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.

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.

Severe Health-Related Quality of Life Impairment in Active Primary Sjögren's Syndrome and Patient-Reported Outcomes: Data From a Large Therapeutic Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the principal determinants of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) impairment in patients with active primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS) participating in a large therapeutic trial, Tolerance and Efficacy of Rituximab in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome (TEARS). METHODS: At the inclusion visit for the TEARS trial, 120 patients with active primary SS completed the Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36), a validated HRQOL assessment tool. Univariate then multivariate linear regression analyses were used to assess associations linking SF-36 physical and mental components to demographic data, patient-reported outcomes (symptom intensity assessments for dryness, pain, and fatigue, including the European League Against Rheumatism [EULAR] Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index [ESSPRI]), objective measures of dryness and autoimmunity, and physician evaluation of systemic activity (using the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index [ESSDAI]). RESULTS: SF-36 scores indicated marked HRQOL impairments in our population with active primary SS. Approximately one-third of the patients had low, moderate, and high systemic activity according to the ESSDAI. ESSPRI and ESSDAI scores were moderately but significantly correlated. The factors most strongly associated with HRQOL impairment were patient-reported symptoms, best assessed using the ESSPRI, with pain and ocular dryness intensity showing independent associations with HRQOL. Conversely, systemic activity level was not associated with HRQOL impairment in multivariate analyses, even in the patient subset with ESSDAI values indicating moderate-to-high systemic activity. CONCLUSION: The cardinal symptoms of primary SS (dryness, pain, and fatigue, best assessed using the ESSPRI) are stronger predictors of HRQOL impairment than systemic involvement (assessed by the ESSDAI) and should be used as end points in future therapeutic trials focusing on patients' well-being. New consensual and data-driven response criteria are needed for primary SS studies.

Translational research in immune and inflammatory diseases; what are the challenges, expected advances, and innovative therapies?

Despite very different aetiologies and clinical expressions, advancing knowledge in the physiopathology and treatment of immune and inflammatory diseases (IID) prompts us to consider them as a whole. These are chronic, often incapacitating and painful illnesses that progress and destroy organs. Management by discipline too often leads to erroneous diagnoses and sometimes inappropriate treatment. More integrated translational research would further understanding of the complex relationships between cytokines and organ damage, which vary with the conditions and patients, making it possible to develop new biomarkers and personalize treatment. The research in France has very many strengths but its organization is fragmented. Better coordinated research into IID, which could be based on creating a strategic valorization field (domaine de valorisation stratégique, DVS) and thematic multi-organization institute (Institut thématique multi-organismes ITMO), would advance patient management.

Classification criteria for Sjogren's syndrome: we actually need to definitively resolve the long debate on the issue.

A new approach for the classification of patients with Sjögren's syndrome (SS) has been recently proposed. Although these new criteria substantially differ from the American European Consensus Group criteria, which have represented the gold standard for the last decade, when compared with each other the two sets show a high statistical degree of agreement. However, the fact that two different criteria to classify patient with SS could be available may introduce some additional difficulties in the scientific communication, making cohorts of patients selected by using different methods less than completely equivalent, and the results of epidemiological studies and therapeutic trials not entirely comparable. Consequently, to reach a consensus agreement on universally accepted classification criteria for SS seems to be a very desirable objective.