Exploring the perspective of patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and care providers on the use of immunomodulatory drugs in infections: an interview study.

Objectives: Immunomodulatory agents are safe and effective as treatment for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), but are associated with a slightly increased infection risk. It is uncertain whether, in the event of an infection, continuation or temporary interruption of immunomodulatory agents leads to better outcomes. Owing to this uncertainty, it is of importance to explore the perspectives of health-care providers (HCPs) and patients on this topic. In this study, we set out to identify and provide an overview of reasons for both treatment strategies. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs involved in the pharmacological treatment of IMIDs and with IMID patients using one or more immunomodulatory agent. Purposive sampling was used to enrich data variation. Interviews were conducted until data saturation was reached and subsequently analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: In total, 13 HCPs and 19 IMID patients were interviewed. A wide range of reasons for both treatment strategies were identified, categorized into 10 overarching themes, including IMID characteristics, infection characteristics and the patient-HCP relationship. Conclusion: In this interview study, we identified various reasons for continuation or temporary interruption of immunomodulatory agents during infections for both IMID patients and HCPs. We found overlapping themes, such as IMID characteristics; however, the content and interpretation of these themes might differ between HCPs and patients. Both HCPs and patients mentioned that the decision for a treatment strategy is often about weighing benefits against risks (e.g. infection severity vs disease flare).

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.

Pharmacokinetic boosting to enable a once-daily reduced dose of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis (the PRACTICAL study).

Background: Tofacitinib is a Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitor used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), dosed as 5 mg twice daily (BID). It is primarily metabolized by the cytochrome P-3A (CYP3A) enzyme, and therefore, the manufacturer recommends to halve the dose when using CYP3A-inhibiting co-medication. Combining half-dose tofacitinib with a registered CYP3A inhibitor (cobicistat) could reduce costs and improve patient experience. Objectives: Primary: bioequivalence of tofacitinib 5 mg combined with cobicistat once daily (QD; intervention) to tofacitinib 5 mg BID (control). Secondary: safety, patient preference (7-point Likert scale at study end) and predicted differences in disease activity (DAS28-CRP and probability of ACR20 response) using a validated exposure-response model. Design: Open-label, cross-over pharmacokinetic study. Methods: We included patients with RA or PsA, treated with tofacitinib 5 mg BID for ⩾14 days without co-medication affected by CYP3A inhibition. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed at baseline and after 2-6 weeks of intervention treatment. Bioequivalence was defined as 90% CI of the average tofacitinib concentration (Cavg,ss; intervention to control) falling between 80% and 125%, assessed by non-linear mixed-effects modelling. Results: Between 16 September 2019 and 15 January 2021, 30 patients were included, of whom 25 completed both PK measurements. The tofacitinib Cavg,ss was 85% (90% CI: 75-96%). No serious adverse events occurred. Patient preference was 56% for intervention versus 18% for control. No relevant differences in median predicted disease activity were found (DAS28-CRP: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.16 to 0.22; ACR20: -0.01, -0.07 to 0.05). Conclusion: Due to slightly lower tofacitinib concentrations during intervention treatment, pharmacokinetic bioequivalence could not formally be established. However, pharmacokinetic boosting may be an attractive strategy for cost reduction of tofacitinib because of its safety, similar predicted pharmacodynamics and patient preference. Registration: This study was registered on 29 May 2019 in the Netherlands Trial Register (register number: NL7766).

Treat-to-target dose reduction and withdrawal strategy of TNF inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVES: Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are effective in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but are associated with a small (0.6%) increase in serious infection risk, patient burden due to need for self-injection and high costs. Treat-to-target (T2T) tapering might ameliorate these drawbacks, but high-quality evidence on T2T tapering strategies is lacking in PsA and axSpA. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic open-label, monocentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority (NI) trial on T2T tapering of TNFi. Patients with PsA and axSpA using a TNFi with ≥6 months stable low disease activity (LDA) were included. Patients were randomised 2:1 to disease activity-guided T2T with or without tapering until withdrawal and followed-up to 12 months. Primary endpoint was the difference in proportion of patients having LDA at 12 months between groups, compared with a prespecified NI margin of 20%, estimated using a Bayesian prior. RESULTS: 122 patients (64 PsA and 58 axSpA) were randomised to a T2T strategy with (N=81) or without tapering (N=41). The proportion of patients in LDA at 12 months was 69% for the tapering and 73% for the no-tapering group: adjusted difference 5% (Bayesian 95% credible interval: -10% to 19%) which confirms NI considering the NI margin of 20%. The mean percentage of daily defined dose was 53% for the tapering and 91% for the no-tapering group at month 12. CONCLUSIONS: A T2T TNFi strategy with tapering attempt is non-inferior to a T2T strategy without tapering with regard to the proportion of patients still in LDA at 12 months, and results in a substantial reduction of TNFi use. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL 6771.

