previous guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has limited their use to patients with severely active disease. This has meant patients with moderately active RA have been treated as if they have an acceptable disease state, despite many cases where the inflammation has a major impact on joint damage, mobility, pain and quality of life. However, recent guideline changes (NICE TA715) have approved the use of three biologics - adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab - for the treatment of moderately active RA. MAIN BODY: In response to these changes, we have held discussions with medical teams from across the UK to consider the main implications for implementation of these new recommendations, as well as any differences in approach that may exist at a local level. Several key challenges were identified. These included establishing methods of educating both physicians and patients concerning the new availability of the biologic treatments, with suggestions of various organisations that could be approached to circulate informative material. Identifying which patients with moderately active RA stand to benefit was another discussion topic. Relying solely on scoring systems like Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints (DAS28) was acknowledged to have limitations, and alternative complementary approaches such as ultrasound, as well as assessing a patient's co-morbidities, could also be useful tools in determining those who could benefit from biologics. An additional challenge for the process of patient identification has been the increase in the use of telemedicine consultations in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. More use of patient-reported outcomes was raised as one possible solution, and the importance of maintaining up-to-date databases on patient disease scores and treatment history was also stressed. CONCLUSION: While challenges exist in education and identifying patients who may benefit from the use of biologics, the NICE TA715 recommendations hold great potential in addressing an unmet need for the treatment of moderate RA.

The Beneficial Effects of Pine Nuts and Its Major Fatty Acid, Pinolenic Acid, on Inflammation and Metabolic Perturbations in Inflammatory Disorders.

Inflammatory disorders such as atherosclerosis, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis are regulated by cytokines and other inflammatory mediators. Current treatments for these conditions are associated with significant side effects and do not completely suppress inflammation. The benefits of diet, especially the role of specific components, are poorly understood. Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) have several beneficial health effects. The majority of studies on PUFAs have been on omega-3 fatty acids. This review will focus on a less studied fatty acid, pinolenic acid (PNLA) from pine nuts, which typically constitutes up to 20% of its total fatty acids. PNLA is emerging as a dietary PUFA and a promising supplement in the prevention of inflammatory disorders or as an alternative therapy. Some studies have shown the health implications of pine nuts oil (PNO) and PNLA in weight reduction, lipid-lowering and anti-diabetic actions as well as in suppression of cell invasiveness and motility in cancer. However, few reviews have specifically focused on the biological and anti-inflammatory effects of PNLA. Furthermore, in recent bioinformatic studies on human samples, the expression of many mRNAs and microRNAs was regulated by PNLA indicating potential transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation of inflammatory and metabolic processes. The aim of this review is to summarize, highlight, and evaluate research findings on PNO and PNLA in relation to potential anti-inflammatory benefits and beneficial metabolic changes. In this context, the focus of the review is on the potential actions of PNLA on inflammation along with modulation of lipid metabolism and oxidative stress based on data from both in vitro and in vivo experiments, and human findings, including gene expression analysis.

New prognostic model in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Bellmunt Risk Score, based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), hemoglobin levels and presence of liver metastases, is the most established prognostic algorithm for patients with advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy. Nevertheless, existing algorithms may not be sufficient following the introduction of immunotherapy. Our aim was to develop an improved prognostic model in patients receiving second-line atezolizumab for aUC. METHODS: Patients with aUC progressing after cisplatin/carboplatin-based chemotherapy and enrolled in the prospective, single-arm, phase IIIb SAUL study were included in this analysis. Patients were treated with 3-weekly atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously. The development and internal validation of a prognostic model for overall survival (OS) was performed using Cox regression analyses, bootstrapping methods and calibration. RESULTS: In 936 patients, ECOG PS, alkaline phosphatase, hemoglobin, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, liver metastases, bone metastases and time from last chemotherapy were identified as independent prognostic factors. In a 4-tier model, median OS for patients with 0-1, 2, 3-4 and 5-7 risk factors was 18.6, 10.4, 4.8 and 2.1 months, respectively. Compared with Bellmunt Risk Score, this model provided enhanced prognostic separation, with a c-index of 0.725 vs 0.685 and increment in c-statistic of 0.04 (p<0.001). Inclusion of PD-L1 expression did not improve the model. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and internally validated a prognostic model for patients with aUC receiving postplatinum immunotherapy. This model represents an improvement over the Bellmunt algorithm and could aid selection of patients with aUC for second-line immunotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02928406.

Disproportionate articular pain is a frequent phenomenon in rheumatoid arthritis and responds to treatment with sarilumab.

OBJECTIVES: In some patients with RA, joint pain is more severe than expected based on the amount of joint swelling [referred to as disproportionate articular pain (DP)]. We assessed DP prevalence and the effects of sarilumab, an IL-6 inhibitor, on DP. METHODS: Data from RA patients treated with placebo or 200 mg sarilumab in the phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) MOBILITY and TARGET, adalimumab 40 mg or sarilumab 200 mg in the phase 3 RCT MONARCH and sarilumab 200 mg in open-label extensions (OLEs) were used. DP was defined as an excess tender 28-joint count (TJC28) over swollen 28-joint count (SJC28) of ≥7 (TJC28 - SJC28 ≥ 7). Treatment response and disease activity were determined for patients with and without DP. RESULTS: Of 1531 sarilumab 200 mg patients from RCTs, 353 (23%) had baseline DP. On average, patients with DP had higher 28-joint DAS using CRP (DAS28-CRP) and pain scores than patients without DP, whereas CRP levels were similar. After 12 and 24 weeks, patients with baseline DP treated with sarilumab were more likely to be DP-free than those treated with placebo or adalimumab. In RCTs, more sarilumab-treated patients achieved low disease activity vs comparators, regardless of baseline DP status. In OLEs, patients were more likely to lose rather than gain DP status. CONCLUSION: About one-quarter of patients with RA experienced DP, which responded well to sarilumab. These data support the concept that other mechanisms (potentially mediated via IL-6) in addition to inflammation may contribute to DP in RA. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT01061736, NCT02332590, NCT01709578, NCT01146652.

