Increased risk of cardiovascular events under the treatments with Janus kinase inhibitors versus biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective longitudinal population-based study using the Japanese health insurance database.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of cardiovascular events among Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKIs), biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFIs) and non-TNFIs) and methotrexate (MTX) in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Using Japanese claims data, patients with RA were enrolled in this study if they had at least one ICD-10 code (M05 or M06), were new users of JAKIs, bDMARDs or MTX between July 2013 and July 2020 and being 18 years old or older. The incidence rate (IR), IR ratio and adjusted hazard ratio (aHR (95% CI)) of cardiovascular events including venous thromboembolism, arterial thrombosis, acute myocardial infarction and stroke were calculated. A time-dependent Cox regression model adjusted for patient characteristics at baseline was used to calculate aHR. RESULTS: In 53 448 cases, IRs/1000 patient-years of the overall cardiovascular events were 10.1, 6.8, 5.4, 9.1 and 11.3 under the treatments with JAKIs, bDMARDs, TNFIs, non-TNFIs and MTX, respectively. The adjusted HRs of JAKIs for overall cardiovascular events were 1.7 (1.1 to 2.5) versus TNFIs without MTX and 1.7 (1.1 to 2.7) versus TNFIs with MTX. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with RA, individuals using JAKIs had a significantly higher risk of overall cardiovascular events than TNFIs users, which was attributed to the difference in the risk between JAKIs and TNFIs versus MTX. These data should be interpreted with caution because of the limitations associated with the claims database.

From bench to bedside - is there a role of IL-17 drugs in rheumatoid arthritis?

INTRODUCTION: IL-17 has been described as a pro-inflammatory cytokine that is relevant in the seronegative spondylarthritides with IL-17 targeted therapies being licensed for their treatment.There is evidence to demonstrate that IL-17 is found in RA joints and contributes to the pro-inflammatory cascade. This results in synovial hyperplasia and osteoclastogenesis thus causing joint destruction and bony erosions. AREAS COVERED: This review article summarizes trials that have studied the use of IL-17 targeted therapies in RA patients who have failed conventional synthetic disease-modifying therapy (C-DMARDS) and biologic DMARDS. EXPERT OPINION: The trials that have studied IL-17 inhibitors in RA patients have only shown a modest improvement in disease activity. In several trials, the primary endpoint was not achieved whilst in others, when comparing with existing licensed biologics for RA, did not demonstrate any superiority.Tissue Necrosis Factor-alpha (TNF-α) likely plays more of a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of RA with IL-17 having a synergistic effect. Therefore, in our opinion, IL-17 inhibitors as an independent therapy for RA are less likely to provide a cost-effective benefit. There may be scope to potentially combine it with TNF-α-inhibitors (TNF-i), but this requires further research especially with the potential concerns related to increased immunosuppression.

Drug-drug interaction assessment based on a large-scale spontaneous reporting system for hepato- and renal-toxicity, and thrombocytopenia with concomitant low-dose methotrexate and analgesics use.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate (MTX) is the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment and is highly effective with low-dose intermittent administration. MTX is occasionally used in combination with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen (APAP)/paracetamol for pain or inflammation control. With MTX treatment, the side effects, such as hepatotoxicity, renal failure, and myelosuppression should be considered. These are also seen with analgesics treatment. METHODS: We used a large spontaneously reported adverse event database (FAERS [JAPIC AERS]) to analyze whether the reporting of adverse events increased upon MTX and analgesic therapy in patients with RA. RESULTS: After identifying RA cases, the crude reporting odds ratios (cRORs) for hepatotoxicity, renal failure, and thrombocytopenia associated with the use of MTX, APAP, or NSAIDs were calculated by disproportionality analysis, which revealed significantly higher cRORs for these events. No analgesics showed consistent positive signals for drug-drug interaction (DDI) with concomitant low-dose MTX analyzed using four algorithms for DDI interaction (the Ω shrinkage measure, additive or multiplicative, and combination risk ratio models). However, in renal failure and thrombocytopenia, loxoprofen (Ω025 = 0.08) and piroxicam (Ω025 = 0.46), and ibuprofen (Ω025 = 0.74) and ketorolac (Ω025 = 3.52), respectively, showed positive signals in the Ω shrinkage measure model, and no consistency was found among adverse events or NSAIDs. CONCLUSIONS: Studies using spontaneous reporting systems have limitations such as reporting bias or lack of patient background; however, the results of our comprehensive analysis support the results of previous clinical or epidemiological studies. This study also demonstrated the usefulness of FAERS for DDI assessment.