Prediction Aided Tapering In rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with biOlogicals (PATIO): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but are expensive and increase the risk of infection. Therefore, in patients with a stable low level of disease activity or remission, tapering bDMARDs should be considered. Although tapering does not seem to affect long-term disease control, (short-lived) flares are frequent during the tapering process. We have previously developed and externally validated a dynamic flare prediction model for use as a decision aid during stepwise tapering of bDMARDs to reduce the risk of a flare during this process. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized (1:1) controlled trial, we will assess the effect of incorporating flare risk predictions into a bDMARD tapering strategy. One hundred sixty RA patients treated with a bDMARD with stable low disease activity will be recruited. In the control group, the bDMARD will be tapered according to "disease activity guided dose optimization" (DGDO). In the intervention group, the bDMARD will be tapered according to a strategy that combines DGDO with the dynamic flare prediction model, where the next bDMARD tapering step is not taken in case of a high risk of flare. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to the control or intervention group. The primary outcome is the number of flares per patient (DAS28-CRP increase > 1.2, or DAS28-CRP increase > 0.6 with a current DAS28-CRP ≥ 2.9) during the 18-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include the number of patients with a major flare (flare duration ≥ 12 weeks), bDMARD dose reduction, adverse events, disease activity (DAS28-CRP) and patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life and functional disability. Health Care Utilization and Work Productivity will also be assessed. DISCUSSION: This will be the first clinical trial to evaluate the benefit of applying a dynamic flare prediction model as a decision aid during bDMARD tapering. Reducing the risk of flaring during tapering may enhance the safety and (cost)effectiveness of bDMARD treatment. Furthermore, this study pioneers the field of implementing predictive algorithms in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register number NL9798, registered 18 October 2021, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9798 . The study has received ethical review board approval (number NL74537.041.20).

Using real-world data to dynamically predict flares during tapering of biological DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis: development, validation, and potential impact of prediction-aided decisions.

BACKGROUND: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. However, as bDMARDs may also lead to adverse events and are expensive, tapering them is of great clinical interest. Tapering according to disease activity-guided dose optimization (DGDO) does not seem to affect long term remission rates, but flares are frequent during this process. Our objective was to develop a model for the prediction of flares during bDMARD tapering using data from routine care and to evaluate its potential clinical impact. METHODS: We used a joint latent class model to repeatedly predict the probability of a flare occurring within the next 3 months. The model was developed using longitudinal data on disease activity (DAS28) and other routine care data from two clinics. Predictive accuracy was assessed in cross-validation and external validation was performed with data from the DRESS (Dose REduction Strategy of Subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor inhibitors) trial. Additionally, we simulated the reduction in number of flares and bDMARD dose when implementing the model as a decision aid during bDMARD tapering in the DRESS trial. RESULTS: Data from 279 bDMARD courses were used for model development. The final model included two latent DAS28-trajectories, bDMARD type and dose, disease duration, and seropositivity. The area under the curve of the final model was 0.76 (0.69-0.83) in cross-validation and 0.68 (0.62-0.73) in external validation. In simulation of prediction-aided decisions, the mean number of flares over 18 months decreased from 1.21 (0.99-1.43) to 0.75 (0.54-0.96). The reduction in he bDMARD dose was mostly maintained, increasing from 54 to 64% of full dose. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a dynamic flare prediction model, exclusively based on data typically available in routine care. Our results show that using this model to aid decisions during bDMARD tapering may significantly reduce the number of flares while maintaining most of the bDMARD dose reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinical impact of the prediction model is currently under investigation in the PATIO randomized controlled trial (Dutch Trial Register number NL9798).

