Disease modification in axial spondyloarthritis - still a controversy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review evaluates recent advancements in disease-modifying therapies for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). RECENT FINDINGS: A recent study could not demonstrate an additional effect of NSAID therapy on golimumab [Tumor Necrosis Factor-α inhibitor (TNFi)] on structural progression; however, this might be due to the fact that the study was underpowered. While DMARDs have shown promise in suppressing inflammation, their impact on structural progression remains uncertain. A well powered trial showed no difference in spinal progression between secukinumab [Interleukin17A inhibitor (IL17Ai)] and adalimumab-biosimilar (TNFi). Preliminary data on Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) focus on MRI findings but lack evidence on radiographic spinal progression. While some studies suggest promising outcomes, others reveal limitations and inconclusive findings. SUMMARY: Recent studies explore the effectiveness of NSAIDs, biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs like TNFi and IL-17i, as well as JAK inhibitors in axSpA. Conflicting evidence surrounds these therapies' ability to impede structural progression, with challenges in study design and interpretation. Moreover, changes in demographics and treatment methods underscore the importance of examining trends over time when assessing disease outcomes. Ultimately, ongoing research could benefit from new imaging tools when evaluating therapeutic strategies for modifying disease progression in axSpA.

Bimekizumab treatment in patients with active axial spondyloarthritis: 52-week efficacy and safety from the randomised parallel phase 3 BE MOBILE 1 and BE MOBILE 2 studies.

OBJECTIVES: Bimekizumab (BKZ), a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A, has demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo in patients with non-radiographic (nr-) and radiographic (r-) axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) at Week 16. Here, the objective is to report the efficacy and safety of BKZ at Week 52. METHODS: BE MOBILE 1 (nr-axSpA; NCT03928704) and BE MOBILE 2 (r-axSpA; NCT03928743) comprised a 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period, then a 36-week maintenance period. From Week 16, all patients received subcutaneous BKZ 160 mg every 4 weeks. RESULTS: Improvements versus placebo in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society ≥40% response (primary endpoint), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and MRI inflammation of the sacroiliac joints/spine at Week 16 were sustained to Week 52 in BKZ-randomised patients. At Week 52, responses of patients switching from placebo to BKZ at Week 16 were comparable to BKZ-randomised patients. At Week 52, ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 183 (75.0%) and 249 (75.5%) patients with nr-axSpA and r-axSpA, respectively. Serious TEAEs occurred in 9 (3.7%) patients with nr-axSpA and 20 (6.1%) patients with r-axSpA. Oral candidiasis was the most frequent fungal infection (nr-axSpA: 18 (7.4%); r-axSpA: 20 (6.1%)). Uveitis occurred in three (1.2%) and seven (2.1%) patients with nr-axSpA and r-axSpA, and inflammatory bowel disease in two (0.8%) and three (0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: At Week 52, dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F with BKZ resulted in sustained efficacy across the axSpA spectrum; the safety profile was consistent with the known safety of BKZ. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03928704; NCT03928743.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2023 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To obtain an overview of recent evidence on efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: This systematic literature research (SLR) investigated the efficacy and safety of conventional synthetic (cs), biological (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with PsA. A systematic database search using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted to identify relevant articles published since the previous update in 2019 until 28 December 2022. Efficacy was assessed in trials while for safety observational data were also considered. Adverse events of special interest were infections (including herpes zoster, influenza and tuberculosis), malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolisms, liver disease, laboratory changes and psychiatric adverse events. No meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: For efficacy, of 3946 articles screened, 38 articles (30 trials) were analysed. The compounds investigated included csDMARDs (leflunomide, methotrexate), bDMARDs inhibiting IL17 (bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, izokibep, secukinumab,), IL-23 (guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab), IL-12/23 (ustekinumab) as well as TNF (adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab) and Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi) (brepocitinib, deucravacitinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib). The compounds investigated were efficacious in improving signs and symptoms of PsA, improving physical functioning and quality of life. For safety, 2055 abstracts were screened, and 24 articles analysed: 15 observational studies and 9 long-term follow-ups of trials, assessing glucocorticoids, TNFi, IL-17i, JAKi, IL-12/23i and PDE4i (apremilast). Safety indicators were generally coherent with the previous SLR in 2019. CONCLUSION: The results of this SLR informed the task force responsible for the 2023 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for pharmacological management of PsA.