Hydroxychloroquine use is associated with reduced mortality risk in older adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: There is little robust data about the cardiovascular safety of hydroxychloroquine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), who often have cardiovascular comorbidities. We examined the association between use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in patients with RA and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 years with RA, we identified patients who initiated HCQ (users) and who did not initiate HCQ (non-users) between January 2015-June 2017. Each HCQ user was matched to 2 non-users of HCQ using propensity score derived from patient baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was the occurrence of MACE, defined as acute admissions for stroke, myocardial infarction, or heart failure. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and the composite of MACE and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare outcomes between HCQ users to non-users. RESULTS: The study included 2380 RA patients with incident HCQ use and matched 4633 HCQ non-users over the study period. The mean follow-up duration was 1.67 and 1.63 years in HCQ non-users and users, respectively. In multivariable models, use of HCQ was not associated with the risk of MACE (hazard ratio 1.1; 95% CI: 0.832-1.33). However, use of HCQ was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.45-0.64) and the composite of all-cause mortality and MACE (HR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.58-0.78). CONCLUSION: HCQ use was independently associated with a lower risk of mortality in older adults with RA but not with incidence of MACE events. Key Points • Using an incident user design (to avoid the biases of a prevalent user design) and a population-based approach, we examined the effect of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) on the risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE) in older patients with RA. • We did not find an association between HCQ use and incident MACE. We did, however, find a significant association with the composite outcome (MACE and all-cause mortality) driven by a significant reduction in all-cause mortality with HCQ use.

ToRaRI (Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis a Real-Life experience in Italy): Effectiveness, safety profile of tofacitinib and concordance between patient-reported outcomes and physician's global assessment of disease activity in a retrospective study in Central-Italy.

INTRODUCTION: The use of Janus Kinase Inhibitors (JAK-Is) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has entered in daily practice. In consideration of ORAL-Surveillance trial and the new EULAR recommendations, real-world data are needed to assess Jak-Is safety and effectiveness. The multicenter study presented here aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib in a real-life cohort. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed from September 2021 to December 2022. Data were collected when tofacitinib was started (T0) and after 3 (T3), 6 (T6) and 12 (T12) months of treatment. The primary objective was to analyze the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib. Safety was assessed by recording adverse events (AEs) with and without discontinuation. The secondary objective was to assess the difference between Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Physician's Global Assessment of disease activity (PhGA). RESULTS: 122 patients were included in the study from the following rheumatology Centers: Pisa, Ancona, Florence (two Centers), Siena, and Sardinia. A statistically significant improvement in DAS-28-CRP, CDAI and SDAI score was observed at T3, T6, compared to baseline (p < 0.001). Improvement was confirmed in patients who reach T12. Patients naïve to bDMARDs showed a shorter remission time and higher remission rates. There was also a statistically significant improvement in PROs compared to baseline (p < 0.001). The improvement was rapid and was consistent with PhGA. The 12-month retention rate for tofacitinib was 89.35%. Reasons to stop tofacitinib were: insufficient response (7), gastrointestinal symptoms (2), infection (1), malignancy (1), Zoster (1), pruritus sine materia (1). CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib is safe and effective in our RA cohort. It induces higher remission rates in patients naive to bDMARDs, suggesting that there may be a benefit using it as first-line therapy. Additionally, improvement in PROs was consistent with PhGA scores, demonstrating how tofacitinib affects both the objective and subjective components of disease activity. Key Points 1. JAK inhibitors are considered at a similar level as biologic agents in terms of effectiveness. 2. After ORAL-Surveillance results, real-world data are needed to assess the benefit/risk profile of Jaki. 3. Disagreement between patients and physicians has been previously reported with biologic therapy among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with patients rating disease activity higher than physicians. 4. Jak inhibitors could reduce this discrepancy, due to their mechanism of action.