Non-inflammatory pain in inflammatory arthritis.

'Non-inflammatory' pain, pain that is not associated with measures of inflammation, is common in patients with inflammatory arthritis including RA. One important cause of non-inflammatory pain is concomitant fibromyalgia. Systematic review has shown that fibromyalgia is common in inflammatory arthritis including RA affecting 1 in 5 patients and is associated with higher disease activity scores due to inflated tender joint count and patient global assessment. Consequently, many patients with RA and concomitant fibromyalgia may fail to reach treatment target and switch to alternate disease modifying drugs frequently. European Alliance of Association for Rheumatology has highlighted that concomitant fibromyalgia is an important consideration in assessing difficult-to-treat RA. The incidence and prevalence of fibromyalgia are higher in RA than the general population, raising the possibility that fibromyalgia may be 'secondary' to RA rather than a concomitant disease. The precise mechanisms whereby patients with RA develop fibromyalgia are unknown. In this review, we discussed fibromyalgia in RA, its clinical impact and epidemiology as well as data suggesting fibromyalgia might be 'secondary'. Lastly, we reviewed potential pathogenic mechanisms which included inflammatory cytokines sensitizing nociceptive neurones, temporal summation, also known as windup, from chronic pain and impaired coping from poor quality sleep and mental well-being. Deciphering the exact mechanisms may lead to treatment strategies that prevent development of secondary fibromyalgia and will address a common factor associated with difficult-to-treat RA.

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.

Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation for Inflammatory Arthritis and Osteoarthritis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms associated with biopsychosocial rehabilitation in patients with inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data were collected through electronic searches of Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases up to March 2019. Trials examining the effect of biopsychosocial rehabilitation in adults with inflammatory arthritis and/or OA were considered eligible, excluding rehabilitation adjunct to surgery. The primary outcome for benefit was pain and total withdrawals for harm. RESULTS: Of the 27 trials meeting the eligibility criteria, 22 trials (3,750 participants) reported sufficient data to be included in the quantitative synthesis. For patient-reported outcome measures, biopsychosocial rehabilitation was slightly superior to control for pain relief (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.19 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -0.31, -0.07]), had a small effect on patient global assessment score (SMD -0.13 [95% CI -0.26, -0.00]), with no apparent effect on health-related quality of life, fatigue, self-reported disability/physical function, mental well-being, and reduction in pain intensity ≥30%. Clinician-measured outcomes displayed a small effect on observed disability/physical function (SMD -0.34 [95% CI -0.57, -0.10]), a large effect on physician global assessment score (SMD -0.72 [95% CI -1.18, -0.26]), and no effect on inflammation. No difference in harms existed in terms of the number of withdrawals, adverse events, or serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Biopsychosocial rehabilitation produces a significant but clinically small beneficial effect on patient-reported pain among patients with inflammatory arthritis and OA, with no difference in harm. Methodologic weaknesses were observed in the included trials, suggesting low-to-moderate confidence in the estimates of effect.

Identification of outcome domains in immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthritis and polymyalgia rheumatica: A scoping review by the OMERACT irAE working group.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), increasingly used cancer therapeutics, can cause off-target inflammatory effects called immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including ICI-induced inflammatory arthritis (ICI-induced IA) and polymyalgia rheumatica (ICI-induced PMR). There are no validated classification criteria or outcome measures for these conditions, and adaptation of treatment recommendations from corresponding rheumatic diseases may not be appropriate. We summarized clinical descriptors of ICI-induced IA and ICI-induced PMR and aggregated domains used for these conditions in order to inform the development of a core set of outcome domains. METHODS: As the initial step of the core domain set generation process, we systemically searched Medline (Pubmed), EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINHL through March 2021 to identify all studies that provide both clinical descriptions and domains relevant to ICI-induced IA and ICI-induced PMR. Domains were mapped to core areas, such as pathophysiological manifestations, life impact, resource use, and longevity/survival, as suggested by the OMERACT 2.1 Filter. RESULTS: We identified 69 publications, over a third of which utilized non-specific diagnoses of "arthritis," "arthralgia," and/or "PMR". Other publications provided the number, the distribution and/or names of specific joints affected, while others labeled the irAE as the corresponding rheumatic disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis. Most distinct domains mapped to the pathophysiology/manifestations core area (24 domains), such as signs/symptoms (13 domains), labs (6 domains), and imaging (5 domains), with harm domains of adverse effects from irAE treatment and fear of irAE treatment decreasing ICI efficacy. Forty-three publications also referenced irAE treatment and 35 subsequent response, as well as 32 tumor response. CONCLUSION: There is considerable heterogeneity in the domains used to clinically characterize ICI-induced IA and ICI-induced PMR. There were several domains mapped to the pathophysiologic manifestations core area, although several publications highlighted domains evenly distributed among the other core areas of life impact, longevity/survival and resource use.