Can rheumatologists unequivocally diagnose axial spondyloarthritis in patients with chronic back pain of less than 2 years duration? Primary outcome of the 2-year SPondyloArthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in patients with chronic back pain (CBP) of less than 2 years (2y) duration referred to the rheumatologist, the development of diagnosis over time, and patient characteristics of those developing definite (d-)axSpA over 2y. METHODS: We analysed the 2y data from SPondyloArthritis Caught Early, a European cohort of patients (<45 years) with CBP (≥3 months, ≤2y) of unknown origin. The diagnostic workup comprised evaluation of clinical SpA features, acute phase reactants, HLA-B27, radiographs and MRI (sacroiliac joints and spine), with repeated assessments. At each visit (baseline, 3 months, 1y and 2y), rheumatologists reported a diagnosis of axSpA or non-axSpA with level of confidence (LoC; 0-not confident at all to 10-very confident). MAIN OUTCOME: axSpA diagnosis with LoC≥7 (d-axSpA) at 2y. RESULTS: In 552 patients with CBP, d-axSpA was diagnosed in 175 (32%) at baseline and 165 (30%) at 2y. Baseline diagnosis remained rather stable: at 2y, baseline d-axSpA was revised in 5% of patients, while 8% 'gained' d-axSpA. Diagnostic uncertainty persisted in 30%. HLA-B27+ and baseline sacroiliitis imaging discriminated best 2y-d-axSpA versus 2y-d-non-axSpA patients. Good response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and MRI-sacroiliitis most frequently developed over follow-up in patients with a new d-axSpA diagnosis. Of the patients who developed MRI-sacroiliitis, 7/8 were HLA-B27+ and 5/8 male. CONCLUSION: A diagnosis of d-axSpA can be reliably made in nearly one-third of patients with CBP referred to the rheumatologist, but diagnostic uncertainty may persist in 5%-30% after 2y. Repeated assessments yield is modest, but repeating MRI may be worthwhile in male HLA-B27+ patients.

Goodbye to the term 'ankylosing spondylitis', hello 'axial spondyloarthritis': time to embrace the ASAS-defined nomenclature.

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is the historic term used for decades for the HLA-B27-associated inflammatory disease affecting mainly the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) and spine. Classification criteria for AS have radiographic sacroiliitis as a dominant characteristic. However, with the availability of MRI of SIJ, it could be demonstrated that the disease starts long before definite SIJ changes become visible on radiographs. The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society, representing a worldwide group of experts reached consensus on changes in the nomenclature pertaining to axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), such as the terminology of diagnosis and of assessment of disease activity tools. These are important changes in the field, as experts in axSpA are now in agreement that the term axSpA is the overall term for the disease. A further differentiation, of which radiographic versus non-radiographic is only one aspect, may be relevant for research purposes. Another important decision was that the terms AS and radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) can be used interchangeably, but that the preferred term is r-axSpA. Based on the decision that axSpA is the correct terminology, a proposal was made to officially change the meaning of the ASDAS acronym to 'Axial Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Score'. In addition, for simplification it was proposed that the term ASDAS (instead of ASDAS-CRP) should be preferred and applied to the ASDAS calculated with C reactive protein (CRP). It is hoped that these changes will be used consequently for education, in textbooks, manuscripts and presentations.

EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2023 update.