Extra-articular findings with FDG-PET/CT in rheumatoid arthritis patients: more harm than benefit.

Objective: Whole-body PET with CT scanning using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) is used occasionally in RA patients to detect arthritis. FDG-PET/CT might also detect malignancies, but the amount of incidental findings and the number of relevant malignant diseases that could be missed are currently unknown. We aimed to study the malignancy screening performance of whole-body FDG-PET/CT in longstanding RA patients with low disease activity. Methods: FDG-PET/CT scanning was done in the intervention arm of the Dose REduction Strategy of Subcutaneous TNF-inhibitors (DRESS) study, a randomized controlled trial on dose-tapering of biological DMARDs. The reference standard was clinical diagnosis of malignancy during the 3-year follow-up period of the study. Prevalence of extra-articular abnormalities, follow-up and treatments were summarized post hoc. Results: One hundred and twenty-one scans were carried out in 79 patients. Extra-articular abnormalities were found in 59 of 121 (49%) scans, resulting in additional diagnostic procedures in 21 of 79 (26.6%) patients. Nine patients (7.4%) were suspected of malignancy; none turned out to be malignant. Six clinical malignancies that developed during follow-up were all negative on baseline FDG-PET/CT. Conclusion: Whole-body FDG-PET/CT scanning used in RA patients for imaging of arthritis results in frequent incidental extra-articular findings, whereas some who apparently had normal scans also developed malignancies. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register, www.trialregister.nl, NL6771.

Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor dose adaptation in psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis (TAPAS): a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effect of disease activity-guided dose optimization (DAGDO) of TNF inhibitor (TNFi) on disease activity and TNFi dose in PsA and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients with low disease activity (LDA). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in PsA and axSpA patients doing well on TNFi and eligible for TNFi DAGDO. Three different treatment periods were defined: (i) full dose continuation period, (ii) TNFi DAGDO period, and (iii) period with stable TNFi dose after DAGDO. A mixed-model analysis was used to estimate mean Disease Activity Score 28-joint count CRP (DAS28-CRP) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) during these periods, and a mean percentage of the daily defined dose (%DDD) was calculated as secondary outcome. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-four patients (153 PsA and 171 axSpA) were included, with a mean of 6.5 DAS28-CRP and 6.4 BASDAI measurements and a median follow-up duration of 46 and 44 months, respectively. A corrected difference of 0.06 (95% CI: -0.09, 0.21) in mean DAS28-CRP was found for the TNFi DAGDO period and 0.03 (95% CI: -0.14, 0.20) for the period with stable TNFi dose, compared with full dose continuation period. Differences for BASDAI were 0.03 (95% CI: -0.21, 0.27) and 0.05 (95% CI: -0.24, 0.34), respectively. The mean %DDD for the three treatment periods was for PsA 108%, 62% and 78%, and for axSpA 108%, 62% and 72%, respectively. CONCLUSION: DAGDO of TNFi reduces drug exposure and has no negative effects on disease activity in PsA and axSpA patients compared with full dose continuation.

Prediction of response to anti-TNF treatment using laboratory biomarkers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: In this systematic review, we aim to identify laboratory biomarkers that predict response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) were searched for studies that presented predictive accuracy measures of laboratory biomarkers, or in which these were calculable. Likelihood ratios were calculated in order to determine whether a test result relevantly changed the probability of response. Likelihood ratios between 2-10 and 0.5-0.1 were considered weak predictors, respectively, and ratios above 10 or below 0.1 were considered strong predictors of response. Primary focus was on biomarkers studied ≥3 times. RESULTS: From 41 included studies, data on 99 different biomarkers were extracted. Five biomarkers were studied ≥3 times, being (1) anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP), (2) rheumatoid factor, (3) -308 polymorphism in the TNF-α gene, (4) SE copies in the HLA-DRB1 gene and (5) FcGR2A polymorphism. No studies showed a strong predictive association and only one study on anti-CCP showed a weak positive association. CONCLUSIONS: No biomarkers were found that consistently showed a (strong) predictive effect for response to TNFi in patients with RA. Given the disappointing yield of previous predictive biomarker research, future studies should focus on exploring, combining and validating the most promising laboratory biomarkers identified in this review, and searching for new predictors. Besides this, they should focus on contexts where prediction-aided decision-making can have a large impact (even with limited predictive value of markers/models). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021278987.