How to Use Janus Kinase Inhibitors in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis? A Clinical Assessment of Risks and Benefits.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide an updated understanding of risks and benefits of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) versus biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). RECENT FINDINGS: Shared decision-making is needed in choosing between JAKi and bDMARDs. Cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and thromboembolic events guide this choice. In patients with active RA despite methotrexate use, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor is conditionally favored over JAKi for low-cardiovascular-risk patients and strongly favored in those with pre-existing cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Suboptimal treatment of treatment-refractory RA patients may pose a greater absolute cardiovascular risk than with JAKi use. Use of aspirin and statin may be considered to reduce cardiovascular risk. New safety data on JAKi has redefined the treatment approach in RA. JAKi remains an important oral medication option in active RA despite treatment with bDMARDs, especially in those with low cardiovascular risk.

Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Use and Its Effect on Long-term Opioid Use in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of chronic pain is high in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), increasing the risk for opioid use. The objective of this study was to assess disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use and its effect on long-term opioid use in patients with RA. METHODS: This cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries with diagnosis of RA who received at least 30-day consecutive prescription of opioids in 2017 (n = 23,608). The patients were grouped into non-DMARD and DMARD users, who were further subdivided into regimens set forth by the American College of Rheumatology. The outcome measured was long-term opioid use in 2018 defined as at least 90-day consecutive prescription of opioids. Dose and duration of opioid use were also assessed. A multivariable model identifying factors associated with non-DMARD use was also performed. RESULTS: Compared with non-DMARD users, the odds of long-term opioid use were significantly lower among DMARD users (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.95). All regimens except non-tumor necrosis factor biologic + methotrexate were associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use relative to non-DMARD users. The mean total morphine milligram equivalent, morphine milligram equivalent per day, and total days of opioid use were lower among DMARD users compared with non-DMARD users. Older age, male sex, Black race, psychiatric and medical comorbidities, and not being seen by a rheumatologist were significantly associated with non-DMARD use. CONCLUSION: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use was associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use among RA patients with baseline opioid prescription. Factors associated with non-DMARD use represent a window of opportunity for intervention to improve pain-related quality of life in patients living with RA.

Risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, thromboembolism, and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving Janus kinase inhibitors: a real-world retrospective observational study using Korean health insurance data.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) raise the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted a real-world retrospective observational study using data obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. Two data sets were analyzed: tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)/JAKi-naive RA patients (set 1) and all RA patients who used TNFis or JAKis (set 2). The incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, cardiovascular (CV)-related mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), VTE, arterial thromboembolism (ATE), cancer, and all-cause mortality were compared between the JAKi and TNFi groups. RESULTS: Set 1 included 1,596 RA patients (JAKi group: 645; TNFi group: 951), and set 2 included 11,765 RA patients (JAKi group: 2,498; TNFi group: 9,267). No adverse events (AEs) showed significantly higher IRRs in the JAKi groups than in the TNFi groups of sets 1 and 2. The HRs for MACE in the JAKi groups of sets 1 and 2 were 0.59 (95% confidence [CI], 0.35 to 0.99) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.97), respectively. The JAKi group of set 2 showed a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.20), but the other AEs did not demonstrate increased risks in the JAKi groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, JAKis did not increase the risk of AMI, stroke, CV-related mortality, MACE, VTE, ATE, or cancer in Korean RA patients relative to TNFis.