OBJECTIVE: New modes of action and more data on the efficacy and safety of existing drugs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) required an update of the EULAR 2019 recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of PsA. METHODS: Following EULAR standardised operating procedures, the process included a systematic literature review and a consensus meeting of 36 international experts in April 2023. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were determined. RESULTS: The updated recommendations comprise 7 overarching principles and 11 recommendations, and provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be used in monotherapy only for mild PsA and in the short term; oral glucocorticoids are not recommended. In patients with peripheral arthritis, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended and methotrexate preferred. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) should be initiated, without preference among modes of action. Relevant skin psoriasis should orient towards bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)-23p40, IL-23p19, IL-17A and IL-17A/F inhibitors. In case of predominant axial or entheseal disease, an algorithm is also proposed. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is proposed primarily after bDMARD failure, taking relevant risk factors into account, or in case bDMARDs are not an appropriate choice. Inflammatory bowel disease and uveitis, if present, should influence drug choices, with monoclonal tumour necrosis factor inhibitors proposed. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are also addressed. CONCLUSION: These updated recommendations integrate all currently available drugs in a practical and progressive approach, which will be helpful in the pharmacological management of PsA.

Performance of clinical, laboratory and imaging features for diagnosing spondyloarthritis-a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The Berlin algorithm was developed to help diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but new studies suggest some features typical of SpA are less specific than previously assumed. Furthermore, evidence is lacking for other SpA subtypes (e.g. peripheral SpA). We aimed to review the evidence on the performance of SpA features for diagnosing each SpA subtype. METHODS: Systematic literature review of studies reporting the diagnostic performance of ≥ 1 SpA feature in patients with suspected SpA. The external reference was the rheumatologist's diagnosis of SpA. Meta-analysis was performed, separately for each SpA subtype, to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios. Meta-regression assessed the effect of covariates (e.g. feature's prevalence) on each feature's performance. RESULTS: Of 13 844 articles screened, 46 were included. Sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging, damage on pelvic radiographs and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) had the best balance between LR+ and LR- (LR + 3.9-17.0, LR- 0.5-0.7) for diagnosing axSpA. HLA-B27 had an LR+ lower than anticipated (LR + =3.1). Inflammatory back pain (IBP) had low LR + (LR+∼1), but substantially decreased the likelihood of axSpA when absent (LR-=0.3). Conversely, peripheral features and extra-musculoskeletal manifestations showed high LR + (LR+ 1.6-5.0), but were as common in axSpA as no-axSpA (LR-∼1). The specificity of most features was reduced in settings when these were highly prevalent. Limited data precluded a detailed analysis on diagnosing other SpA subtypes. CONCLUSION: Imaging features and CRP have good diagnostic value for axSpA. However, the specificity of other features, especially HLA-B27 and IBP, is lower than previously known.

Prevalence and incidence of uveitis in patients with spondyloarthritis: the impact of the biologics era. Data from International ASAS-COMOSPA Study.

OBJECTIVES: Uveitis is a common extra-musculoskeletal manifestation in Spondyloarthritis (SpA). The aim of this study was to analyze the prevalence of uveitis in SpA patients, its association with geographical areas and to determine whether its incidence was different before and after the biological era. METHODS: ASAS-COMOSPA is a retrospective study that includes patients fulfilling ASAS SpA classification criteria from 22 countries. The overall prevalence of uveitis was calculated, and factors associated with the onset of a first episode of uveitis were evaluated using a Cox regression. A Log-Rank test was performed to compare the new onset of uveitis in the no biological era (SpA onset before 2000) vs biological era (SpA onset after 2000). RESULTS: 3984 patients were included. The likelihood of presenting a first uveitis episode increased over time, from a prevalence of 10.5% (95%CI 9.5%-11.4%) at the time of the SpA diagnosis to 46.6% (41.6%-51.5%) after 30 years since the SpA diagnosis. HLA-B27 positivity, family history of uveitis, peripheral enthesitis and IBD were associated with higher risk of uveitis. Patients with SpA disease onset after year 2000 showed a lower prevalence of uveitis compared with disease onset before year 2000 (8.2% vs 25.5%, p< 0.01), as well as a lower incidence (2.8 per 100 PY vs 6.1 per 100 PY, respectively). CONCLUSION: In our study the risk of having suffered from at least one episode of uveitis ranged from 10% at the time of the diagnosis of axSpA to 47% after 30 years of disease duration. Patients with disease onset after biologic therapy introduction showed a significantly lower prevalence and incidence of first episodes of uveitis.