Comparing methotrexate monotherapy with methotrexate plus leflunomide combination therapy in psoriatic arthritis (COMPLETE-PsA): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, trial.

BACKGROUND: Conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the preferred first-line treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis, although there is a paucity of evidence for the efficacy of conventional synthetic DMARDs and especially their combination. We aimed to investigate whether a combination of methotrexate plus leflunomide is superior to methotrexate monotherapy at improving disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: This single centre, investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at Sint Maartenskliniek in the Netherlands (locations included Boxmeer, Geldrop, Woerden, and Nijmegen). Patients aged 16 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis and active disease (defined as two or more swollen joints; dactylitis counting as one swollen joint) were included. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) and stratified by high disease activity (psoriatic arthritis disease activity score [PASDAS] ≥5·4) to either methotrexate plus leflunomide (combination therapy) or methotrexate plus placebo (monotherapy), using computer-generated stratified variable block randomisation. In both groups, patients received oral methotrexate 15 mg per week for the first 4 weeks and 25 mg per week thereafter combined with two leflunomide 10 mg tablets once per day or two placebo tablets. During the study period, the patients, nurses, researchers, and treating physicians were all masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the difference in mean PASDAS at week 16, adjusted for baseline PASDAS, between the combination and monotherapy groups, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NL7404) on Dec 3, 2018. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2019, and March 11, 2021, 82 patients were screened for eligibility. Four patients were ineligible and 78 were enrolled and randomly assigned to either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n=39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n=39). 50 (64%) of 78 patients were male, 28 (36%) were female, and the median age of patients was 55·0 years (IQR 42·0-64·0). Methotrexate plus leflunomide combination therapy was superior to methotrexate monotherapy at week 16 (PASDAS 3·1 [SD 1·4] vs 3·7 [SD 1·3]; treatment difference -0·6, 90% CI -1·0 to -0·1; p=0·025). There were no study deaths. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting (17 [44%] of 39 patients in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group vs 11 [28%] of 39 in the methotrexate plus placebo group), tiredness (9 [23%] vs 13 [33%]) and elevated alanine aminotransferase (12 [31%] vs 7 [18%]. Generally, the incidence of mostly mild adverse events was higher in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group than in the methotrexate plus placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Methotrexate plus leflunomide combination therapy results in greater improvement in disease activity according to PASDAS in patients with psoriatic arthritis. However, methotrexate plus leflunomide combination therapy is less well tolerated than methotrexate monotherapy. FUNDING: Regional Junior Researcher Grant from the Sint Maartenskliniek.

Validation of GWAS-Identified Variants for Anti-TNF Drug Response in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Two Large Cohorts.

We aimed to validate the association of 28 GWAS-identified genetic variants for response to TNF inhibitors (TNFi) in a discovery cohort of 1361 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients monitored in routine care and ascertained through the REPAIR consortium and DANBIO registry. We genotyped selected markers and evaluated their association with response to TNFi after 6 months of treatment according to the change in disease activity score 28 (ΔDAS28). Next, we confirmed the most interesting results through meta-analysis of our data with those from the DREAM cohort that included 706 RA patients treated with TNFi. The meta-analysis of the discovery cohort and DREAM registry including 2067 RA patients revealed an overall association of the LINC02549rs7767069 SNP with a lower improvement in DAS28 that remained significant after correction for multiple testing (per-allele ORMeta=0.83, PMeta=0.000077; PHet=0.61). In addition, we found that each copy of the LRRC55rs717117G allele was significantly associated with lower improvement in DAS28 in rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive patients (per-allele ORMeta=0.67, P=0.00058; PHet=0.06) whereas an opposite but not significant effect was detected in RF-negative subjects (per-allele ORMeta=1.38, P=0.10; PHet=0.45; PInteraction=0.00028). Interestingly, although the identified associations did not survive multiple testing correction, the meta-analysis also showed overall and RF-specific associations for the MAFBrs6071980 and CNTN5rs1813443 SNPs with decreased changes in DAS28 (per-allele ORMeta_rs6071980 = 0.85, P=0.0059; PHet=0.63 and ORMeta_rs1813443_RF+=0.81, P=0.0059; PHet=0.69 and ORMeta_rs1813443_RF-=1.00, P=0.99; PHet=0.12; PInteraction=0.032). Mechanistically, we found that subjects carrying the LINC02549rs7767069T allele had significantly increased numbers of CD45RO+CD45RA+ T cells (P=0.000025) whereas carriers of the LINC02549rs7767069T/T genotype showed significantly increased levels of soluble scavengers CD5 and CD6 in serum (P=0.00037 and P=0.00041). In addition, carriers of the LRRC55rs717117G allele showed decreased production of IL6 after stimulation of PBMCs with B burgdorferi and E coli bacteria (P=0.00046 and P=0.00044), which suggested a reduced IL6-mediated anti-inflammatory effect of this marker to worsen the response to TNFi. In conclusion, this study confirmed the influence of the LINC02549 and LRRC55 loci to determine the response to TNFi in RA patients and suggested a weak effect of the MAFB and CNTN5 loci that need to be further investigated.