Incidence of Herpes Zoster in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in the United States: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of herpes zoster (HZ) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with the general population in the USA. METHODS: This retrospective, longitudinal cohort study used data from an administrative claims database containing both commercial and Medicare Advantage Part D data, with a data period from October 2015 to February 2020. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years and divided into 2 cohorts: patients with RA and patients without RA. Diagnosis and procedure codes were used to identify HZ cases and calculate incidence rates (IRs) of HZ in the 2 cohorts. Data were stratified by age group (ie, 18-49, 18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-64, and ≥ 65 yrs) and RA therapy type. IR ratios (IRRs), adjusted by cohort baseline characteristics, were estimated using generalized linear models to compare the incidence of HZ between cohorts. RESULTS: The overall IR of HZ was higher in the RA cohort (21.5 per 1000 person-years [PY]; N = 67,650) than in the non-RA cohort (7.6 per 1000 PY; N = 11,401,743). The highest IRs in both cohorts were observed in the age group of ≥ 65 yrs (23.4 and 11.4 per 1000 PY in the RA cohort and non-RA cohort, respectively). The overall adjusted IRR of HZ was 1.93 (95% CI 1.87-1.99, P < 0.001) for the RA cohort compared with the non-RA cohort. In the RA cohort, the highest IRs by medication class were observed in patients using corticosteroids and those using Janus kinase inhibitors. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the increased incidence of HZ in patients with RA.

Interstitial lung disease in rheumatoid arthritis: incidence, prevalence and related drug prescriptions between 2007 and 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate prevalence, incidence and medication of interstitial lung disease (ILD) among German individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Nationwide BARMER claims data from 2007 to 2020 were used. RA-ILD was identified by diagnosis codes, prescription of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and lung diagnostics. ILD was assigned as incident or prevalent relative to the year of the first diagnosis. We identified prescriptions of glucocorticoids, conventional synthetic (cs), biological (b) and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs, antifibrotics and rheumatology and/or pulmonology care. RESULTS: Among all persons with RA (40 686 in 2007 to 85 175 in 2020), 1.7%-2.2%/year had ILD with a slight decline since 2013. Incident ILD was 0.13%-0.21% per year and remained stable over time. ILD was more common in seropositive RA, in men and in the elderly (mean age 72 years in 2020). Glucocorticoids (84% to 68%), csDMARD (83% to 55%) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use (62% to 38%) declined, while bDMARDs (16% to 24%) rose. In 2020, 7% received tsDMARDs, 3% antifibrotics, 44% analgesics and 30% opioids. DMARD therapy was more common if a rheumatologist was involved and antifibrotics if a pulmonologist was involved. Opioid use was highest if no specialist was involved (39%) but also common in rheumatology care (32%) and less frequent in pulmonology care (21%). CONCLUSIONS: RA-ILD is rare and mainly affects elderly persons. No trend in incidence was observed but treatment strategies have enlarged. Specialist care is necessary to provide disease-specific therapies. The continuing high analgesic and opioid demand shows unmet needs in these patients.

Discontinuation of biologic therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis: analysis from multicenter cohort study.

Despite of the availability of several effective bDMARDs, a significant proportion of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients discontinued bDMARDs. The aims of this study were to analyze causes of bDMARDs discontinuation in RA and AS included in the Moroccan registry RBSMR. A historical prospective multicenter cohort study based on the RBSMR database at 12 months of follow-up, which included 225 RA and 170 AS. Using T student, Mann-Whitney U, chi-squared or Fischer exact tests, baseline demographic and clinical features were compared between patients discontinuing bDMARDs and patients remaining on initiated bDMARDs or switching bDMARDs. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with drugs discontinuation. 61 RA discontinued bDMARDs and 47 AS interrupted anti-TNF. The most common reasons for drugs discontinuation were adverse events (7.5%) in RA patients and social security reimbursement problems (16.8%) in AS. RA patients discontinuing bDMARDs were more frequently first-line biological drugs users, more frequently female and had more comorbidities and lower DAS28 CRP than RA patients remaining on initiated bDMARDs or switching bDMARDs (p < 0.001, p = 0.01, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively). Female sex and comorbidities were the significant predictors of bDMARDs discontinuation in RA patients. Higher baseline BASDAI had a protective role on anti-TNF interruption in AS patients. Adverse events and social security reimbursement problems were the main reasons for drugs discontinuation in RA and AS patients respectively. Female sex and comorbidities in RA patients, baseline BASDAI in AS patients impacted bDMARDs discontinuation in real-life settings.