Do quality of life and work productivity change in early axial spondyloarthritis and non-axial spondyloarthritis patients after two years?

OBJECTIVE: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and work productivity in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and non-axSpA patients with chronic back pain of < 2 years (2 y). METHODS: Baseline and 2 y data of patients included in the SPondyloArthritis Caught Early cohort were analyzed. HRQoL was assessed by the physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey; and presenteeism, absenteeism, work productivity loss (WPL) and activity impairment (AI) by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. Linear or zero-inflated negative binomial regression was conducted to compare 2 y outcomes between groups (axSpA and non-axSpA), adjusting for the baseline value, sex, age and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. RESULTS: There were 265 axSpA and 108 non-axSpA patients: males 52% vs 26%, mean age 29 vs 31 years, respectively. At baseline, non-axSpA patients showed worse PCS (mean 28.6 axSpA vs 26.6 non-axSpA), presenteeism (31.1% vs 37.3%), absenteeism (8.2% vs 10.3%), WPL (34.7% vs 44.1%) and AI (39.6% vs 48.5%). MCS was not impaired in either group. After 2 y, PCS, presenteeism, WPL and AI significantly improved in both groups; absenteeism only in axSpA. In multivariable analysis, axSpA (vs non-axSpA) was associated with 22% less WPL (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.62; 0.98]) and 18% less AI (0.82 [0.69; 0.97]). CONCLUSION: HRQoL and work productivity are more impaired in non-axSpA (vs axSpA) at baseline and still after 2 y. Although most outcomes improve in both groups, axSpA is associated with larger improvements in work productivity and activity impairment.

The impact of autoantibodies on the efficacy of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of bDMARDs in patients with RA with RF/ACPA compared with patients without these autoantibodies. METHODS: Previous systematic literature reviews performed by EULAR RA management task forces were searched for qualifying RCTs. RCTs investigating the efficacy of bDMARDs and including both autoantibody-positive (≤80% of total population) and -negative RA patients were eligible. For trials comparing bDMARD+csDMARD vs csDMARD, relative risks (RR) comparing two groups (RF + vs RF-, ACPA+ vs ACPA-) were calculated for efficacy outcomes for each arm. Subsequently, relative risk ratios (RRRs) were computed, as the ratio of RR of the bDMARD-arm and the RR from the non-bDMARD-arm. Pooled effects were obtained with random effect meta-analyses. RESULTS: Data from 28 eligible RCTs were analyzed, pooling 23 studies in three subgroups: 6 including csDMARD-naïve patients, 14 csDMARD-IR, and 3 TNFi-IR patients. In csDMARD-naïve and csDMARD-IR patients, seropositivity was not associated with a better response to bDMARDs: pooled 6-month ACR20 RRRs 1.02 (0.88-1.18) and 1.09 (0.90-1.32), respectively. Other outcomes showed no difference between groups either. In TNFi-IR patients, based on 3 trials, the 6-month ACR20 RRR was 2.28 (1.31-3.95), favoring efficacy in seropositive patients. Other outcomes mostly showed no significant difference between the groups. Based on the mode of action, efficacy was comparable between RF-positive and RF-negative patients for both TNFi and non-TNFi treatment and also for the individual bDMARDs. CONCLUSION: The effect of bDMARDs is generally comparable in patients with and without RF/ACPA, regardless of the patient population, the mechanism of action or individual drug used.

Erosions on T1-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Radiography of Sacroiliac Joints in Recent-Onset Axial Spondyloarthritis: 2-Year Data (EMBARK Trial and DESIR Cohort).