Using adalimumab serum concentration to choose a subsequent biological DMARD in rheumatoid arthritis patients failing adalimumab treatment (ADDORA-switch): study protocol for a fully blinded randomised superiority test-treatment trial.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients discontinues treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) due to inefficacy or intolerance. After the failure of treatment with a TNFi, treatment can be switched to another TNFi or a bDMARD with a different mode of action (non-TNFi). Measurement of serum drug concentrations and/or anti-drug antibodies (therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)) may help to inform the choice for the next step. However, the clinical utility of TDM to guide switching has not been investigated in a randomised test-treatment study. METHODS: ADDORA-switch is a 24-week, multi-centre, triple-blinded, superiority test-treatment randomised controlled trial. A total of 84 RA patients failing adalimumab treatment (treatment failure defined as DAS28-CRP > 2.9) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to a switching strategy to either TNFi or non-TNFi based on adalimumab serum trough level (intervention group) or random allocation (control group). The primary outcome is the between-group difference in mean time-weighted DAS28 over 24 weeks. DISCUSSION: The trial design differs in many aspects from previously published and ongoing TDM studies and is considered the first blinded test-treatment trial using TDM in RA. Several choices in the design of this trial are described, and overarching principles regarding test-treatment trials and clinical utility of TDM are discussed in further detail. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NL8210 . Registered on 3 December 2019 (CMO NL69841.091.19).

Clinical management of the most common extra-intestinal manifestations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease focused on the joints, skin and eyes.

Extra-intestinal manifestations (EIMs) of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) occur frequently and contribute to morbidity and reduced quality of life. The musculoskeletal, ocular and cutaneous organ systems are frequently involved in IBD-related EIMs. By focusing on manifestations involving the joints, skin and eyes, this review will discuss the most common clinically relevant and burdensome EIMs that affect IBD patients, and strives for early recognition, adequate treatment and timely referral. For this purpose, we aimed to create a comprehensive overview on this topic, with the main focus on the treatment of reactive and associated EIMs, including spondyloarthropathies, pyoderma gangrenosum, erythema nodosum, psoriasis and anterior uveitis. The recently developed biologicals enable simultaneous treatment of inflammatory disorders. This review can be used as a helpful guide in daily clinical practice for physicians who are involved in the treatment of IBD patients.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab in RA: no predictive value of adalimumab serum levels and anti-adalimumab antibodies for prediction of response to the next bDMARD.