Cost-consequence of abatacept as first-line therapy in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients using IORRA real-world data.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of abatacept (ABA) as first-line (1L) therapy in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients using data from the Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis database. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to estimate the cost per American College of Rheumatology response of at least 50% improvement (ACR50) responder and per patient in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission from a Japanese healthcare payers' perspective over a 2-year time horizon. Clinical characteristics of patients on ABA-1L were matched with those of patients on ABA second or later line (2L+) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-1L directly or using propensity scores. Resource utilisation and medical costs were calculated from the Japan Medical Data Center claims database. Parameter uncertainty was addressed by sensitivity and subgroup analyses (age, treatment duration, Japanese version of Health Assessment Questionnaire [J-HAQ] score). RESULTS: Incremental costs per member per month (ΔPMPM) for ABA-1L versus TNFi-1L and ABA-2L+ were -1,571 Japanese Yen (JPY) and 81 JPY, respectively. For ABA-1L versus TNFi-1L, ΔPMPM by ACR50 response was -11,715 JPY and by CDAI and SDAI remission 11,602 JPY and 47,003 JPY, respectively. Corresponding costs for ABA-1L were lower for all outcome parameters versus those for ABA-2L+. Scenario analyses showed that ABA-1L was cost-effective over TNFi-1L in patients <65 years for any outcome. Furthermore, ABA-1L was cost-effective over ABA-2L+ for all outcomes in patients with age <65 years, disease duration <5 years and J-HAQ ≥1.5. CONCLUSIONS: ABA-1L demonstrated a favourable cost-effectiveness profile in RA patients, accruing savings for the Japanese healthcare payers.

Incidence of dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and association with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs - Analysis of a national claims database.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of incident dementia associated with the use of biologics or targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARD) compared to conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDS only in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We analyzed claims data from the Center for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) from 2006-2017. Patients with RA were identified as adults ≥40 years old and two RA diagnoses by a rheumatologist > 7 and < 365 days apart. Patients with a prior diagnosis of dementia were excluded. Use of cs/b/tsDMARDs was the exposure of interest. Person-time was classified as either: 1) b/tsDMARD exposed, which included tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFi)-bDMARDs, non-TNFi-bDMARDs or tsDMARDs with or without csDMARDs; 2) csDMARD-exposed: any csDMARD without b/tsDMARD. Patients could contribute time to different exposure groups if they changed medications. Incident dementia was defined as: 1 inpatient OR 2 outpatients ICD-9-CM or ICD-10 claims for dementia, OR prescription of a dementia-specific medication (rivastigmine, galantamine, memantine, donepezil, tacrine). Age-adjusted incident rates (IR) were calculated, and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate Hazard Ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We identified 141,326 eligible RA patients; 80% female and 75.3% white, median age 67 years and mean (SD) exposure time of 1.1 (1.5) years. There were 233,271 initiations of c/b/tsDMARDS and 3,794 cases of incident dementia during follow up. The crude IR of dementia was 2.0 (95% CI 1.9-2.1) per 100 person-years for patients on csDMARDs and 1.3 (95% CI 1.2-1.4) for patients on any b/tsDMARD. Patients on b/tsDMARDs had an adjusted 19% lower risk for dementia than patients on csDMARDs [HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.76-0.87)]. Subgroup analysis found comparable risk reductions between TNFi, non-TNFi, and tsDMARDs. on the risk of dementia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The incidence of dementia in patients with RA was lower in patients receiving b/tsDMARDs when compared to patients on csDMARD only. No differences were observed between different classes of b/tsDMARDs, suggesting that decreased risk is possibly explained by the overall decrease in inflammation rather than a specific mechanism of action of these drugs.