OBJECTIVE: (1) To compare the capacity to detect sacroiliac joint (SIJ) erosions and baseline-to-week 104 change in erosions between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radiographs in recent-onset axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA); and (2) to compare treatment-discriminatory capacities of MRI and radiographic scores for erosion detection in patients receiving etanercept in the Effect of Etanercept on Symptoms and Objective Inflammation in Nonradiographic axSpA (EMBARK) trial vs controls in the DESIR (Devenir des Spondylarthropathies Indifférenciées Récentes) cohort. METHODS: Anonymized SIJ MRI and radiographs were assessed at patient and joint surface levels. Three readers evaluated MRI; 3 different readers evaluated radiographs. Final scores for comparison of radiographs and MRI for detection of erosions were assigned based on agreement of ≥ 2 of 3 readers' assessments. RESULTS: At baseline, discordance in erosion detection between imaging methods was more frequent for MRI erosions in the absence of radiographic erosions (48/224 [21.4%] patients) than for radiographic erosions in the absence of MRI erosions (14/224 [6.3%] patients; P < 0.001). After 104 weeks, a decrease in erosions was observed on MRI but not radiographs in 49/221 (22.2%) patients, and on radiographs but not MRI in 6/221 (2.7%) patients (P < 0.001). In the treatment-discriminant capacity analysis, the largest standardized differences between etanercept and control cohorts at week 104 were changes in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada MRI erosion discrete score, changes in erosion average score, and meeting the modified New York criteria on radiographs, with unadjusted/adjusted Hedges G effect sizes of 0.40/0.50, 0.40/0.56, and 0.40/0.43, respectively. CONCLUSION: In recent-onset axSpA, SIJ erosions and erosion change were observed more frequently on MRI than radiography. The significance of interval improvement of MRI erosions warrants further research. [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01258738, NCT01648907].

Upadacitinib for the treatment of active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SELECT-AXIS 2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, has been shown to be effective in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. METHODS: The SELECT-AXIS 2 non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis study was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 113 sites across 23 countries (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine, and the USA). Eligible adults had active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, with objective signs of inflammation based on MRI or elevated C-reactive protein and an inadequate response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo using interactive response technology. Random treatment assignment was stratified by MRI inflammation in the sacroiliac joints and screening high-sensitivity C-reactive protein status (MRI-positive and C-reactive protein-positive, MRI-positive and C-reactive protein-negative, and MRI-negative and C-reactive protein-positive) and previous exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (yes vs no). Treatment assignment was masked from patients, investigators, study site personnel, and the study sponsor. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 (ASAS40) response at week 14. Analyses were performed on the full analysis set of patients, who underwent random allocation and received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04169373. FINDINGS: Between Nov 26, 2019, and May 20, 2021, 314 patients with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis were enrolled into the study, and 313 received study drug (156 in the upadacitinib group and 157 in the placebo group); 295 (94%) patients (145 in the upadacitinib group and 150 in the placebo group) received treatment for the full 14 weeks. A significantly higher ASAS40 response rate was achieved with upadacitinib compared with placebo at week 14 (70 [45%] of 156 patients vs 35 [23%] of 157 patients; p<0·0001; treatment difference 22%, 95% CI 12-32). The rate of adverse events up to week 14 was similar in the upadacitinib group (75 [48%] of 156 patients) and placebo group (72 [46%] of 157 patients). Serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of study drug occurred in four (3%) of 156 patients in the upadacitinib group and two (1%) of 157 patients in the placebo group. Few patients had serious infections or herpes zoster in either treatment group (each event occurred in two [1%] of 156 patients in the upadacitinib group and one [1%] of 157 patients in the placebo group). Five (3%) of 156 patients in the upadacitinib group had neutropenia; no events of neutropenia occurred in the placebo group. No opportunistic infections, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolic events, or deaths were reported with upadacitinib treatment. INTERPRETATION: Upadacitinib significantly improved the signs and symptoms of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis compared with placebo at week 14. These findings support the potential of upadacitinib as a new therapeutic option in patients with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Efficacy and safety of biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the ASAS-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on efficacy and safety of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) to inform the 2022 update of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ASAS-EULAR) recommendations for the management of axSpA. METHODS: Systematic literature review (2016-2021) on efficacy and safety of bDMARDs in axSpA (radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA)/non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA)). Eligible study designs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), strategy trials and observational studies (the latter only for safety and extra-musculoskeletal manifestations). All relevant efficacy/safety outcomes were included. RESULTS: In total, 148 publications were included. Efficacy of golimumab and certolizumab was confirmed. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilar-originator equivalence was demonstrated. RCT (n=15) data on efficacy of interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) demonstrated clinically relevant effects (risk ratio vs placebo to achieve ASAS40 response 1.3-15.3 (r-axSpA, n=9), 1.4-2.1 (nr-axSpA, n=2)). Efficacy of secukinumab/ixekizumab was demonstrated in TNFi-naïve and TNFi-inadequate responders. IL-23 and IL-12/23 inhibitors (risankizumab/ustekinumab) failed to show relevant benefits. Tapering of TNFi by spacing was non-inferior to standard-dose treatment. The first axSpA treat-to-target trial did not meet its primary endpoint, but showed improvements in secondary outcomes. No new risks were identified with TNFi use in observational studies (data lacking for IL-17i). Secukinumab (n=1) and etanercept (n=2) were associated with increased risk of uveitis in observational studies compared to monoclonal TNFi. CONCLUSIONS: New evidence supports the efficacy and safety of TNFi (originators/biosimilars) and IL-17i in r-axSpA and nr-axSpA, while IL-23i failed to show relevant effects. Observational studies are needed to confirm long-term IL-17i safety. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021257588.

Efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and non-biological interventions: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence of non-biological treatments for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), as a basis for the 2022 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ASAS-EULAR) recommendations for the management of axSpA. METHODS: A systematic literature review (2016-2021) on efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and non-biological pharmacological treatments was performed, up to 1 January 2022. The research question was formulated according to the PICO format: Population: adult patients with r-axSpA and nr-axSpA; Intervention: non-pharmacological and non-biological pharmacological treatments; Comparator: active comparator or placebo; Outcomes: all relevant efficacy and safety outcomes. Type of studies included were: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies (for efficacy of non-pharmacological treatments, and safety), qualitative studies. Cohen's effect size (ES) was calculated for non-pharmacological and risk ratio (RR) for pharmacological treatments. RESULTS: Of 107 publications included, 63 addressed non-pharmacological interventions, including education (n=8) and exercise (n=20). The ES for education on disease activity, function, mobility was small to moderate (eg. Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), ES: 0.06-0.59). Exercise had moderate to high ES on these outcomes (eg. BASDAI, ES: 0.14-1.43). Six RCTs on targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) showed efficacy of tofacitinib, upadacitinib and filgotinib (phase 2 only) in r-axSpA (range RR vs placebo for ASAS20: 1.91-3.10), while apremilast and nilotinib were not efficacious. Studies on conventional synthetic DMARDs (n=3), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, n=8) and other drugs (n=12) did not provide new evidence on efficacy/safety (efficacy of NSAIDs confirmed; limited efficacy of short-term glucocorticoids in one RCT). CONCLUSIONS: Education, exercise and NSAIDs confirmed to be efficacious in axSpA. JAKi were proved efficacious in r-axSpA.