BACKGROUND: After adalimumab treatment failure, tumour necrosis factor inhibition (TNFi) and non-TNFi biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are equally viable options on a group level as subsequent treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on the current best evidence synthesis. However, preliminary data suggest that anti-adalimumab antibodies (anti-drug antibodies, ADA) and adalimumab serum levels (ADL) during treatment predict response to a TNFi as subsequent treatment. OBJECTIVE: To validate the association of presence of ADA and/or low ADL with response to a subsequent TNFi bDMARD or non-TNFi bDMARD. Sub-analyses were performed for primary and secondary non-responders. METHODS: A diagnostic test accuracy retrospective cohort study was done in consenting RA patients who discontinued adalimumab after >3 months of treatment due to inefficacy and started another bDMARD. Inclusion criteria included the availability of (random timed) serum samples between ≥8 weeks after start and ≤2 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab, and clinical outcome measurements Disease Activity Score in 28 joints - C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) between 3 to 6 months after treatment switch. Test characteristics for EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) good response (DAS28-CRP based) after treatment with the next (non-)TNFi bDMARD were assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic and sensitivity/specificity. RESULTS: 137 patients were included. ADA presence was not predictive for response in switchers to a TNFi (sensitivity/specificity 18%/75%) or a non-TNFi (sensitivity/specificity 33%/70%). The same was true for ADL levels in patients that switched to a TNFi (sensitivity/specificity 50%/52%) and patients that switched to a non-TNFi (sensitivity/specificity 32%/69%). Predictive value of ADA and ADL were similar for both primary and secondary non-responders to adalimumab. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to earlier research, we could not find predictive value for response to a second TNFi or non-TNFi for either ADA or random timed ADL.

Comparing methotrexate monotherapy with methotrexate plus leflunomide combination therapy in psoriatic arthritis: protocol of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial (COMPLETE-PsA).

BACKGROUND: Both methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) are registered and regularly prescribed as first-line treatments for the use in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and they are occasionally used in combination. However, evidence about their individual, and especially combined efficacy, in PsA is lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of MTX and LEF combination therapy to MTX monotherapy in patients with PsA. METHODS: COMPLETE-PsA is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-untreated patients (n = 78) with clinical diagnosis of active (i.e. ≥2 swollen joints) PsA will be randomized 1:1 (stratified for high disease activity, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score [PASDAS] ≥ 5.4) to the combination or monotherapy. The intervention group receives MTX 25 mg (oral or subcutaneous) once weekly plus LEF 20 mg daily, and the control group receives the same but with placebo instead of LEF daily. Primary endpoint is between-group difference in PASDAS at 16 weeks, adjusted for baseline PASDAS. Key secondary parameters include between-group comparisons in change in Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) score, skin score, enthesitis score, dactylitis score, and swollen/tender joint count, as well as the proportion of patients fulfilling minimal disease activity (MDA), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria at week 16. Furthermore, safety, function and quality of life (Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ], Psoriatic Arthritic Impact of Disease [PSAID], Short Form 12 [SF-12]) will be assessed. DISCUSSION: This is, to our knowledge, the first randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of MTX and LEF combination therapy in patients with PsA. The study will provide important information for treatment strategies and treatment recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR7632 (3 December 2018). CMO NL66544.091.18 (19 November 2018).

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

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

Dose reduction and withdrawal strategy for TNF-inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis: design of a pragmatic open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are effective in the treatment of patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA), including psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). However, these drugs come with some disadvantages such as adverse events, practical burden for patients and high costs. Dose optimisation of TNFi after patients have reached low disease activity (LDA) has been shown feasible and safe in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, data on TNFi dose optimisation in PsA and axSpA are scarce, especially pragmatic, randomised strategy studies. METHODS: We developed an investigator-driven, pragmatic, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial (DRESS-PS) to compare the effects of a disease activity-guided treat-to-target strategy with or without a tapering attempt in patients with SpA (PsA and axSpA combined), ≥ 16 years of age, who are being treated with TNFi, and have had at least 6 months of low disease activity. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients in LDA after 12 months of follow up. Patients are assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow up. Bayesian power analyses with a weakened prior based on a similar study performed in RA resulted in a sample size of 95 patients in total. DISCUSSION: More knowledge on disease activity-guided treatment algorithms would contribute to better treatment choices and cost savings and potentially decrease the risk of side effects. In this article we elucidate some of our design choices on TNFi dose optimisation and its clinical and methodological consequences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register, NL6771. Registered on 27 November 2018 (CMO NL66181.091.18, 23 October 2018).