Intervention with methotrexate in patients with arthralgia at risk of rheumatoid arthritis to reduce the development of persistent arthritis and its disease burden (TREAT EARLIER): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept trial.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is the most common autoimmune disease worldwide and requires long-term treatment to suppress inflammation. Currently, treatment is started when arthritis is clinically apparent. We aimed to evaluate whether earlier intervention, in the preceding phase of arthralgia and subclinical joint inflammation, could prevent the development of clinical arthritis or reduce the disease burden. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept-trial at the Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands. Adults aged 18 years or older with arthralgia clinically suspected of progressing to rheumatoid arthritis and MRI-detected subclinical joint inflammation were eligible for enrolment across 13 rheumatology outpatient clinics in the southwest region of the Netherlands and randomly assigned (1:1) to a single intramuscular glucocorticoid injection (120 mg) and a 1-year course of oral methotrexate (up to 25 mg/week), or placebo (single injection and tablets for 1 year). Participants and investigators were masked to group assignment. Follow-up continued for 1 year after the end of the 1-year treatment period. The primary endpoint was development of clinical arthritis (fulfilling the 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria or involving two or more joints) that persisted for at least 2 weeks. Patient-reported physical functioning, symptoms, and work productivity were secondary endpoints, which were measured every 4 months. Additionally, the course of MRI-detected inflammation was studied. All participants entered the intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2014-004472-35, and the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR4853-trial-NL4599. FINDINGS: Between April 16, 2015, and Sept 11, 2019, 901 patients were assessed for eligibility and 236 were enrolled and randomly assigned to active treatment (n=119) or placebo (n=117). At 2 years, the frequency of the primary endpoint was similar between the groups (23 [19%] of 119 participants in the treatment group vs 21 [18%] of 117 in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·45 to 1·48). Physical functioning improved more in the treatment group during the first 4 months and remained better than in the placebo group (mean between-group difference in Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index over 2 years: -0·09, 95% CI -0·16 to -0·03; p=0·0042). Similarly, pain (on scale 0-100, mean between-group difference: -8, 95% CI -12 to -4; p<0·0001), morning stiffness of joints (-12, -16 to -8; p<0·0001), presenteeism (-8%, -13 to -3; p=0·0007), and MRI-detected joint inflammation (-1·4 points, -2·0 to -0·9; p<0·0001) showed sustained improvement in the treatment group compared with the placebo group. The number of serious adverse events was equal in both groups; adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile for methotrexate. INTERPRETATION: Methotrexate, the cornerstone treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, initiated at the pre-arthritis stage of symptoms and subclinical inflammation, did not prevent the development of clinical arthritis, but modified the disease course as shown by sustained improvement in MRI-detected inflammation, related symptoms, and impairments compared with placebo. FUNDING: Dutch Research Council (NWO; Dutch Arthritis Society).

Cardiovascular Risks of Hydroxychloroquine vs Methotrexate in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine is often used as a first-line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis despite limited evidence on its cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a cardiovascular safety evaluation comparing hydroxychloroquine to methotrexate among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Using Medicare data (2008-2016), we identified 54,462 propensity score-matched patients with rheumatoid arthritis, aged ≥65 years, who initiated hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate. Primary outcomes were sudden cardiac arrest or ventricular arrythmia (SCA/VA) and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalized heart failure (HF). We also examined treatment effect modification by history of HF. RESULTS: Hydroxychloroquine was not associated with risk of SCA/VA (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.79-1.35) or MACE (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.18) compared with methotrexate. In patients with history of HF, hydroxychloroquine initiators had a higher risk of MACE (HR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.08-1.56), cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.06-1.70), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.04-1.43), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.25-2.42), and hospitalized HF (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.07-1.54) compared to methotrexate initiators. Cardiovascular risks were not different in patients without history of HF except for an increased hospitalized HF risk (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.30-1.90) among hydroxychloroquine initiators. CONCLUSIONS: In older patients with rheumatoid arthritis, hydroxychloroquine and methotrexate showed similar SCA/VA and MACE risks; however, hydroxychloroquine initiators with history of HF had higher risks of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction. An increased hospitalized HF risk was observed among hydroxychloroquine initiators regardless of an HF history.

Comparative Risk of Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementia Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated With Targeted Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Agents.