Efficacy of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on efficacy of DMARDs (disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) and inform the taskforce of the 2022 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This systematic literature review (SLR) investigated the efficacy of conventional synthetic (cs), biological (b), biosimilar and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs in patients with RA. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science were used to identify all relevant articles published since the previous update in 2019 to 14 January 2022. RESULTS: Of 8969 search results, 169 articles were selected for detailed review and 47 were finally included. Trials investigated the efficacy of csDMARDs, bDMARDs and tsDMARDs, DMARD switching, tapering and trials investigating different treatment strategies. The compounds investigated were csDMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), bDMARDs (abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, denosumab, etanercept, infliximab, levilimab, olokizumab, opineracept, rituximab, sarilumab, tocilizumab) and tsDMARDs (baricitinib, filgotinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib). The efficacy of csDMARDs+ short-term glucocorticoids in early RA was confirmed and similar to bDMARD+MTX combination therapy. Interleukin-6 pathway inhibition was effective in trials on olokizumab and levilimab. Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) was efficacious in different patient populations. After insufficient response to JAKi, patients could respond to TNFi treatment. Tapering of DMARDs was feasible for a proportion of patients, who were able to taper therapy while remaining in low disease activity or remission. CONCLUSION: The results of this SLR, together with one SLR on safety of DMARD and one on glucocorticoids, informed the taskforce of the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for pharmacological management of RA.

Efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

This systematic literature review (SLR) regarding the efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids (GCs), was performed to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Studies on GC efficacy were identified from a separate search on the efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). A combined search was performed for the duration of use and safety of GCs in RA patients. Dose-defined and time-defined GC treatment of any dose and duration (excluding intra-articular GCs) prescribed in combination with other DMARDs were considered. Results are presented descriptively. Two included studies confirmed the efficacy of GC bridging as initial therapy, with equal efficacy after 2 years of initial doses of 30 mg/day compared with 60 mg/day prednisone. Based on a recently performed SLR, in clinical trials most patients starting initial GC bridging are able to stop GCs within 12 (22% patients continued on GCs) to 24 months (10% patients continued on GCs). The safety search included 12 RCTs and 21 observational studies. Well-known safety risks of GC use were confirmed, including an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, serious infections, diabetes and mortality. Data on cardiovascular outcomes were Inconsistent. Overall, safety risks increased with increasing dose and/or duration, but evidence on which dose is safe was conflicting. In conclusion, this SLR has confirmed the efficacy of GCs in the treatment of RA. In clinical trials, most patients have shown to be able to stop GCs within 12-24 months. Well-known safety risks of GC use have been confirmed, but with heterogeneity between studies.

Effect of tapered versus stable treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors on disease flares in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission: a randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVES: Many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) require treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to reach remission. It is debated whether tapering of TNFi to discontinuation should be considered in sustained remission. The aim of ARCTIC REWIND TNFi was to assess the effect of tapering TNFi to withdrawal compared with stable treatment on the risk of disease activity flares in patients with RA in remission ≥1 year. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at nine Norwegian rheumatology departments. Patients with RA in remission ≥12 months on stable TNFi therapy were allocated by computer-based block-randomisation to tapering to discontinuation of TNFi or stable TNFi. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic co-medication was unchanged. The primary endpoint was disease flare during the 12-month study period (non-inferiority margin 20%), assessed in the per-protocol population. RESULTS: Between June 2013 and January 2019, 99 patients were enrolled and 92 received the allocated treatment strategy. Eighty-four patients were included in the per-protocol population. In the tapering TNFi group, 27/43 (63%) experienced a flare during 12 months, compared with 2/41 (5%) in the stable TNFi group; risk difference (95% CI) 58% (42% to 74%). The tapering strategy was not non-inferior to continued stable treatment. The number of total/serious adverse events was 49/3 in the tapering group, 57/2 in the stable group. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA in remission for more than 1 year while using TNFi, an increase in flare rate was reported in those who tapered TNFi to discontinuation. However, most regained remission after reinstatement of full-dose treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT: 2012-005275-14 and clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01881308.