Long-term efficacy of low-dose radiation therapy on symptoms in patients with knee and hand osteoarthritis: follow-up results of two parallel randomised, sham-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose radiation therapy is commonly used as treatment for benign diseases, including osteoarthritis, in some countries (eg, Germany). We have previously presented our 3-month follow-up results of two randomised sham-controlled trials, in which no substantial effects of low-dose radiation therapy on clinical outcomes were seen in patients with knee and hand osteoarthritis. Here we report the 6-month and 12-month results of these studies. METHODS: In one randomised sham-controlled trial, patients with knee osteoarthrosis were recruited, and in the other trial patients with hand osteoarthritis were recruited. All patients were recruited from the department of rheumatology of Sint Maartenskliniek (Nijmegen, The Netherlands) and the trials were undertaken in parallel. Patients were eligible if they had knee or hand osteoarthritis according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, had a pain score of 5 or more on a 0-10 scale for at least 15 of the past 30 days, and did not meet 2011 modified ACR criteria for fibromyalgia. In each study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by pain score (<8 vs ≥8) using a computer-generated randomisation list and stratified block randomisation, to low-dose radiation therapy (six fractions of 1 Gy low-dose radiation therapy in 2 weeks) or sham (six sessions with 0 Gy of radiation therapy in 2 weeks) intervention. Patients and researchers involved in patient contact or assessments were masked to group allocation, whereas the radiotherapy technologist who did the treatment was unmasked. Patients completed questionnaires (numeric rating scale of patients' global assessment and validated measures for pain and functioning) at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months after starting treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who responded according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Osteoarthritis Research Society International responder criteria at 3 months, which has been reported previously. Here we report the proportion of participants who responded at 6 months and 12 months, and other clinical outcomes of pain, functioning, and patients' global assessment of their symptoms. We used logistic and linear mixed-models analyses to assess differences in number of responders and continuous outcomes. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one fraction of low-dose radiation or sham treatment. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR4574, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Oct 14, 2015, and May 3, 2017, 213 patients were screened for inclusion for the knee osteoarthritis study, of whom 55 were eligible and randomly assigned to low-dose radiation therapy (n=27) or sham intervention (n=28). In parallel, for the hand osteoarthritis study, 368 patients were screened and 56 were randomly assigned low-dose radiation (n=28) or sham intervention (n=28). Some minor imbalances in baseline demographic characteristics in terms of sex and age were seen in both the knee and hand cohorts. In the knee osteoarthritis cohort, 48 patients were assessible at 6 months and 50 were assessible at 12 months, and in the hand osteoarthritis cohort 52 patients were assessible at 6 and 12 months. We found no significant differences at 6 or 12 months in the proportion of participants who had a response for both groups. In the knee osteoarthritis group, at 6 months, the number of responders was nine (41%) of 22 patients who received low-dose radiation therapy versus nine (35%) of 26 patients who received the sham intervention (difference in proportion 7% [95% CI -20 to 33]; odds ratio [OR] 1·34 [95% CI 0·41 to 4·42]); and at 12 months, 13 (52%) of 25 patients versus 11 (44%) of 25 patients responded (difference in proportion 8% [-19 to 35]; OR 1·41 [0·45 to 4·48]). In the hand osteoarthritis group, at 6 months, the number of responders was seven (28%) of 25 patients who received low-dose radiation therapy versus 11 (31%) of 27 patients who received the sham intervention (difference in proportion 12% [-38 to 13]; OR 0·57 [0·18 to 1·81]); and at 12 months, eight (31%) of 26 patients versus seven (27%) of 26 patients responded (difference in proportion 4% [-20 to 29]; OR 1·23 [0·37 to 4·12]). We did not find any difference between groups in other clinical outcomes at 6 or 12 months. Three participants with knee osteoarthritis in the sham intervention group and two participants with hand osteoarthritis in the low-dose radiation therapy group had serious adverse effects, none of which were considered to be related to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: We did not find evidence of a delayed effect of low-dose radiation therapy for patients with knee and hand osteoarthritis. Our placebo-controlled results suggest that the large effects of low-dose radiation therapy reported in clinical practice and observational studies can probably be explained by a regression to the mean effect and response to placebo. FUNDING: Dutch Arthritis Foundation and Stichting Landelijk Katholiek Reumacentrum, Netherlands.