Importance: Cytokine signaling, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin (IL)-6, through the Janus-kinase (JAK)-signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway, was hypothesized to attenuate the risk of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) in the Drug Repurposing for Effective Alzheimer Medicines (DREAM) initiative based on multiomics phenotyping. Objective: To evaluate the association between treatment with tofacitinib, tocilizumab, or TNF inhibitors compared with abatacept and risk of incident ADRD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted among US Medicare fee-for-service patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 65 years and older from 2007 to 2017. Patients were categorized into 3 cohorts based on initiation of tofacitinib (a JAK inhibitor), tocilizumab (an IL-6 inhibitor), or TNF inhibitors compared with a common comparator abatacept (a T-cell activation inhibitor). Analyses were conducted from August 2020 to August 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was onset of ADRD based on diagnosis codes evaluated in 4 alternative analysis schemes: (1) an as-treated follow-up approach, (2) an as-started follow-up approach incorporating a 6-month induction period, (3) incorporating a 6-month symptom to diagnosis period to account for misclassification of ADRD onset, and (4) identifying ADRD through symptomatic prescriptions and diagnosis codes. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression after adjustment for 79 preexposure characteristics through propensity score matching. Results: After 1:1 propensity score matching to patients using abatacept, a total of 22 569 propensity score-matched patient pairs, including 4224 tofacitinib pairs (mean [SD] age 72.19 [5.65] years; 6945 [82.2%] women), 6369 tocilizumab pairs (mean [SD] age 72.01 [5.46] years; 10 105 [79.4%] women), and 11 976 TNF inhibitor pairs (mean [SD] age 72.67 [5.91] years; 19 710 [82.3%] women), were assessed. Incidence rates of ADRD varied from 2 to 18 per 1000 person-years across analyses schemes. There were no statistically significant associations of ADRD with tofacitinib (analysis 1: HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.55-1.51]; analysis 2: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.53-1.13]; analysis 3: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.72-2.33]; analysis 4: HR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.21-1.20]), tocilizumab (analysis 1: HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.55-1.21]; analysis 2: HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.81-1.35]; analysis 3: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.75-1.96]; analysis 4: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.44-1.39]), or TNF inhibitors (analysis 1: HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.72-1.20]; analysis 2: HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.86-1.20]; analysis 3: HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.86-1.48]; analysis 4: 0.90 [95% CI, 0.60-1.37]) compared with abatacept. Results from prespecified subgroup analysis by age, sex, and baseline cardiovascular disease were consistent except in patients with cardiovascular disease, for whom there was a potentially lower risk of ADRD with TNF inhibitors vs abatacept, but only in analyses 2 and 4 (analysis 1: HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.50-1.16]; analysis 2: HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.99]; analysis 3: HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.65-1.61]; analysis 4: HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21-0.98]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study did not find any association of risk of ADRD in patients treated with tofacitinib, tocilizumab, or TNF inhibitors compared with abatacept.

Risk of Serious Infection With Low-dose Glucocorticoids in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Instrumental Variable Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose glucocorticoids are commonly used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Observational studies have found an increased risk of serious infection associated with low-dose glucocorticoids, but concerns about residual confounding remain. METHODS: We identified adults with RA on stable immunomodulatory therapy for >6 months receiving no glucocorticoids or ≤5 mg/day using Medicare data from 2006 to 2015. We used provider preference for glucocorticoids as an instrumental variable (IV) to assess associations between low-dose glucocorticoid use and the risk of infection requiring hospitalization using a cause-specific proportional hazards model. RESULTS: We identified 163,603 qualifying treatment episodes among 120,656 patients. Glucocorticoids ≤5 mg/day were used by 25,373/81,802 (31.0%) of patients seen by a rheumatologist with low provider preference for glucocorticoids and by 36,087/81,801 (44.1%) of patients seen by a rheumatologist with high provider preference for glucocorticoids (adjusted odds ratio 1.81, 95% confidence interval 1.77, 1.84 for association between provider preference and glucocorticoids). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, opioids, antibiotics, previous emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and infections requiring hospitalization infections were unbalanced with regard to exposure but not to the IV. The incidence of infection requiring hospitalization was 8.0/100 person-years among patients unexposed to glucocorticoids versus 11.7/100 person-years among those exposed. The association between glucocorticoids and infection requiring hospitalization from IV analysis (hazard ratio 1.26 [1.02-1.56]) was similar to results from a standard multivariable model (hazard ratio 1.24 [1.21-1.28]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with RA on stable immunomodulatory therapy, IV analysis based on provider preference demonstrated an increased risk of infection requiring hospitalization associated with low-dose glucocorticoids, similar to a traditional analysis.