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Two phase 3, double-blind randomised controlled trials including patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate (contRAst 1) or conventional synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARDs; contRAst 2). Patients received background csDMARDs. Through a testing hierarchy, subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly) was compared with placebo for week 12 endpoints (after which, patients receiving placebo switched to active interventions) or oral tofacitinib (5 mg two times per day) for week 24 endpoints. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology response ≥20% (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat populations comprised 1537 (contRAst 1) and 1625 (contRAst 2) patients. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportions of ACR20 responders were statistically significantly greater with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg vs placebo in contRAst 1 (54.7% (p=0.0023) and 50.9% (p=0.0362) vs 41.7%) and contRAst 2 (54.9% (p<0.0001) and 54.5% (p<0.0001) vs 32.5%). Secondary endpoints: in both trials, compared with placebo, otilimab increased the proportion of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) responders (not significant for otilimab 150 mg in contRAst 1), and reduced Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores. Benefits with tofacitinib were consistently greater than with otilimab across multiple endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although otilimab demonstrated superiority to placebo in ACR20, CDAI LDA and HAQ-DI, improved symptoms, and had an acceptable safety profile, it was inferior to tofacitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03980483, NCT03970837.

ASAS consensus definition of early axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a consensual definition for the term 'early axial spondyloarthritis-axSpA'-and 'early peripheral spondyloarthritis-pSpA'. METHODS: The ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-Spondyloarthritis EARly definition) steering committee convened an international working group (WG). Five consecutive steps were followed: (1) systematic literature review (SLR); (2) discussion of SLR results within the WG and ASAS community; (3) a three-round Delphi survey inviting all ASAS members to select the items that should be considered for the definition; (4) presentation of Delphi results to the WG and ASAS community and (5) ASAS voting and endorsement (2023 annual meeting). RESULTS: Following the SLR, consensus was to proceed with an expert-based definition for early axSpA (81% in favour) but not for pSpA (54% against). Importantly, early axSpA should be based on symptom duration taking solely axial symptoms into account. 151-164 ASAS members participated in the Delphi surveys. Consensus was achieved for considering the following items within early axSpA definition: duration of symptoms ≤2 years; axial symptoms defined as cervical/thoracic/back/buttock pain or morning stiffness; regardless of the presence/absence of radiographic damage. The WG agreed that in patients with a diagnosis of axSpA 'early axSpA' should be defined as a duration of ≤2 years of axial symptoms. Axial symptoms should include spinal/buttock pain or morning stiffness and should be considered by a rheumatologist as related to axSpA. The ASAS community endorsed this proposal (88% in favour). CONCLUSIONS: Early axSpA has newly been defined, based on expert consensus. This ASAS definition should be adopted in research studies addressing early axSpA.

Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) concerning the safety of synthetic(s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: SLR of observational studies comparing safety outcomes of any DMARD with another intervention in RA. A comparator group was required for inclusion. For treatments yet without, or limited, registry data, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were used. RESULTS: Fifty-nine observational studies addressed the safety of DMARDs. Two studies (unclear risk of bias (RoB)) showed an increased risk of serious infections with bDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs. Herpes zoster infections occurred more with JAKi than csDMARDs (adjusted HR (aHR): 3.66) and bDMARDs (aHR: 1.9-2.3) (four studies, two low RoB). The risk of malignancies was similar across bDMARDs (five studies) and with tofacitinib compared with bDMARDs (one study, low RoB). The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was similar with bDMARDs and tofacitinib (two studies, one low RoB). Thirty studies reported safety from RCTs, with one, designed to evaluate safety, showing that malignancies (HR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.04 to 2.09)) and MACE (HR (95% CI): 1.33 (0.91 to 1.94)) occurred numerically more frequently with tofacitinib (5 mg and 10 mg doses combined) than with TNFi in patients with cardiovascular risk factors. In this study, the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg than with TNFi. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of bDMARDs was further demonstrated. Whether the difference in incidence of malignancies, MACE and VTE between tofacitinib and TNFi applies to other JAKi needs further evaluation.