Clinical remission and subsequent relapse in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: predictive factors according to therapeutic approach.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis constitutes a significant cause of disability and quality of life impairment in pediatric and adult patients. The aim of this study was to ascertain clinical remission (CR) and subsequent relapse in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients, according to therapeutic approach and JIA subtype. Evidence in literature regarding its predictors is scarce. METHODS: We conducted an observational, ambispective study. Patients diagnosed of JIA, treated with synthetic and/or biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) were included and followed-up to December 31st, 2015. Primary outcome was clinical remission defined by Wallace criteria, both on and off medication. In order to ascertain CR according to therapeutic approach, DMARD treatments were divided in four groups: 1) synthetic DMARD (sDMARD) alone, 2) sDMARD combined with another sDMARD, 3) sDMARD combined with biologic DMARD (bDMARD), and 4) bDMARD alone. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients who received DMARD treatment were included. At the time the follow-up was completed, 70% of the patients in the cohort had attained CR at least once (144 out of 206), and 29% were in clinical remission off medication (59 out of 206). According to treatment group, CR was more frequently observed in patients treated with synthetic DMARD alone (53%). Within this group, CR was associated with female sex, oligoarticular persistent subtypes, ANA positivity, Methotrexate treatment and absence of HLA B27, comorbidities and DMARD toxicity. 124 DMARD treatments (62%) were withdrawn, 64% of which relapsed. Lower relapse rates were observed in those patients with persistent oligoarticular JIA (93%) when DMARD dose was tapered before withdrawal (77%). CONCLUSIONS: More than two thirds of JIA patients attained CR along the 9 years of follow-up, and nearly one third achieved CR off medication. Females with early JIA onset, lower active joint count and ANA positivity were the ones achieving and sustaining remission more frequently, especially when receiving synthetic DMARD alone and in the absence of HLA B27, comorbidities or previous DMARD toxicity.

Differences in rituximab use between pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists for the treatment of refractory lupus nephritis and renal flare in childhood-onset SLE.

BACKGROUND: Consensus treatment plans have been developed for induction therapy of newly diagnosed proliferative lupus nephritis (LN) in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. However, patients who do not respond to initial therapy, or who develop renal flare after remission, warrant escalation of treatment. Our objective was to assess current practices of pediatric nephrologists and rheumatologists in North America in treatment of refractory proliferative LN and flare. METHODS: Members of Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) and the American Society for Pediatric Nephrology (ASPN) were surveyed in November 2015 to assess therapy choices (other than modifying steroid dosing) and level of agreement between rheumatologists and nephrologists for proliferative LN patients. Two cases were presented: (1) refractory disease after induction treatment with corticosteroid and cyclophosphamide (CYC) and (2) nephritis flare after initial response to treatment. Survey respondents chose treatments for three follow up scenarios for each case that varied by severity of presentation. Treatment options included CYC, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), rituximab (RTX), and others, alone or in combination. RESULTS: Seventy-six respondents from ASPN and foty-one respondents from CARRA represented approximately 15 % of the eligible members from each organization. Treatment choices between nephrologists and rheumatologists were highly variable and received greater than 50 % agreement for an individual treatment choice in only the following 2 of 6 follow up scenarios: 59 % of nephrologists, but only 38 % of rheumatologists, chose increasing dose of MMF in the case of LN refractory to induction therapy with proteinuria, hematuria, and improved serum creatinine. In a follow up scenario showing severe renal flare after achieving remission with induction therapy, 58 % of rheumatologists chose CYC and RTX combination therapy, whereas the top choice for nephrologists (43 %) was CYC alone. Rheumatologists in comparison to nephrologists chose more therapy options that contained RTX in all follow up scenarios except one (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Therapy choices for pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists in the treatment of refractory LN or LN flare were highly variable with rheumatologists more often choosing rituximab. Further investigation is necessary to delineate the reasons behind this finding. This study highlights the importance of collaborative efforts in developing consensus treatment plans for pediatric LN.